![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lenora_roseAn observation irrelevant to the point of this post. Almost every single post so far has begun with me typing the word "So." before proceeding on with what I want to say. In most cases, I've deleted it and the second line works fine as an opening.
Those who know me fairly well probably know that, as a rabid fan of beautiful artwork with a fantastical bent, a fan of folk tales, and a fan of glimpses of other cultures, I collect fairy-tale picture books.
One of which I have been fond for many years is David Wiesner and Kim Kahng's The Loathsome Dragon. David Wiesner's watercolours are gorgeous.
However, I don't own this one. I spotted it once in the library, peered at it, read it, enjoyed the lyricism of both the story and the illustrations. And then learned it was almost ten years out of print, and when I could find it on book searches at all, it was prohibitively expensive.
A few weeks ago, I saw that it had reappeared on the bookstore shelves, took a quick peek through to be sure it was the same book - not just the same authors/artist, but *all* the pictures included. I bought it and rushed it home -- you don't let things like that slip through your hands twice.
I then read through it, when I had a spare handful of minutes after I shut the computer off -- picture books take at most half an hour, and usually less unless you're really staring at the illos -- and...
... something felt wrong.
I've picked up picture books whose words were a bit weak if the illustrations were superb (I've done the reverse, too,) but I don't tend to have as fond a memory of those books. I certainly don't get as rabid and desirous of tracking them down as I did with this one.
The obvious change was that the prince had switched from Childe Wynd to Prince Richard. But the rest of the words felt shaky.
So, when I stopped at the library tonight, instead of spending all my time up in reference and non-fiction, I spent a few minutes in the children's section, and checked out the old edition of the book. Compared the covers when I got home. Yes, the same Authors, not just the same illustrator.
But, let's take a random page as a sample - with one of the smaller quantities of text on it:
The Original:
The Dragon slithered from its bed and crawled out of the castle. It wended its way to a giant rock, called the Spindlestone Heugh, around which it coiled itself.
And soon the country round about had reason to know of the loathsome dragon of Spindlestone Heugh, for hunger drove the monster from its resting place to wander the kingdom, devouring everything in its path.
The one I just bought:
The Dragon slithered from its bed and crawled out of the castle. It scaled the steep hillside to a giant rock called the Spindle Stone. There it lay for a time, but soon enough it began to roam the kingdom, devouring everything in its path.
The first one reads as lyrical, high fantasy language. Not everyone likes this style of writing, but it does fit this story. And over and over, every page, the second version reads like a dull-eared imitator of high fantasy style. Or an editor who assumes a child will be stalled by the word "wended" (But not by a dragon who "scaled," even though the meaning is something utterly different from the sort of scales I associate with dragons, and it reads to me like a bad, unintentional pun of the kind to utterly avoid.)
There are other examples, too, where the text grows longer, not shorter. Namely, the exposition:
The original:
"...send over the seas for her brother, Childe Wynd." {end page}
The New version:
"... send over the seas for her brother. Prince Richard alone can save his sister -- and he must do so within a year, or..." {Needless to say, not the page end.}
Augh!
And once I started looking that closely, I learned something else: Exactly one illustration has changed, too.
(Well, two, as the original cover art has vanished -- but that seems to be a common failing. {Digression} They did that to Trina Schart Hyman's Sleeping Beauty when they reissued it, and I thought the front and back covers added unusually well to the story there, where here it's just a missing illustration of relative unimportance. But the rest of that book was the same, and well worth getting even with the one lack.) {/Digression}
The Climax picture has the same broad composition, enough to fool me until I saw both, but the details...
The illustration behind the original climactic scene, Childe Wynd is kneeling beside the loathsome dragon, one hand raised as if to touch the scales, bare and empty (You can see his armoured gauntlets on the ground and his sword beside), and there's a spray of roses tangled about the dragon's tail. The sky above is a sunset sky (Relevant to the plot), and Childe Wynd's hair is slightly haloed by it. The expression on his face is gentle but unsure.
In the second one, though the figures at first look like they're in the same pose, Prince Richard's other hand is up in a less gentle gesture, and the original hand is up, too, holding a sword at the ready. He doesn't look uncertain, or gentle - he looks about to slice. His hands are still gauntleted. The dragon's whole body obscures the sky, and there's no sign of anything but rock and beast, not even the plot-relevant fact that it's sunset - the empty area where the text goes isn't sunset cloud, but empty grey.
The only change, of all the changes, that I might grudgingly consider an improvement, is that the dragon's eyes are now obviously on him. And even that, especially combined with the {new} absence of eye-socket detail around the eye, ends up giving it a bit more cartoon feel.
It's the freaking climax. and the climax of this story isn't about a young man lifting up his sword and saving the kingdom, hooray. Which is what the second version of the illustration says it is.
(If you want to know what the story's about, flip one page past the climax, to the full page illustration without text -- they didn't include page numbers but it should be easy enough to find. That they kept intact, at least. And they didn't add any exposition text to it, miracle.)
I've been gypped. And I want to know who to blame.
(The library has three copies of the original... no, bad girl. You want more kids' parents to read these to their children, not fewer. Giving them the wrong copy back would be rude, even if it is slightly less worn around the edges and the pictures are a shade or two brighter and crisper. It don't mean a thing if it ain't got the text.)
