:eek:
What? WHY on earth would they do this?? Changing the covers is bad enough but to remove the artwork? To me, having grown up reading this series over and over again, Garth Williams’ artwork is part of the story.
Ugh. “Why fix something if it ain’t broke?”
Err, I suppose a link would be helpful. :smack:
http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6396630.html?nid=2788
That’s pretty horrid. Ew.
That’s horrible. Garth Williams’ illustrations are so perfect, and they’re timeless. Why would they take illustrations out completely anyway?
My goodness! Now I’ve got to get a set of the Garth Williams ones for my nieces before they all gone!
Why on earth would they think this is a good idea? That photograph cover is more reminiscent of a crappy Sweet Valley High book than a classic children’s book. And it’s just stupid to remove the illustrations from inside the book! When I was a little kid reading these books for the first time, it was very hard for me to imagine what Ma’s “spider” skillet looked like, or the new stove they bought on Plum Creek, or what the inside of a general store used to look like, or any of a million little details that I in my modern world had never run across before. The illustrations were invaluable in helping me picture Laura’s world in my mind.
The books have been “accessible” to young readers for over 50 years. Why do they think they need to screw around with them to make them accessible for kids now?
*A-*fuckin’-men! I can only assume this must have been thought up by the same folks who brought us New Coke.
Ewwww!
and who decided that re-ordering the Chronicles of Narnia was a good idea.
Came here to post just that.
Why do they think that today’s kids are any less appreciative of simplicity and subtlness taht we were?
It was those illustrations that brought the stories to life and evoked the right tone. Events like this make me sad.
Just like I bought a set of the unreordered Narnia, I’m going to buy a set of the Garth Williams illustrated books.
This just irritates me to no end. I LOVE Garth Williams, and I agree that the inside art helped me, as a kid, visualize how different things were back then. Besides which, they are just charming drawings.
I think I will buy a set for my daughter right now, even though she won’t be reading them for a few years.
Exactly what the thirteenth person to comment on the Publishers Weekly article said.
(And not one of those commentors thought it was a good idea. Maybe someone at HarperCollins will read them…)
Remember, Marketing is a science!
Well if the research folks decided that changing the covers would bring more young people to read the books, what’s the harm?
Sure, the kids will be losing the ability to see the beautiful artwork but would you rather have kids reading the books with the new artwork or not reading them at all?
Oh, I dunno if this is so bad. The photo of Laura and her friends shopping at “Hot Topic” was kinda cute. Their outfits matched their cellphones!
If that’s the case, can’t they still make the old classic books available as well? Why replace them totally?
Does it have to be either/or?
Is there a valid reason why illustrations, particularly GW’s illustrations, would detract from the story?
Does one of the best-known children’s series of the 20th century need a new marketing strategy that badly?
Does everything for kids have to be dumbed down?
Another vote for “WHAT THE…?” Those illustrations were as much a part of the book as the writing. I love the depictions of cabins and wagons and Pa and Ma especially.
They’ve already taken out the bladder balloon and other things some found “objectionable” and created a line of “apocryphal” Little House books based on Laura and her ancestresses but written by other authors. It’s a pity there’s nobody left from the family protect the integrity of the series from this erosion that’d destroying it.
Taking out the inside art probably makes them cheaper to produce. So there you go.