Speaking of Covers....

I lived in Japan and Singapore during the time when Harry Potter books four and five came out. My friends and I were excited to get the new books, and wanted to purchase some of the older books. When we did, we noticed that the covers were completely unfamiliar to us. This was when I realized that the same books in other countries had different covers.

For the record, authors have very little say in the covers of their own books. Covers are meticulously designed and crafted by the publishing companies themselves. Apparently, the publishers feel that different covers would appeal to their home audiences. Let's take a look at some of these covers.

First, we'll start with the US Harry Potter covers.


Personally, I was never really enamoured with these. I never really felt that they portrayed what was inside (in terms of style of writing, not so much story). The only one I really liked was for the fourth book The Goblet of Fire. I can't really say why other than I feel it portrays the mood of the story best. I especially dislike the cover for the seventh book, The Deathly Hallows. I always thought it made it look like Harry was standing in the Roman Colosseum at twilight. Was Harry about to become a magical Roman gladiator? Well now having read the story, I know this is just the Great Hall and it's enchanted ceiling. In this case, I didn't feel it portrayed the mood of the book adequately.





















































































Now let's take a look at the UK covers of the same books.






























As you can see, these are very different. I actually own 1 through five (though my five cover is different - it is apparently the adult cover from the same book). I get double-takes when I tote these versions around the US. Each cover, unlike the US versions, was illustrated by a different person. I personally like 1 through four. I think they make the story look exciting and even a bit mysterious. By five and six I think they just ran out of ideas. And in my personal opinion, seven is just the worst cover I've ever seen. Even this larger image doesn't do justice as to how ugly it is.

It does ask the question, though. Why are these covers not suitable for the US market? Personally, I can't fathom it. The look less "kiddish" than the US covers, which would probably attract more readers. Of course, I still can't understand why they had to change "Philosopher" to "Sorcerer". Do they think we wouldn't understand?

Now, how about this? Here are the Japanese covers for books one through five.

It makes me wonder, are Japanese audiences that different that they would have such very different covers? With the exception of The Chamber of Secrets, which I think is probably the worst cover hands down out of all of them, I rather like them. The problem is, they strike me more of "this is Halloween Town" rather than Harry Potter. Yes, there are spooky elements to the books, but I don't think these quite capture the sense of fun and adventure of the stories - though I have to admit, The Prisoner of Azkaban cover is quite striking, isn't it? I wonder what The Goblet of Fire cover is supposed to convey - house elves at a table? Judges reading the names from the goblet of fire? I'm not too sure.































































What do you think? Which covers do you like better? Do you think it makes a difference which ones they use?

Huzzah! Complaining Works!

I just caught this at Library Journal. It seems that the constant blogs, Tweets, and other forms of reader protest have paid off! In this case, Little, Brown Books for Young Readers has decided to change the covers of The Mysterious Benedict Society to better reflect the characters within. Morale of the story: we are heard. If there is something you don't like, complain. Your voice does get heard. In the meantime, for those with older covers, I suggest breaking out the crayons. That's what I plan to do.

Here is the article in full:

Little, Brown in Sticky Situation Over 'Whitewashed' Book Covers

By Rocco Staino -- School Library Journal, 1/26/2010

Little, Brown Books for Young Readers is changing the covers on Trenton Lee Stewart’s "Mysterious Benedict Society" series, following complaints that the character Sticky Washington, described as having light brown skin, appears on all three covers as white.

“We are adjusting the covers of all three titles immediately as they reprint in order to offer a more faithful rendering as soon as possible,” Melanie Chang, Little, Brown’s executive director of publicity and communications, told School Library Journal.

The novels—The Mysterious Benedict Society (2007), The Mysterious Benedict Society and The Perilous Journey (2008), and The Mysterious Benedict Society and The Prisoner’s Dilemma (2009)—are about four gifted children who come together to solve a series of challenging and creative tasks.

Librarian bloggers and those on Twitter have long discussed the misrepresentation of Sticky Washington in the books’ illustrations.

More recently, the irreverent Maine book blogger Leila Roy, of bookshelves of doom, rekindled the discussion with a post.

