You May Have Missed . . . .
Remember the brou with the haha that came up when I reported that the interior illustrations of the Little House books were ah-gonna be changed.
You may have missed it, but check out the following. It appeared in that same posting's comment section:
At 12:30 PM , Tara Weikum said...Thank you for clarifying, Ms. Weikum.
Hi everyone. I'm the Harper editor who handles the Little House books, and I've been overseeing this repackage. I just thought I should clarify that this new edition of the Little House books with photographic covers and no interior art is just ONE edition. There are still two editions--one hardcover and one paperback--with Garth Williams' art in place, and there are no plans to change that. I grew up with those editions and am quite fond of them as well. We feel, though, that there are readers out there who might respond better to a book with a photo on it rather than artwork-- especially a "classic" that they might not have chosen on their own but that has been handed to them-- and who might feel that interior art belongs in a book for younger children, so we're offering up more than one option to appeal to as many readers as possible. Coincidentally, I'm also Louise Erdrich's editor, and I absolutely agree that her interior artwork complements her books tremendously, so please don't worry that getting rid of interior art is a new, overall trend to fear!
Thoughts on the matter?
posted by fusenumber8 @ 12:04 AM
2 Comments
2 Comments:
*big sigh of relief*!!
That's what I understood from the PW article, but -- along with "quite fond" -- hardly a ringing endorsement of Garth Williams' illustrations, which to me seem to go hand-in-hand with Laura's words.
I'm becoming increasingly dismayed by those who think classic means stale, musty, and outdated, and not of lasting value. What did I miss, and when?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home