Tuesday, February 11, 2014

Should classic and older books ever be re-illustrated to look modern?

This an interesting question for anyone who loves children's books: should old books ever be re-illustrated to look more modern? If a book's pictures are looking a bit outdated, does that mean that the book publisher should hire someone to re-do the pictures? In some cases, the re-illustration is hard to notice, while in other cases it may be more obvious. Some say re-illustrations help the book reach a new audience, while others argue that book illustrations shouldn't be re-done because it is disrespectful. The magazine School Library Journal (SLJ) had an article about this recently you can read here. The article suggests that maybe a middle ground is for both original and newly illustrated books to be available for kids to look at and compare and contrast. If you read an older book, take the opportunity to ask your child if they think the illustrations should be re-done and why or why not. The SLJ article gives a few examples of re-illustrated books, including Flat Stanley by: Jeff Brown (J FIC BROWN). Do you like the old or new version better? Or maybe you like them equally, for different reasons?

Re-illustrated version
Original version

Do you like one more than the other?

No comments: