Why, oh why, do classic illustrations get replaced on books?

[Colleen]

This is minor in the grand scheme of things, of course, but...Isn't it sad when classic children's books are republished with different illustrations/covers than the original? Is the assumption that the "old" pictures are too dated and won't attract today's children? Example: Lois Lenski's renderings of Betsy, Tacy, and Tib are what belong on the cover of the books. Not a cutesy substitute by a less-talented, more "contemporary" artist.

 

Yes, book covers matter to me. Odd as it may be, there are times when I decide against a book purchase because I'm annoyed by the cover. I love Penguin Classics for that very reason; the chosen cover prints are usually appropriate and tasteful. Although, in order to have the excellent Pevear/Volokhonsky translation of Anna Karenina I broke down and accepted the ridiculous close-up photo of a woman's bare knees.:001_rolleyes:

 

Edited December 11, 2008 by Colleen

[Heidi @ Mt Hope]

Ah, now you're singing my song. :) I love the rich, classic illustrations and it drives me batty when they replace them with cheesy, cutesy, or whatever...

 

There was a beautiful children's Bible story book that had gorgeous pictures and they replaced them with cartoonish pictures. Argh!

[Elaine]

I don't understand. The changing of the cover doesn't affect the content of the book so why be bothered over it?

 

 

I am more upset over things like this.

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

I agree. That ranks right up there with changing classic stories to have animals replace people or changing elements to make the story politically correct or socially relevant according to modern standards. It seems that something valuable is lost in the process.

[Guest Lorna]

I don't understand. The changing of the cover doesn't affect the content of the book so why be bothered over it?

 

 

I am more upset over things like this.

 

Too play Devil's advocate here though, I think that the article is a little misleading. It isn't the comprehensive adult or even teenage dictionary, it is a Junior Dictionary used in schools by young children (from four to eleven) and so the words will have been chosen to reflect what children need to 'look up' for spelling purposes. It isn't there to teach the children greater vocabulary its purpose is to reflect the children's needs.

Our children don't have television or computer games, but the reality of a modern classroom is that these are the words most of the children use in every day speech and therefore want to use in their writing. It is simply a reflection of the sad social decline in the use of these words.

 

I so agree with the original poster. I love the old sixties Ladybird book illustrations here in the UK and I know many people agree because they are still so popular to collect. I loved the old Paddington Bear picture books illustrated by Fred Banbery and buy multiple copies of them when I see them second hand. I can't imagine life without being able to look at that picture of Paddington snuggled up in an armchair, all brushed and dried out, after his scary first bath experience.

 

[Colleen]

I don't understand. The changing of the cover doesn't affect the content of the book so why be bothered over it?

 

That's okay; I'm sure there are all manner of things that bother you that don't bother me.:)

 

There are instances in which the classic illustrations within a book are replaced, and I do think that's a shame. Even an altered cover saddens me, yes, because that classic cover is in a sense part of our literary heritage.

[angela in ohio]

and so the words will have been chosen to reflect what children need to 'look up' for spelling purposes. It isn't there to teach the children greater vocabulary its purpose is to reflect the children's needs.

 

 

The fact that children won't need these words in the classroom, according to current thinking, assumes the fact that they are not going to be expected to read classic literature in their classrooms. They would need to look up "out of date" words to read quality classic lit. That is a sad part...

[Colleen]

Too play Devil's advocate here though, I think that the article is a little misleading. It isn't the comprehensive adult or even teenage dictionary, it is a Junior Dictionary used in schools by young children (from four to eleven) and so the words will have been chosen to reflect what children need to 'look up' for spelling purposes. It isn't there to teach the children greater vocabulary its purpose is to reflect the children's needs.

Our children don't have television or computer games, but the reality of a modern classroom is that these are the words most of the children use in every day speech and therefore want to use in their writing. It is simply a reflection of the sad social decline in the use of these words.

 

Mmm, no, I can't agree with you. Certainly, new words are continually added to our daily usage, and others become less common. Print dictionaries, particularly those designed for young people, have finite space and need to make appropriate substitutions.