“Poor Sticky has been bleached on these book covers since 2007—clearly readers have not made it clear to Little, Brown that this is a problem,” she wrote.

Roy told SLJ that she remembered noticing the discrepancy when she read the second book, but “assumed that it was a mistake or a strange oversight.”

The move comes on the heels of Bloomsbury USA agreeing to change the cover of Jaclyn Dolamore's debut young adult novel Magic Under Glass (Bloomsbury, 2010), which features the cover photo of a Caucasian woman when the novel describes her as “dark and foreign.”

Bloomsbury was faced with a similar controversy last summer when it was forced to change the cover of Justine Larbalestier’s Liar (Bloomsbury, 2009), which used a photograph of a white model to show the protagonist, described as an “African-American tomboy.”

Unlike the Bloomsbury covers, the "Mysterious Benedict Society" controversy had been simmering for years. SLJ blogger Betsy Bird, a children's librarian with the New York Public Library’s Children's Center, was one of the first to spot the discrepancy in a December 11, 2007 review of the first book in the series.

“Sticky has dark skin in the book,” she writes. “Now look on the cover. It took me a while to figure out why I wasn’t seeing Sticky there. I was, but they’ve bleached him out. In short, they made Sticky white.”

At the time, says Bird, there was little response to her post and the illustrated covers on books two and three continued to show a white Sticky.

A few days ago, elementary school librarian Travis Jonker, who blogs at 100 Scope Notes, wrote: “No, it wasn’t enough to make him white, they made him albino with rosy cheeks. Seeing as how this has happened three times, I’m wondering why it has barely made a ripple.”

All three books—the first of which was illustrated by Carson Ellis and the second and third of which were illustrated by Diana Sudyka—describe Sticky as having “light brown skin.” He appears in inside illustrations with darker skin but as fair-skinned on all three covers.

“'The Mysterious Benedict Society' is a project I worked on over a year ago,” Sudyka told SLJ. “I don't recall any distinction being made between Sticky’s skin tone in cover art and interior illustrations.” Sudyka added that art directors are the ones who make the call on how final images look, not the illustrator.

“The recent feedback regarding the accuracy of Sticky Washington’s likeness on the covers of "The Mysterious Benedict Society" series is both appreciated and understood,” says Little, Brown’s Chang. “The character’s skin color is accurately reflected in the interior, black-and-white illustrations in all the books. While Sticky’s complexion is different relative to the other characters on the covers, the difference is subtle and therefore the jacket illustrations do indeed seem misleading.”

Tweets on the subject are calling the covers “whitewashed” and “puzzling.”

Chang went on to say, “In our over-80-year history, Little, Brown Books for Young Readers has published a multitude of acclaimed multicultural titles for children, and certainly no deception was intended in how this character’s skin color is represented. We are in the process of addressing the inaccuracies and look forward to offering readers a more faithful rendering of this character in our popular series in the near future.”

More on Race in Children's Literature

As I have been reading more into the issue of publishers whitewashing their covers, the more I've discovered how insidious the problem really is. From one site to another I have come across blog after excellent blog ruminating on the subject. I have collected these various articles and offer their links here.













Original Cover / Revised Cover

Check out Justine Larbalestier's comments on the situation of the cover of her own book here:
http://justinelarbalestier.com/blog/2009/07/23/aint-that-a-shame/#more-5432

and her interview at Racebender.com
http://www.racebending.com/v3/interviews/justine-larbalestier-ya-author/

Apparently her book was not the first to feature someone of African origin (I do not say African-American since Larbalistier 's character is Australian). This is a common occurrence for characters of African origin.













Check out the conversation here:
http://jacketwhys.wordpress.com/2009/07/19/too-many-white-girls/










And whitewashing doesn't stop there. Check out this interesting and insightful blog that brings up the problem with Asian characters and their representation on covers.
















http://theyayayas.wordpress.com/2009/07/27/asian-americans-on-ya-fiction-covers/






A few thoughts on native Americans and one particular cover:
http://americanindiansinchildrensliterature.blogspot.com/2010/01/conversation-about-book-covers-and-race.html



And thoughts of the problem from an Indian-American author.













http://www.mitaliblog.com/2010/01/brown-faces-dont-sell-books-poll-for.html

And finally, excellent ruminations on what to do about the problem of whitewashing, which asks the question: "Should I boycott the book or not?":
http://blackteensread2.blogspot.com/2010/01/next-step-what-are-we-going-to-do-to.html

Race in Middle-Grade Books

Despite the fact that we're told not to, we all judge a book by its cover. We pick up the book and if the cover is appealing, then take a closer look at the story inside. These covers are carefully picked over, edited, and designed to entice the reader. But do the covers always reflect what is in the book?