Those who know me fairly well probably know that, as a rabid fan of beautiful artwork with a fantastical bent, a fan of folk tales, and a fan of glimpses of other cultures, I collect fairy-tale picture books.
One of which I have been fond for many years is David Wiesner and Kim Kahng's The Loathsome Dragon. David Wiesner's watercolours are gorgeous.
However, I don't own this one. I spotted it once in the library, peered at it, read it, enjoyed the lyricism of both the story and the illustrations. And then learned it was almost ten years out of print, and when I could find it on book searches at all, it was prohibitively expensive.
A few weeks ago, I saw that it had reappeared on the bookstore shelves, took a quick peek through to be sure it was the same book - not just the same authors/artist, but *all* the pictures included. I bought it and rushed it home -- you don't let things like that slip through your hands twice.
I then read through it, when I had a spare handful of minutes after I shut the computer off -- picture books take at most half an hour, and usually less unless you're really staring at the illos -- and...
... something felt wrong.
I've picked up picture books whose words were a bit weak if the illustrations were superb (I've done the reverse, too,) but I don't tend to have as fond a memory of those books. I certainly don't get as rabid and desirous of tracking them down as I did with this one.
The obvious change was that the prince had switched from Childe Wynd to Prince Richard. But the rest of the words felt shaky.
So, when I stopped at the library tonight, instead of spending all my time up in reference and non-fiction, I spent a few minutes in the children's section, and checked out the old edition of the book. Compared the covers when I got home. Yes, the same Authors, not just the same illustrator.
But, let's take a random page as a sample - with one of the smaller quantities of text on it:
The Original:
The Dragon slithered from its bed and crawled out of the castle. It wended its way to a giant rock, called the Spindlestone Heugh, around which it coiled itself.
And soon the country round about had reason to know of the loathsome dragon of Spindlestone Heugh, for hunger drove the monster from its resting place to wander the kingdom, devouring everything in its path.
The one I just bought:
The Dragon slithered from its bed and crawled out of the castle. It scaled the steep hillside to a giant rock called the Spindle Stone. There it lay for a time, but soon enough it began to roam the kingdom, devouring everything in its path.
The first one reads as lyrical, high fantasy language. Not everyone likes this style of writing, but it does fit this story. And over and over, every page, the second version reads like a dull-eared imitator of high fantasy style. Or an editor who assumes a child will be stalled by the word "wended" (But not by a dragon who "scaled," even though the meaning is something utterly different from the sort of scales I associate with dragons, and it reads to me like a bad, unintentional pun of the kind to utterly avoid.)
There are other examples, too, where the text grows longer, not shorter. Namely, the exposition:
The original:
"...send over the seas for her brother, Childe Wynd." {end page}
The New version:
"... send over the seas for her brother. Prince Richard alone can save his sister -- and he must do so within a year, or..." {Needless to say, not the page end.}
Augh!
And once I started looking that closely, I learned something else: Exactly one illustration has changed, too.
(Well, two, as the original cover art has vanished -- but that seems to be a common failing. {Digression} They did that to Trina Schart Hyman's Sleeping Beauty when they reissued it, and I thought the front and back covers added unusually well to the story there, where here it's just a missing illustration of relative unimportance. But the rest of that book was the same, and well worth getting even with the one lack.) {/Digression}
The Climax picture has the same broad composition, enough to fool me until I saw both, but the details...
The illustration behind the original climactic scene, Childe Wynd is kneeling beside the loathsome dragon, one hand raised as if to touch the scales, bare and empty (You can see his armoured gauntlets on the ground and his sword beside), and there's a spray of roses tangled about the dragon's tail. The sky above is a sunset sky (Relevant to the plot), and Childe Wynd's hair is slightly haloed by it. The expression on his face is gentle but unsure.
In the second one, though the figures at first look like they're in the same pose, Prince Richard's other hand is up in a less gentle gesture, and the original hand is up, too, holding a sword at the ready. He doesn't look uncertain, or gentle - he looks about to slice. His hands are still gauntleted. The dragon's whole body obscures the sky, and there's no sign of anything but rock and beast, not even the plot-relevant fact that it's sunset - the empty area where the text goes isn't sunset cloud, but empty grey.
The only change, of all the changes, that I might grudgingly consider an improvement, is that the dragon's eyes are now obviously on him. And even that, especially combined with the {new} absence of eye-socket detail around the eye, ends up giving it a bit more cartoon feel.
It's the freaking climax. and the climax of this story isn't about a young man lifting up his sword and saving the kingdom, hooray. Which is what the second version of the illustration says it is.
(If you want to know what the story's about, flip one page past the climax, to the full page illustration without text -- they didn't include page numbers but it should be easy enough to find. That they kept intact, at least. And they didn't add any exposition text to it, miracle.)
I've been gypped. And I want to know who to blame.
(The library has three copies of the original... no, bad girl. You want more kids' parents to read these to their children, not fewer. Giving them the wrong copy back would be rude, even if it is slightly less worn around the edges and the pictures are a shade or two brighter and crisper. It don't mean a thing if it ain't got the text.)