 

But, please. Did you actually look at the lists of words removed and added? No one can tell me that "block graph" and "cautionary tale" take precedence over "beaver" and "duke" in a child's vocabulary. I mean, for good grief's sake, they removed the word "decade", yet they include "chatroom". It's a poor reflection on Oxford University Press, as far as I'm concerned.

[nmoira]

 

There are instances in which the classic illustrations within a book are replaced, and I do think that's a shame. Even an altered cover saddens me, yes, because that classic cover is in a sense part of our literary heritage.

I agree to a point, but... we own three sets of the Alice books, illustrated by Tenniel, Mervyn Peak, and Helen Oxenbury respectively. Likewise we're fans of Michael Hague (Peter Pan, et. al.) and Michael Foreman (The Wind in the Willows, et. al.). I prefer Foreman's Wind in the Willows to Shepard's. What I think I object to most are misguided attempts to make the work appear modern and to unimaginative, workaday substitutions.

[nmoira]

 

But, please. Did you actually look at the lists of words removed and added? No one can tell me that "block graph" and "cautionary tale" take precedence over "beaver" and "duke" in a child's vocabulary. I mean, for good grief's sake, they removed the word "decade", yet they include "chatroom". It's a poor reflection on Oxford University Press, as far as I'm concerned.

I refuse to purchase any dictionary that doesn't have words like 'penis.'

[Guest janainaz]

I can not stand a lot of today's new illustrations in books. So many books have weird, abstract illustrations and I just put them right back on the shelf. I like the old-fashioned illustrations and writing style.

 

Has anyone ever read any of the Uncle Wiggley books? Those books have the best illustrations and just excellent writing - the way words were put together and used made them so much fun to read. What has happened?

[Zelda]

I refuse to purchase any dictionary that doesn't have words like 'penis.'

 

*Hides her copy of Webstar's New American Dictionary: Now With Less Pen!s*

 

I've never thought to check my dictionary to see if that word is in there.

[Guest Lorna]

I prefer Foreman's Wind in the Willows to Shepard's. quote]

 

 

I met Michael Foreman on Saturday. What a lovely, lovely man he is!

[nmoira]

 

I met Michael Foreman on Saturday. What a lovely, lovely man he is!

That's nice to know. After William Mayne, I'm quite frightened to find out anything about our favourite kids' authors... though I've always wondered what it might be like to be one of Helen Oxenbury's and John Burningham's children.

[Guest Lorna]

For what its worth I did look at the words. I know from my brother-in-law who works for Chambers that choice of words in dictionaries isn't political. It simply reflects the word frequency used in books, media and mulit-media. I agree totally that it is sad - but it is simply reflecting the terrible National Curriculum here and the sort of books and media children are exposed to.

The words...

 

Words taken out:

Carol, cracker, holly, ivy, mistletoe

Dwarf, elf, goblin

Abbey, aisle, altar, bishop, chapel, christen, disciple, minister, monastery, monk, nun, nunnery, parish, pew, psalm, pulpit, saint, sin, devil, vicar

Coronation, duchess, duke, emperor, empire, monarch, decade

adder, ass, beaver, boar, budgerigar, bullock, cheetah, colt, corgi, cygnet, doe, drake, ferret, gerbil, goldfish, guinea pig, hamster, heron, herring, kingfisher, lark, leopard, lobster, magpie, minnow, mussel, newt, otter, ox, oyster, panther, pelican, piglet, plaice, poodle, porcupine, porpoise, raven, spaniel, starling, stoat, stork, terrapin, thrush, weasel, wren.

