From: Bowen, Brenda <BBowen>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 17:45:38 -0500

I see the value in artists' alluding to the works of other masters in their art.

Zelinsky interprets Rapunzel within a Renaissance world, just as a director might set Hamlet in the present day or the 19th century. Why? The obvious reason is that the artist wants to say visually to the child reader: "This happened long ago, but to someone very much like you." The Renaissance setting is one way to say this.

But perhaps he's making another point. The point in this case may be that even in a very formal environment there is great depth of feeling and turmoil of emotion. I believe his setting underlines his interpretation of the tale. Maybe a child reading the tale -- and I remember reading Rapunzel quite well as a 9, 10, 11 year old -- will not understand the historical setting, but will comprehend that even in a controlled environment, nothing can be predicted.

Remember, too, that illustration is different than fine art. Fine artists today are working mainly in a non-representational style, which is not appropriate for young readers. Illustrators must, therefore, choose a style outside whatever is going on in the contemporary-art world. Zelinsky chose the Renaissance.

I'm curious, though: did this same question come to mind when we read the same author's RUMPLESTILSKIN? Perhaps it's just that the masters of the Northern Renaissance (the inspiration, as I recall, for the Rumplestiltskin art) are not as present in our minds as those of the Italian Renaissance, so we did not feel as conscious of what he was doing.

Brenda Bowen Editorial Director Scholastic Press
Received on Fri 05 Dec 1997 04:45:38 PM CST