There are publishers out there with either no taste or no intelligence, and I'm not sure which

[aged-crone.livejournal.com]

I've just read an online article at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16721095/site/newsweek/
all about how for the 75th anniversary of the Little House books they're releasing new versions illustrated with photographs of models as the characters, and I am feeling absolutely murderous.

A quote:

""Girls might feel the Garth Williams art is too old-fashioned," says Tara Weikum, executive editor for the "Little House" series. "We wanted to convey the fact that these are action-packed. There were dust storms and locusts. And they had to build a cabin from scratch." (The new tag line: "Little House, Big Adventure.")"

If the illustrations are too old-fashioned, then the stories are. But neither is true. The illustrations *MATCH* the stories. Is Tara Weikum genuinely so stupid that she thinks that only photographs will make the books look action-packed? I was angry enough some years ago when they changed the typeface of the Little House books to look harsher and less attractive. This makes me wanna hurl. Harper has been making money hand over fist for three quarters of a century with these books. They should be able to afford not to cater to the lowest possible taste that they can find.

Also in the article they mention releasing copies of Bridge to Terabithia with pictures from the upcoming movie. Bridge isn't my favorite book, but I saw the preview for the movie earlier this year and couldn't believe my eyes. It deserves better than the high-tech, overwrought, action-adventure treatment that the previews showed.

"Allison Edheimer, 9, wants the photo version of the "Little House" series. "I'd rather read something where I can picture the person," she says. Rachael Ross, 10, agrees: "I like seeing real people better than drawings," she says. "Drawings look sort of fake."" Little Allison's parents and teachers should maybe work on developing her imagination. If she can't picture the Little House characters from the stories and the illustrations, she's been watching way too much TV. and if little Rachel thinks that posed photographs with models are somehow more authentic than drawings, intelligence would appear to be an issue.

So, ladies, apparently the only way to attract readers to the Thief books is to slap a photograph on the cover. Probably of some vapid Hollywood-style pretty-boy.

Leslie, wistfully pondering granching

Comments

[jade-sabre-301.livejournal.com]

A confession: I have never read Bridge to Terabithia.

Wait! I can explain!
In sixth grade I was unfortunately cursed with one of those librarians who is on the bridge of retiring and couldn't really care less about whether or not you actually check books out of the library. To this end, instead of reading us excerpts from books, or trying to introduce us to many books, she set up a reliable film projector (and don't get me wrong; I have many, many fond recollections of film projectors from elementary school library visits--heck, from elementary school in general) and ran filmstrips about books.

Unfortunately, these filmstrips were pretty much straight-up summaries with blurry and oddly-drawn illustrations for visual accompaniments. So several classic children's novels were spoiled for me. I don't remember all of them, but I do know Bridge to Teribithia was one of them, because the summary went on and on and SPOILERY ENDING then it was like oh and she died or whatever END SPOILERY STUFF and I said, "Wow, thanks for destroying any desire I might have had to read that book."

but dragons sound a bit out there.

Anyway, more on-topic:

First of all, my little sister hasn't even read the Little House books, which I think is a crime against humanity. (My mom, who currently works in the barnyard of a living history museum, is hoping to change this by luring her in with Farmer Boy, but I digress again.) One of the first things I did this school year was make a trip to Goodwill, with the intention of buying something for our jungle-themed dance that night. Instead, I came out with the yellow-cover Garth-Williams-illustrated versions of Farmer Boy and The First Four Years, which I think were newer than the versions I grew up with, but are still older than I am (1981 editions at the latest), because they looked so lonely on the shelf. They needed to come home with me.

Anyway, I'm digressing again, but the point of all this rambling is that I love the Little House books with a great deal of my heart (how many times did I read These Happy Golden Years, I wonder? Over and over and over again...and Plum Creek, in the mudhouse, I loved that one too), and I loved reading as a child, and that THIS ARTICLE BREAKS MY HEART IN SO MANY WAYS.