Acorn, allotment, almond, apricot, ash, bacon, beech, beetroot, blackberry, blacksmith, bloom, bluebell, bramble, bran, bray, bridle, brook, buttercup, canary, canter, carnation, catkin, cauliflower, chestnut, clover, conker, county, cowslip, crocus, dandelion, diesel, fern, fungus, gooseberry, gorse, hazel, hazelnut, heather, holly, horse chestnut, ivy, lavender, leek, liquorice, manger, marzipan, melon, minnow, mint, nectar, nectarine, oats, pansy, parsnip, pasture, poppy, porridge, poultry, primrose, prune, radish, rhubarb, sheaf, spinach, sycamore, tulip, turnip, vine, violet, walnut, willow

Words put in:

Blog, broadband, MP3 player, voicemail, attachment, database, export, chatroom, bullet point, cut and paste, analogue

Celebrity, tolerant, vandalism, negotiate, interdependent, creep, citizenship, childhood, conflict, common sense, debate, EU, drought, brainy, boisterous, cautionary tale, bilingual, bungee jumping, committee, compulsory, cope, democratic, allergic, biodegradable, emotion, dyslexic, donate, endangered, Euro

Apparatus, food chain, incisor, square number, trapezium, alliteration, colloquial, idiom, curriculum, classify, chronological, block graph

[Kate CA]

I share both of your concerns. The dictionary is really quite depressing on so many levels. It is hard to imagine the need to remove the words they did. I also agree with another poster who said that it is obvious these children will not be reading classic literature. There are so many wonderful words in the books we read that are hardly used at all in modern society.

 

It is disheartening to me that publishers must think we want really odd artwork in/on our books. Yes, in the scheme of things it is something minor, but beauty should always be available for our children and it is a tragic thing when it is replaced with cartoons.

[unsinkable]

 

 

 

I know which cover I prefer.

[beansprouts]

*Hides her copy of Webstar's New American Dictionary: Now With Less Pen!s*

 

I've never thought to check my dictionary to see if that word is in there.

 

 

Gee... you know...

 

Should I look???

 

:lol:

[beansprouts]

 

I know which cover I prefer.

 

Yep. I understand what you all are saying now.

[RebeccaC]

I refuse to purchase any dictionary that doesn't have words like 'penis.'

 

What about the word envy? :D

 

Freud might have some interesting thoughts on your need for that word to be in every dictionary you buy........ Of course he is long gone but.....

Edited December 12, 2008 by RebeccaC

[klmama]

Back to Colleen's original comment....

 

Some book covers just shouldn't be changed. I was looking for one of my dc's favorites to give to a 7yo nephew for Christmas - The Search for Delicious by Natalie Babbitt. It's a delightful book. My copy is from the 1970s and the cover has a boy on a horse. I went to Amazon to order. They've changed the cover, of course. The newest edition shows the back of a very realistic-looking mermaid swimming by. It looks like a romance novel that would not be appropriate for kids, IMHO. The previous edition was better, but still not right for my nephew. It had a drawing of a little boy talking with a little girl mermaid. Too cutesy and "little kid," and this child hates things that make him think we think he's a little kid. I just can't see giving him either edition. The end result? My nephew gets some other good books, but not this one. Rats. I think he'd love it. Maybe he'll come over for the day sometime and I can read it to him....

[nmoira]

What about the word envy? :D

 

Freud might have some interesting thoughts on your need for that word to be in every dictionary you buy........ Of course he is long gone but.....

My point, and I'm sorry to have been so unclear as to have to explain it, is that some very basic words are omitted from children's dictionary, not because of limited space, but rather because a committee has deemed the word inappropriate. Some people might think excising ecclesiastical terminology fits that bill (and I happen to agree, to a point), but children's dictionaries have been omitting basic bodily terms for even longer than that. This is why I don't purchase children's dictionaries.

[Remudamom]

I always check for fart and butt.

[Zelda]

I always check for fart and butt.

 

Just generally? Or are we still talking dictionaries?

[Remudamom]

Dictionaries, but ya know, some things need to be avoided.

[Zelda]

Gee... you know...

 

Should I look???

 

:lol:

 

We know you already did. :001_smile:

 

I was thinking though, that if my child who is old enough to read, asked me what it was, I wouldn't tell them to go look it up. I'd probably tell them myself.

[Remudamom]

We know you already did. :001_smile:

 

I was thinking though, that if my child who is old enough to read, asked me what it was, I wouldn't tell them to go look it up. I'd probably tell them myself.

