From: John Peters <cf071>
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 11:49:02 -0500 (EST)

Ginny and all: Yoiks! I've been waiting for the RAPUNZEL discussion to START--must have zoned out along the way and missed it. Anyway, before we leave it, I'd like to weigh in: can we agree that Paul Zelinsky is the most accomplished painter illustrating books today? Oh...OK, it's a matter of personal taste (I remember someone saying to me once in all seriousness that by consensus Michelangelo was the greatest artist the world has ever known and that's all she wrote. It's not what do you say to that, but where do you start?), but you'd still have to put him on the shortlist, no? RAPUNZEL really displays his superb command of the medium and a sharp, accurate eye for period detail. Plainly, he's looked at a LOT of great Renaissance art, and proves (as he has before, of course, though the Caldecott committee doesn't get to take that into consideration) his ability to stay right with the artists who created it.
                        
                                        BUT

I hope the committee didn't lay the gold sticker on RAPUNZEL because the artwork so brilliantly evokes a period; shouldn't there be more than technical virtuosity to a Caldecott book? Though I've praised RAPUNZEL--in print--I'm having trouble seeing the "venturesome creativity", the original vision, the (for want of a better word) subversive quality that one would hope to find in "the most distinguished American picture book for children." The RAPUNZEL soundbite in ALA's press release isn't very encouraging in this regard either, so I've been hoping that committee members would share their takes on this list and cause the scales to fall from my eyes. Any takers?

Respectfully, John Peters' New York Public Library cf071 at freenet.buffalo.edu
***My esteemed institution reserves the right to different opinions***
Received on Sat 31 Jan 1998 10:49:02 AM CST