CCBC-Net Archives
science or natural history or eARTh
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Sugoodman_at_aol.com <Sugoodman>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 09:29:57 EDT
In a message dated 7/12/2005 1:22:27 AM Eastern Standard Time, maia at littlefolktales.org writes: But with nonfiction in general and science in particular, the usual relationship between writer and illustrator must be different: for, how exactly do you fact check illustrations? Take Lisa's Our Family Tree as an example. Writing accurate text shouldn't have been too difficult; the material is fairly straightforward. (The rendition of the material, however, is gorgeous; this was one of my favorite purchases of last year.) Instead, it was within the illustrations that the greatest opportunity for error lay. Without a scientific editor, how can you assure a visually accurate work? Hi-All I can do is to answer from my own experience. Many of my books are illustrated by photograph so it isn't the same issue. But when the books had illustrations, they were sent to me for review. And, I would point out any inaccuracies I found. For example, in my first book, the illustrator had bats flying out from a cave without shading the picture enough to make it look like dusk.
Since bats don't hunt in full light, she had to change that.
Of course, even if authors do copious amounts of research, we still may not have the right information to vet illustrations. I did one book (On This Spot) in which I traced a locale in lower Manhattan all the way back through time--so the poor illustrator had to research everything from 19th dress to Lenape Indians to basalt volcanoes to ammosaurs to the vegetation of 190 million years ago. I thought that Greenwillow dealt with the book in an utterly wonderful way. With my help, they found experts for each spread and sent them out for visual review. I can't imagine that happening in many circumstances, but I was very impressed and delighted.
Susan
Susan Goodman 5 Oakview Ter. Jamaica Plain MA 02130 617R258 www.susangoodmanbooks.com
Received on Tue 12 Jul 2005 08:29:57 AM CDT
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 09:29:57 EDT
In a message dated 7/12/2005 1:22:27 AM Eastern Standard Time, maia at littlefolktales.org writes: But with nonfiction in general and science in particular, the usual relationship between writer and illustrator must be different: for, how exactly do you fact check illustrations? Take Lisa's Our Family Tree as an example. Writing accurate text shouldn't have been too difficult; the material is fairly straightforward. (The rendition of the material, however, is gorgeous; this was one of my favorite purchases of last year.) Instead, it was within the illustrations that the greatest opportunity for error lay. Without a scientific editor, how can you assure a visually accurate work? Hi-All I can do is to answer from my own experience. Many of my books are illustrated by photograph so it isn't the same issue. But when the books had illustrations, they were sent to me for review. And, I would point out any inaccuracies I found. For example, in my first book, the illustrator had bats flying out from a cave without shading the picture enough to make it look like dusk.
Since bats don't hunt in full light, she had to change that.
Of course, even if authors do copious amounts of research, we still may not have the right information to vet illustrations. I did one book (On This Spot) in which I traced a locale in lower Manhattan all the way back through time--so the poor illustrator had to research everything from 19th dress to Lenape Indians to basalt volcanoes to ammosaurs to the vegetation of 190 million years ago. I thought that Greenwillow dealt with the book in an utterly wonderful way. With my help, they found experts for each spread and sent them out for visual review. I can't imagine that happening in many circumstances, but I was very impressed and delighted.
Susan
Susan Goodman 5 Oakview Ter. Jamaica Plain MA 02130 617R258 www.susangoodmanbooks.com
Received on Tue 12 Jul 2005 08:29:57 AM CDT