 

 

Not me. When my kids ask me something like that I throw the dictionary at them and run screaming from the room.

[RebeccaC]

My point, and I'm sorry to have been so unclear as to have to explain it, is that some very basic words are omitted from children's dictionary, not because of limited space, but rather because a committee has deemed the word inappropriate. Some people might think excising ecclesiastical terminology fits that bill (and I happen to agree, to a point), but children's dictionaries have been omitting basic bodily terms for even longer than that. This is why I don't purchase children's dictionaries.

 

Ahhh, I see to help reading children who are clueless about what body parts are what, to build vocab in that very elusive realm of body parts.... Hmmm, .... interesting....... I wonder how many kiddlets need help in that area.

 

Wow, and just carrying on with that train of thought how many children's lit books don't have those words as part of of the narrative..... mind boggling.....:blink: shocking.... :ohmy: Certainly exposes a hole.... Ummm gap in both children's dictionaries and quality children's lit!

[Zelda]

Not me. When my kids ask me something like that I throw the dictionary at them and run screaming from the room.

 

:lol:

 

Well, I didn't tell you what I tell my kids. When they ask me I tell them that its a very bad thing, dirty and wicked and it is never to be spoken of or thought of or looked at.

 

If they challenge me I just say, "Hey, look it up in the dictionary. You'll see its not there. Don't you think there's a reason?"

[cathmom]

Well, you know, just to be historically accurate, the Garth Williams illustrations were actually not the originals...

 

[nmoira]

Ahhh, I see to help reading children who are clueless about what body parts are what, to build vocab in that very elusive realm of body parts.... Hmmm, .... interesting....... I wonder how many kiddlets need help in that area.

 

Wow, and just carrying on with that train of thought how many children's lit books don't have those words as part of of the narrative..... mind boggling.....:blink: shocking.... :ohmy: Certainly exposes a hole.... Ummm gap in both children's dictionaries and quality children's lit!

If you'll pardon the expression, you seem to have a bone to pick. I'll leave you to it.

 

:gnorsi:

[beansprouts]

We know you already did. :001_smile:

 

I was thinking though, that if my child who is old enough to read, asked me what it was, I wouldn't tell them to go look it up. I'd probably tell them myself.

 

 

Actually I didn't, but I don't really need to. There is no danger of my kids being forever in ignorance because the word isn't in their dictionary. My two year old knows what a "penis" is.

 

 

ETA: All kidding aside, I do see nmoira's point.:leaving:

The idea that words for body parts are inappropriate for children is just down right silly.

Edited December 12, 2008 by beansprouts

[unsinkable]

Well, you know, just to be historically accurate, the Garth Williams illustrations were actually not the originals...

 

 

 

Yes, I know there were covers before the Williams ones. (And if anyone wants to give me a Little House book that was published in the 30s, I'll take it! ;))

 

But Colleen was asking, "Why, oh why, do classic illustrations get replaced on books?"

 

I think there is a difference between "classic" and "original."

 

The original covers of the Wilder books were used between 10-20 years, depending on the publication date of the books.

 

The Williams covers began in the 1950s and were used into the 2000s. I would say that because these covers were used for over 50 years, they are classic covers of the Little House books. And classic is not the same as original, IMO.

[Michelle in MO]

I totally agree. There are classic book covers and illustrations that most of us have grown up with. I hate parting with them. I own the Little House on the Prairie books with the illustrations by Garth Williams. I would hate to read Betsy, Tacy, and Tib illustrated by anyone else but Lois Lenski.

 

If at all possible, when I buy a book, I try to buy the best edition that I can--the classic illustrations that I'm familiar with, good type, good introduction, forward, notes, prologue, and epilogue. I love the Penguin Classics versions of books because their covers seem classic to me.

 

Good post, Colleen.

[Colleen]

 

 

 

I know which cover I prefer.

