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

[peggy-2.livejournal.com]

The next set will probably have computer graphics. Or graphic comic style, with the enormous eyes.

I saw a 1-line blurb in the newspaper over the holidays about how a professor at an East Coast university is going to release a CD featuring every song mentioned in the Little House books. I think that would be very fun.

[philia-fan.livejournal.com]

I've heard this complained about before. Not to mention another Garth Williams cover -- Charlotte's Web -- being replaced with a movie image. Aaugh! My own 9-year-old HATES movie covers, or even cover art that's too realistic-looking. So there is hope.

As to the lack of taste and intelligence in publishing -- well, obviously, since no one is yet publishing MOI!!!

Sorry, just having a Miss Piggy moment.

[jen94kp.livejournal.com]

I don't know. I always liked reading because I could make up the pictures in my mind. I remember telling a friend in middle school that reading was like watching movies only better. She didn't get it. I personally think it takes something away from the reading experience to have photo's of people on the cover.

[chocolatepot.livejournal.com]

Personally, I like neither movie covers (AUGH AUGH WTF did you do to Ella Enchanted??) nor Garth Williams. I think everything he drew looks somehow furry and wet. However, photo covers often such because the models nearly always look nothing like the characters and look completely modern due to hairstyles, clothing, or makeup. I think the pictures could be all right if they don't focus on people's faces.

Bridge to Terabithia ... how much do you want to bet that they don't go with the original ending?

[empmai.livejournal.com]

Probably of some vapid Hollywood-style pretty-boy.

[empmai.livejournal.com]

Sorry on a laptop, the key pad pushed enter by mistake.

Probably of some vapid Hollywood-style pretty-boy.

Not even if Legolas the Awesomely Beautiful was on the cover would a photo cover by good. But then again, could it be worse then the original american thief cover?

[empmai.livejournal.com]

I never read books with movie art, because I always found books written to simply cash in on the movie franchise were poorly written crap. And then even if it was a movie originaly based on on a book, I never knew if it was the original book with a movie cover or the movie version (with a different ending, scenes, lines, char, etc). Like in the "Little Princess" book with the movie cover are they cousins still or is the movie ending?

The argument is that non-readers will pick up a movie cover version more likely than a art cover, and so thats a good thing because anything to get kids to read is a good thing. Except that since movie-cover books are crap, an even a non-bookworm knows crap when they see it, they're not liking to pick up another book to quickly after reading the movie cover drivel.

[sandtree.livejournal.com]

I still can't believe they're making a movie out of that.

[ferris-girl.livejournal.com]

I saw the preview for 'Bridge' as well. I was like, "Oh Bridge to Teribitha...no wait. This isn't it. This is some kind of fantasy kids thing that is so popular these days.

When I found out it was actually the book I remembered, I thought the directors and screen writers were on crack. This book took place in a small town and dealt with real human issues. Not dragons and walking trees.

This was a young adult novel that dealt with young adults on a level ground.

Seeing the preview made me ill.

But my philosophy is " the Book is always better than the movie."

[adalanne.livejournal.com]

Actually, the whole reason I read the Thief in the first place was the cover. I knew instantly by looking at Gen that, if the man inside the pages was anything like him, I would like the character. Granted, my own mental picture of Gen is nothing like the cover, but the spirit and vitality behind the illustration is exactly what Gen is like. Plus I was intrigued by the fact that the statue looked alive.

If I'd come across the book with its new cover, I never would have given it a second glance. I tend to prefer illustration to photo-realistic drawing in my covers, and part of me feels (perhaps unfairly) that any fantasy book with a pretty, photo-realistic, shiny cover is bound to be compensating for the boring, run-of-the-mill story it contains. I do quite like the new covers of the series, and absolutely love KoA's, but mainly because I know what a wonderful story they contain.

[adalanne.livejournal.com]

Now, you have to realize that it is not a publisher's job to go out and publish great works of literature with fantastic covers. Every editor hopes to do that, and occasionally will get the chance, but a publisher's job is to make money, which is why what they are doing is very smart, even if it is disgusting. Believe me, it doesn't matter how much money has made in the past; if there is a way to make more money, then they need to go for it. That's the only way they can have enough money to publish those new great works of literature with fantastic covers that they wish they could publish all the time but don't make as much money as, say, the latest celebrity-written children's book. And going for photos is a smart way of making that money.