...*insert rant about losing faith in the children of tomorrow, and how my generation is the last combination of good ol' fashioned raising tempering technological prowress and how the world after we're gone is doomed*

[philia-fan.livejournal.com]

Okay, skip Terebithia. But "Jacob Have I Loved" by the same author is a must-read. A must-must-read. Gorgeous.

[(Anonymous)]

Tis. *shares Jade's ambition to own a severed-hand cover of QoA*

~Feir Dearig

[philia-fan.livejournal.com]

I have one! Not for sale, though. Can't let it out of my sight.

[jade-sabre-301.livejournal.com]

OMG JACOB HAVE I LOVED LOVE. I read it for the first time when I was ten and adored it so very, very much. And then we read it in seventh grade and at that time I completely identified with Sara Louise because my best friend, who was practically my sister, and I were growing apart and she was popular and had a boyfriend and was blonde and pretty and I was the brunette shunned by her new friends and socially awkward and didn't have any classes with any of my really good friends and so I felt so bad for her and I hated Caroline and then my English class tried to tell me that 99% of the book was Sara Louise's fault, if she'd just been more cheerful or had a better attitude and I was all alone feeling that sometimes it's not your fault and you try to do the best but there's only so much you can do and it made me feel even worse because everyone else, through saying it was Sara Louise's fault, was unknowingly implying it was my fault I was in the situation and while that was possibly partially true it wasn't completely true and...

*coughs*

wow, that was probably more about me than you ever wanted to know. Long story short, Jacob Have I Loved is one of my favorite books ever. I totally agree with you. ^_^

[philia-fan.livejournal.com]

Sara Louise's FAULT? Arg. No, it's not her fault. I think the point ultimately is that it's not anyone's fault, it just is, for various perfectly good or bad reasons, and when you finally grow up, as Sara Louise does, you move past needing to make it anyone's fault.
Right?

[jade-sabre-301.livejournal.com]

That is indeed the point, I think. Life happens, and then we grow up. ^_^

[aged-crone.livejournal.com]

(Sorry, Jade - I posted my reply below to Peggy saying I didn't like the book, and it now occurs to me that if you identify with Sara Louise you may be offended by my calling her whiny and annoying...)

[empmai.livejournal.com]

My problem was that even in the end she wasn't happy - she was just exisiting, not living. It's a pity that there wasn't any depression drugs around back then because she needed some.

because I'm not done yet, oh no, not done at all...

[jade-sabre-301.livejournal.com]

"Girls might feel the Garth Williams art is too old-fashioned,"

if I were to take a poll of girls, I would say the majority of them love playing dress-up and remembering the past. Granted, this was back before computers that I'm thinking of (but not really, 'cause I was using a computer at age 2 to play Mickey Mouse games on the computer), but still. Old-fashioned? Old-fashioned is the time of tea parties! Great fun!

says Tara Weikum, executive editor for the "Little House" series

I don't believe she ever read the books as a child. Or even likes books. Or even has a soul.

We wanted to convey the fact that these are action-packed.

I agree, but not in a shoot-'em-up way that they're trying to advertise. Again, I'm not convinced this "Tara Weikum" (if that's even her real name) has read the books.

There were dust storms

...something about the fact that she puts "dust storms" as the most action-packed thing I can think of just defeats everything she's trying to accomplish. I mean, I love the books, but please, dust storms? What little kid is going to find a dust storm as exciting as Halo? (Not that little kids should be playing Halo...though that doesn't stop them at all.)

and locusts. And they had to build a cabin from scratch."

Stiking because libel is wrong, but I would like to respectfully suggest this woman has no sense of marketing, either. Build a cabin from scratch?...and maybe the tone of her voice when she originally said it was more interesting than it looks at the moment, but it looks like she just added that on in a desperate attempt to masquerade behind "action-packed."

another thought: if this is the kind of false advertising kids are receiving these days, no wonder they're so cynical and demanding.