 

Seriously! Oh, man. ((((shudder))) That is just sick and wrong.:tongue_smilie:

[Colleen]

Yes, in the scheme of things it is something minor, but beauty should always be available for our children and it is a tragic thing when it is replaced with cartoons.

 

You said it perfectly, as always.

[Colleen]

I think there is a difference between "classic" and "original."

 

The original covers of the Wilder books were used between 10-20 years, depending on the publication date of the books.

 

The Williams covers began in the 1950s and were used into the 2000s. I would say that because these covers were used for over 50 years, they are classic covers of the Little House books. And classic is not the same as original, IMO.

 

Yes, thanks for that clarification. Well said. In any case, I'll take either of those original/classic covers over the hokey modern photo.

[Vida Winter]

if you obtain ex-library copies or used copies you should not have such a hard time finding original artwork. I have a personal collection of vintage books (for my dd's) that are illustrated in the exact way I expect them to be - that is, the way I read them when I was a child.

[tibbyl]

For my own personal tastes, I prefer the classic or original illustrations. We had the boxed set of the Little House books with the Garth Williams illustrations.

 

However, if a modern updated attracts the attention of a young reader who may not have otherwise considered reading an old book, then job well done.

[Peek a Boo]

Well, you know, just to be historically accurate, the Garth Williams illustrations were actually not the originals...

 

 

wow-- i really like the original.

the Williams illustrations give me the heebie jeebies, lol!

 

i tend to prefer photos, but I'd like to see a HOUSE for the uh, little HOUSE on the prairie series ;)

[Matryoshka]

For what its worth I did look at the words. I know from my brother-in-law who works for Chambers that choice of words in dictionaries isn't political. It simply reflects the word frequency used in books, media and mulit-media. I agree totally that it is sad - but it is simply reflecting the terrible National Curriculum here and the sort of books and media children are exposed to.

 

 

Um, I don't know about others, but I typically use a dictionary to look up words I don't know. Y'know, infrequent ones. I'm sure the kids today all know what an MP3 player is, but may need to look up "willow". And if all those people are going to church less, they are more, not less likely to need to look the terms up. Do others only use the dictionary to look up words they are already familiar with??? Then why look them up???

 

I think there is something completely wrong-headed about how words are chosen to be put in dictionaries. I always need to buy a boat anchor to find one that actually has words in it that I might need to look up.

[Rhonda in TX]

For my own personal tastes, I prefer the classic or original illustrations. We had the boxed set of the Little House books with the Garth Williams illustrations.

 

However, if a modern updated attracts the attention of a young reader who may not have otherwise considered reading an old book, then job well done.

 

I love the Garth Williams illustrations. However, I know they changed it in order to grab the attention of young readers today. My DD and my best friend's DD (both of whom are avid readers) have absolutely no interest in the Little House books. None. Zero. Zilch. If a new cover will get them to read the books, then it's a good thing.

 

That said, I have not bought the books with the new illustrations because I dislike them so much. If DD asked for them, though, I would. I want her to love those books as much as I do.

[unsinkable]

Cathmom,

 

I should have added that I really like the original illustrations, too. They have a sweetness that I find very touching.

[unsinkable]

 

Seriously! Oh, man. ((((shudder))) That is just sick and wrong.:tongue_smilie:

 

I should have warned you. I'm sorry.

 

The picture is strange. Where are they? (besides in a tree?) It looks like there is nothing behind them...except that strange light. This was taken in a studio, right?

 

BUT...the tagline "Little House, Big Adventure" is awful. It sounds like a cartoon or a reality TV show. I can't put my finger on why it is just so awful...

[Apiphobic]

Rabbit trail? Spin-off? Related tangent?

 

It's all too similar to the experience of hearing a song you grew up with being covered in today's music scene. Do we prefer the "original" version, because we're more familiar with it and it reminds of us good times? (I put original in quotes because there have been times I've found out a song I thought was an original was actually another cover!)

 

Oftentimes, dc will love a song, and I just HAVE to play the original (or one I knew) so they can compare. It's funny how we usually prefer the one we heard first.

 

I'm trying to think of examples.