Look at any study and you'll find that children watch more TV and play more video games than they read books, and so by giving children covers and "illustrations" that are more in-line with what they see the most, they will be more likely to actually give the book a second glance and possibly read it, which is only a positive.

[adalanne.livejournal.com]

People tend to be drawn to what they know. This is why, if I read a book I loved, I tend to find other books by the same author. And why, since I love the Harry Potter books, I'm more likely to pick up a book with a cover by Mary Grandpre than by some artist I don't know.

So it stands to reason that people who have seen a movie or even just a preview are more likely to pick up a book with an image they know than an image they don't. And most people won't really care if they're acting in good taste or not.

[aged-crone.livejournal.com]

That would be great! I have the Laura Ingalls Wilder Songbook, but since I don't read music it doesn't do me much good. (The Little House Cookbook, on the other hand, does a great deal of good, principally involving the Bird's Nest Pudding).

[aged-crone.livejournal.com]

I don't have major problems with the odd movie cover - I cherish my LotR movie paperbacks (having bought the first ones that came out, I then re-bought TTT when they reissued it with Legolas on the cover...)

But the rest of the article - auuuughhhhhhhhhh!

[aged-crone.livejournal.com]

Are you two thinking of the same cover? I thought the original American cover of the Thief was the Ugly Goddess one, with the shadow of Gen's hand.

[aged-crone.livejournal.com]

Kids are also eating more unhealthy foods than ever. The solution is not to disguise healthy food so it looks like junk, the solution is to teach them to appreciate good food.

Similarly, children can easily be drawn to good books without the vile abomination of "model" illustrations. For example, I know the minute a teacher starts reading a book to his class - they all stream into the library wanting that book, or one in the same series, or one by the same author. Parents can accomplish the same thing.

A publisher's job may be to make money, but that reminds me of the scene in Little Women where the Professor points out to Jo that just because people will buy poison it's no reason for her to be selling it. The way you describe it, "publisher" sounds an awful lot like "prostitute." If they'd quit printing some of the dreck that they do just to turn a quick buck, they'd sell more of the good books.

[jade-sabre-301.livejournal.com]

(AUGH AUGH WTF did you do to Ella Enchanted??)

I had the exact same reaction when I saw that. I agree completely--I HATE any book with the movie cover, because it's just extending the marketing ploys of the movies which usually have nothing to do with the book anyway, just took the premise and the title and slapped them on a totally different storyline (WHY?? Ella Enchanted, you had so much potential as a movie--CARY ELWES AND ERIC IDLE!!--if you hadn't tried to be the real Ella Enchanted! If you hadn't masqueraded under such a false claim, you would have been an adorable little film! It was one of the worse marketing decisions I've ever seen! Almost as bad as putting a n00b director in charge of such a horrible story as Eragon!! *sobs*).

...er, these things don't bother me anymore than is normal. I promise.

[jade-sabre-301.livejournal.com]

I think they're looking at the original hardcover and the original paperback covers. I prefer the first, myself, just because the paperback looks kind of ridiculous to me.

Then again, I was hooked by the original QoA cover, with the hand--it's still my dream to own the bloody thing. I mean, what kind of book has a severed hand on the cover?

An awesome one, that's what.

[jade-sabre-301.livejournal.com]

A publisher's job may be to make money, but that reminds me of the scene in Little Women where the Professor points out to Jo that just because people will buy poison it's no reason for her to be selling it.

*resists urge to wander off on tangent about the Professor, the sort that usually ends with her mother yelling "He was a good man!" from three rooms away and her yelling back "I know! But did he have to be old, German, and stuffy too?"*

The way you describe it, "publisher" sounds an awful lot like "prostitute."

FTW.

(that means "for the win," which doesn't sound nearly as good written out as it looks when you just type "FTW," but it conveys a general feeling of "yes, that, exactly, that is what we mean!")

[philia-fan.livejournal.com]

Playing devil's advocate here -- actually I think publishing is generally a money-losing business, which is why small companies are always getting sold to big conglomerates. Probably they do need to do anything they can to make a buck.
But I don't need to approve.

[adalanne.livejournal.com]

Ah-ha. And thus my late entrance into the fandom again reveals my ignorance. I thought the '98 pb was the original cover. ^_^

[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.

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.

[(Anonymous)]

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

~Feir Dearig