"Allison Edheimer, 9, wants the photo version of the "Little House" series. "I'd rather read something where I can picture the person," she says. Rachael Ross, 10, agrees: "I like seeing real people better than drawings," she says. "Drawings look sort of fake.""

*applauds Leslie's response to this, because she can't come up with anything calm that doesn't involve insulting the people who brought these innocent children into the world and then failed to give them the chance to be all they could be through a proper understanding and appreciation for literature*

...okay, I think I'm done for now.

Re: because I'm not done yet, oh no, not done at all...

[(Anonymous)]

Um...feel a bit strongly about this Jade?
Although I do agree with you 100%. :-) I thought the same thing about the dust storms and locusts. Was that supposed to sell the book?
Mariah

Re: because I'm not done yet, oh no, not done at all...

[jade-sabre-301.livejournal.com]

It seems, to me, that people feel a need to dumb stuff down for the kiddies even as kids are becoming more proficient in multitasking and understanding complex ideas at a younger age. And so people feel the need to "sell" stuff to kids, and so even while kids are technically "smarter," they're also "dumber" because the results of their skills are simple. For example, they can surf the web and such, but what do they find on the web aimed at them? Really bad games that require repetitive buttonmashing for success.

It's a paradox I don't understand and strongly dislike.

so, er, yes, I suppose I do feel strongly about this. ^_^

dust storms and locusts? Sounds like Exodus to me. ^_^ (which is much more action-packed than the Little House books.)

Re: because I'm not done yet, oh no, not done at all...

[philia-fan.livejournal.com]

Well put, Jade -- the "smarter but dumber" idea. It's like doing research on the internet -- you can look up anything at the click of a mouse, but unless your search steers you to an in-depth book, you'll probably only learn the most obvious, surface stuff about your subject.

Likewise, kids seem to be reading "older" books at a younger and younger age now -- but not really getting them, in some cases. What does a 7-year-old make of "Holes," I wonder?

This is such a can of worms.

[aged-crone.livejournal.com]

I hate those Newbery filmstrips. The Caldecott ones are fine, because they have time for the whole story and all the pictures, but the Newbery ones cut out all the good writing to summarize the plot. And then they transferred them to video! I've been deleting them from my school's collection. Fortunately not many people watched them anyway.

I was rather put off by Bridge to Terabithia by (SPOILERS!!! STOP HERE IF YOU DON"T WANT TO KNOW!!!) the bald statement that "Leslie died" or "Leslie is dead" or however they phrased it. :)

I gave the eldest of my nieces (the one who's in college now) hardcover copies of all the Little House books; but whether she ever read them I don't know. When she cleaned out her bookcase a year or two ago she said she didn't want them anymore, so they are now in with a bunch of my other stuff in my mom's basement. My other nieces are too young (the older one is 4) for the books, but I'll try them later. I love those books. (But they always make me really, really hungry).

[(Anonymous)]

"but whether she ever read them I don't know"

Try reading the books to your nieces instead. To me the Little House books are bedtime mommy-and-me (and siblings) read-aloud books, but this might be because thats how I was introduced to the books as a child. Or maybe just because I love(d) being read to.

When I was at the Laura Inglis house the visiters that went through with their kids when I was there all seemed to be the bedtime reader crowd - as both mom and young kids were excited and brought their dolls and were having a mother/daughter 'bonding' moment.

Also off topic wasn't there a "Quote" button on livejournal response before? I can't seem to find it today. Oh and if a Skull-and-crossbones shows up its not comment on this topic I just wanted to see what the button did :)

[aged-crone.livejournal.com]

I'm in Germany, and the nieces are in Virginia (except for the one who's now at Ohio State). I see them for about two or three days once a year. There's no way I'd be able to read the books to them. The best I can do is *send* them books. That's what they get for birthdays and Christmas. They have enough toys. (There is no such thing as "enough books").

I don't know anything about a quote button