From the linked article:
So I’ve don’t have a major beef with them changing the paperbacks - since the classic illustrations and covers will still be available, albeit in hardcover.
It sounds to me like a bid to increase sales of the more expensive (and presumably higher-profit) hardcover editions. Rather than add value to the more expensive edition, they’re reducing the value of the standard paperbacks :dubious:
Since, in my experience, it is parents, grandparents, and other family members who introduce children to the joy of the LHotP series, I don’t think updating it will make too much of a sales difference. Sorry, HarperCollins. Stupid idea.
Very soon, A Little Princess will have miniskirts and ipods! And Robin Hood will be about skater punks!
The person who decided to put The Chronicles of Narnia in chronological order was…C.S. Lewis.
I saw the photo covers on the books yesterday. Actually, they’re mostly pretty nice (though the one for The long winter is very cheery, and reminds me of Little women more than a book filled with blizzards and starvation!). But even if they replaced the cover art, why take out the illustrations in the text? Those were great illustrations, that not only perfectly captured the mood of the books, but also often gave the reader a good idea of what “pioneer” things looked like. I’m sure none of us knew what a spider was, or what a smokehouse would look like, and even the clothing is unfamiliar. (Oh yeah, I think Marlitharn already said this.)
So, my verdict: cute pictures, still not nearly as good as the originals, which cannot be replaced.
The second sentence answers the first.
-FrL-
Sure he did.
And the person who decided that *Little House on the Prairie * shouldn’t include Garth Williams’ illustrations was… Laura Ingalls Wilder.
Keep? the series? relevant?
What does that even mean? Are they going to be rewritten to give the Ingallses cell phones and roller blades?
I have a different perspective here. I love looking at different editions of ‘classic’ novels because I’m fascinated by the changing styles of illustration and typography.
Examples such as Alice in Wonderland show that great works of literature can support an amazing variety of interpretations. No reason for one particular illustrator (from generations ago) to have a monopoly.
Did Moby Dick need to be illustrated for a new generation in the 1920s? Probably not, but Rockwell Kent’s version became legendary. It certainly didn’t need to be illustrated a dozen more times, but then in 1979 Barry Moser did the impossible and produced an even better version than Kent’s.
Point being: let a thousand flowers bloom.
No. Lewis told one young reader that it didn’t matter what order he, the kid, wanted to read the books in. He did not make everyone’s decision for them.
If they were bringing in a new illustrator, I’d agree with you. Taking away the illustrations entirely, though, makes no sense. It’s like the anecdote about the version of Sound of Music with no music.
All you’re really complaining about here is that your own memories of the books will not be kept consistently throughout the generations.
It isn’t anywhere near disastrous, and if it really does increase sales then they clearly made a good decision.
Get over it, and stop clinging to the past.
Sales aren’t lagging because of the illustrations. Sales are settling back down to their pre-TV show levels. Put the show back in syndication and sales will spike again. I never read the books as a kid…don’t know why, since I read almost absolutely everything in the library. but I did buy and read them as an adult when the show came out. Publishers suffer from the greed syndrome as much as other retailers…give them a drop in sales and they panic. Make the books popular again and you could sell them with plain covers. The artwork was never the selling point. Heck, you could cover a Harry Potter book with duct tape and brown paper and it would sell…don’t they understand that?
Well, his estate claims he made the decision, anyway, at least according to the book’s copyright page.