From: Norma Jean <nsawicki>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 11:32:29 -0400

When I entered children?s book publishing in the late 60s, I was taken aback, and later stunned to hear the extent to which Disney, as well as the man himself, was trashed by folk in ?our? community. Unfortunately, many of the objections expressed in recent days are exactly the same as those that were expressed then and in prior years. As a kid, I saw/loved all of the Disney movies and to this day, I can remember the voice overs as well as the music. I also remember the wretched children?s librarian at the public library who preferred to shoo small children with their dirty, and /or not yet coordinated hands out of the library rather than risk the little buggers dirtying or bending pages in the books in ?her collection.? No thanks to her that anyone of my generation in that city liked to read. The school librarian was even worse; to this day I believe she loved books and hated kids. Among other things, she often carried a ruler and if a kid was talking...whack. Therefore, my introduction to Cinderella, etc., was through the Disney films for which I am forever grateful.

>From the chair in which I sit, Walt Disney ( the man), was a genius...that
his taste differed from mine is beside the point. More importantly, his interest/legacy was in appealing to the masses which continues to this day....a far broader and different audience than the audience/market for the books I published/ love which is also true of many in the CCBC community. Bill Peet worked for Disney for many years and in his acceptance speech for the Caldecott credits Walt Disney for his training. What Peet understands in his bones is telling a story through pictures...his work has movement , he knows how to visually build a story which is far more than I can say of many acclaimed artists of retellings whose work is so static that in my mind I think of it as a portfolio of ?paintings? rather than a picture book. Paintings being in quotes because unlike real paintings many ( NOT ALL) are similar to a coloring book in the sense that a black line is drawn for every image which is then colored, or painted in.

To my way of thinking, textbooks, including those intended for reading, history, etc. are far more destructive to reading, trade books, history and the overall society/culture than Disney has ever been or will be. As far as I am concerned, The Language Police by Diane Ravitch is must reading . The subject of her book has nothing to do with an artist with whom I worked who sometimes illustrated stories in reading textbooks for extra money, and was shocked when told that in illustrating a story he had to include black and white children around a swimming pool but only white children could be in the pool/water. That was in the 70s; I have no doubt artists today would have different but similar stories about the ?instructions? from textbook publishers. In fairness to the publishers, they have caved in to the demands of school boards in states with a tremendous amount of money, and therefore clout.

As far as writers who complain about how Disney ?destroyed? their work, I think of film rights in a book contract as ?pick your poison.? All studios are firm in not giving the author any control whatsoever in making the film which is something writers know from the start...in more than enough time to say no. Studios also take merchandising rights...dolls, etc., and will not buy film rights without them. Writers can decide to turn down the offer, or if one wants the money and accepts the offer, it behooves the writer not to expect the film to be an extension/duplication of the book...and to prepare for the possibility he/she may hate it. The reason, I call it pick your poison. At the same time, I would bet a whole lot that more kids came to know Mary Poppins through the film, not the book and it is quite possible some kids may have decided to read the book after seeing the movie. Enough from me ....Norma Jean
Received on Fri 21 Jul 2006 10:32:29 AM CDT