CCBC-Net Archives
Announcement regarding picture book authors
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Janice Del Negro <delnegro>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 15:18:25 -0500 (CDT)
Mr. Glass raises an interesting (if possibly unintentional) question:
How do we perceive picture books written for the older child? How do we evaluate picture books that are not aimed at preschoolers, the age conventional wisdom believes to be "the picture book audience"? How do we connect picture books (like the one Mr. Glass mentioned, and so many others) to the "right age" reader? How do we derail the conventional wisdom that sees picture books, no matter what their content, as belonging in the easy books section and suitable for the preschool audience?
Hmmm...that's more than one question...
I'm going to take a somewhat scatter-shot approach here, and talk about some issues raised in several different posts.
I tend to look at concepts, among other things, when deciding where to place any title on the "readers continuum" of birth through high school, especially in the case of picture books, which have such a wide range of appeal, but would be very interested in knowing how others view picture books for older readers and/or listeners.
It has been mentioned at least three times now that people like to know what medium the artist used when illustrating. (Not to put too fine a point on it, so would I.) As GraceAnne DeCandido posted, sometimes, when the information is not clearly stated (or even unclearly stated) anywhere on the book, a reviewer may make an educated guess, or, as is the case here at The Bulletin, try and compare the illustrations being reviewed to some other well-known artist's work. Sometimes (admittedly, rarely) we'll call a publisher to find out.
We tell our reviewers (and constantly remind ourselves) that you cannot review a picture book without talking about the art in concrete, physical ways that will give the reader of the review a good idea of what the book actually *looks* like. (We have gotten several letters from illustrators thanking us for talking about the artwork in "their" picture books, so I think they notice, too, when art commentary is missing.)
And as Karen Simonetti mentioned, we try to always include a sentence or two about the audience-what audience will most appreciate this particular book? And then we try to say why, as clearly and directly as possible.
When a picture book is good for storytime, we say so. When it isn't, we say that, too. (Sometimes we even field test them, and that's really fun.)
Janice M. Del Negro
Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books GSLIS/University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign delnegro at alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
On Tue, 1 Sep 1998, Nicholas Glass wrote:
Received on Wed 02 Sep 1998 03:18:25 PM CDT
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 15:18:25 -0500 (CDT)
Mr. Glass raises an interesting (if possibly unintentional) question:
How do we perceive picture books written for the older child? How do we evaluate picture books that are not aimed at preschoolers, the age conventional wisdom believes to be "the picture book audience"? How do we connect picture books (like the one Mr. Glass mentioned, and so many others) to the "right age" reader? How do we derail the conventional wisdom that sees picture books, no matter what their content, as belonging in the easy books section and suitable for the preschool audience?
Hmmm...that's more than one question...
I'm going to take a somewhat scatter-shot approach here, and talk about some issues raised in several different posts.
I tend to look at concepts, among other things, when deciding where to place any title on the "readers continuum" of birth through high school, especially in the case of picture books, which have such a wide range of appeal, but would be very interested in knowing how others view picture books for older readers and/or listeners.
It has been mentioned at least three times now that people like to know what medium the artist used when illustrating. (Not to put too fine a point on it, so would I.) As GraceAnne DeCandido posted, sometimes, when the information is not clearly stated (or even unclearly stated) anywhere on the book, a reviewer may make an educated guess, or, as is the case here at The Bulletin, try and compare the illustrations being reviewed to some other well-known artist's work. Sometimes (admittedly, rarely) we'll call a publisher to find out.
We tell our reviewers (and constantly remind ourselves) that you cannot review a picture book without talking about the art in concrete, physical ways that will give the reader of the review a good idea of what the book actually *looks* like. (We have gotten several letters from illustrators thanking us for talking about the artwork in "their" picture books, so I think they notice, too, when art commentary is missing.)
And as Karen Simonetti mentioned, we try to always include a sentence or two about the audience-what audience will most appreciate this particular book? And then we try to say why, as clearly and directly as possible.
When a picture book is good for storytime, we say so. When it isn't, we say that, too. (Sometimes we even field test them, and that's really fun.)
Janice M. Del Negro
Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books GSLIS/University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign delnegro at alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
On Tue, 1 Sep 1998, Nicholas Glass wrote:
Received on Wed 02 Sep 1998 03:18:25 PM CDT