 

Life is a Highway - Rascal Flatts or Tom Cochrane

The Tide is High - Atomic Kitten or Blondie

American Pie - Madonna or Don McClean

What's Going On - Cyndi Lauper or Marvin Gaye

American Woman - Lenny Kravitz or Guess Who

The First Cut is the Deepest - Sheryl Crow or Cat Stevens

Lovesong - Death Cab for Cutie or The Cure

Hurt - Johnny Cash or Nine Inch Nails

Billie Jean - Chris Cornell or Michael Jackson

Kid A - John Mayer or Radiohead

Working Class Hero - Green Day or John Lennon

Jolene - The White Stripes or Dolly Parton

Landslide - Dixie Chicks or Stevie Nicks

My Humps - Alanis Morissette or Black Eyed Peas

Comfortably Numb - Scissor Sisters or Pink Floyd

Message in a Bottle - John Mayer or The Police

Wicked Game - HIM or Chris Isaak

Leaving on a Jet Plane - Chantal Kreviazuk or John Denver

Edited December 13, 2008 by Apiphobic

[cathmom]

You have a very good point. However, there have been a couple of songs I like better than the "original" or the one I heard first, like Billy Dean's version of "Thank God I'm a Country Boy" instead of John Denver's.

[Amy loves Bud]

Any child with a decent classical education can tell you that the ONLY proper version of American Pie is by Don McLean. Madonna? :ack2: Puhlease.

 

Said child should also be able to explain the meaning of The Immigrant Song and carry on an intelligent discussion comparing Sting's solo career with his time with The Police.

 

But, then again, we have very high standards in our house. :lol:

[Zelda]

I should have warned you. I'm sorry.

 

The picture is strange. Where are they? (besides in a tree?) It looks like there is nothing behind them...except that strange light. This was taken in a studio, right?

 

BUT...the tagline "Little House, Big Adventure" is awful. It sounds like a cartoon or a reality TV show. I can't put my finger on why it is just so awful...

 

Log cabin in a pastoral setting then quick to a wide angle pan of the prarie. Slowly a band of armed robots from the future stealthily emerges from tall grass. Cut to black. Bold words flash one at a time on the screen. "LITTLE" "HOUSE" "ON" "THE" "PRARIE" Back to log cabin. Deep, booming voice-over, "Little House, Big Adventure. Coming soon to a theatre near you."

 

Is that why?

[WagsWife]

The ones I have a preference for is in bold. We talk about the original songs quite a bit. I love You Tube for this :)

 

 

Life is a Highway - Rascal Flatts or Tom Cochrane

The Tide is High - Atomic Kitten or Blondie

American Pie - Madonna or Don McClean

What's Going On - Cyndi Lauper or Marvin Gaye

American Woman - Lenny Kravitz or Guess Who I love both of them!

The First Cut is the Deepest - Sheryl Crow or Cat Stevens I actually like the Rod Stewart version the best...that is the "original" to me.

Lovesong - Death Cab for Cutie or The Cure (NOTHING beats the Cure!

Hurt - Johnny Cash or Nine Inch Nails

Billie Jean - Chris Cornell or Michael Jackson...this one is close for me though

Kid A - John Mayer or Radiohead

Working Class Hero - Green Day or John Lennon

Jolene - The White Stripes or Dolly Parton

Landslide - Dixie Chicks or Stevie Nicks

My Humps - Alanis Morissette or Black Eyed Peas

Comfortably Numb - Scissor Sisters or Pink Floyd

Message in a Bottle - John Mayer or The Police

Wicked Game - HIM or Chris Isaak

Leaving on a Jet Plane - Chantal Kreviazuk or John Denver

[sleepy]

Log cabin in a pastoral setting then quick to a wide angle pan of the prarie. Slowly a band of armed robots from the future stealthily emerges from tall grass. Cut to black. Bold words flash one at a time on the screen. "LITTLE" "HOUSE" "ON" "THE" "PRARIE" Back to log cabin. Deep, booming voice-over, "Little House, Big Adventure. Coming soon to a theatre near you."