If you haven't heard, there was a terrible (and deserved) flap over the US cover for Justine Larbalestier's novel Liar. Although the main character is black, Bloomsbury saw it fit to use a white model on the cover. Protests ensued and people complained to Bloomsbury asking why they used a white model for a black character. Relenting to the pressure, Bloomsbury changed the cover.

Now Ms. Larbalestier's book was YA, which I do not tend to focus on, but this idea of whitewashing covers got me thinking. Is this a more common thing than we may even notice? Sadly, it is common, even in middle-grade, as in case of the next story.

The book-review blog Bookshelves of Doom brought to attention this puzzling and alarming problem that has affected a middle-grade book, specifically The Mysterious Benedict Society. I bring their observations to you here.

The Mysterious Benedict Society and the Puzzling Change of Skin Color.

From page 21 of The Mysterious Benedict Society and the Perilous Journey:

To Reynie's surprise, Sticky looked exactly as he'd looked a year ago: a skinny boy with light brown skin, anxious eyes (though perhaps the anxiety came from not yet having recovered his breath), and a completely bald head.

On the inside of the book, the illustrations depict that description. This one is from page 17:

But take a look at the front cover:

Erm, WHAT? Let's look a little closer:

Um, yeah. Not so good. I mean, WHY? Did his SKIN TONE affect the COLOR SCHEME?

Book Three. Same deal.

From page 9 of The Mysterious Benedict Society and the Prisoner's Dilemma:

Sticky looked to have suffered even worse. His sweat-soaked clothes clung like a wet suit to his skinny frame; his light brown skin had gone a sickly shade of gray; and behind his wire-rimmed spectacles, which sat askew on his nose, his eyes seemed dazed and glassy.

Once again, the inside of the book looks right. From page 41:

But, again -- close the book and look at the cover:

EXTREME CLOSE UP:

As Travis over at 100 Scope Notes said, "it wasn’t enough to make him white, they made him albino with rosy cheeks". ___________________________________________________________________

Let Little, Brown Books for Young Readers how you feel about this. You can contact them at:

Little, Brown Books for Young Readers
Publicity Department
237 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10017
publicity@lbchildrens.com

___________________________________________________________________

So why on earth did Little, Brown and co. feel the need to whitewash the character? Ms. Larbierster offers eye-opening insight as to why the Powers That Be at Bloomsbury made their decision.

"Editors have told me that their sales departments say black covers don’t sell. Sales reps have told me that many of their accounts won’t take books with black covers. Booksellers have told me that they can’t give away YAs with black covers. Authors have told me that their books with black covers are frequently not shelved in the same part of the library as other YA—they’re exiled to the Urban Fiction section—and many bookshops simply don’t stock them at all. How welcome is a black teen going to feel in the YA section when all the covers are white? Why would she pick up Liar when it has a cover that so explicitly excludes her?”
– Ain’t That a Shame, justinelarbalestier.com

So is that the reasoning behind why Little, Brown should make their light brown skinned character so white on the cover? It makes very little sense, particularly on a cover that features several different characters - most of whom are white.

How common is this practice? Apparently, in YA, quite a lot

Jacket Whys looked at a totaly of 775 young adult novels, and found that:

80% of them had people on them. A full 25% of all book covers had white girls pictured on them, and 10% had white boys. Only 2% of the titles I looked at had African American boys or girls pictured on the covers – a sad state of affairs.”

Wow. How shameful.

The next time you pick up a book, take a look at the cover and see if it fits the characters inside. And if it doesn't, let your indignation get heard!

The Princess and the Frog Review

I finally saw The Princess and the Frog last week and have to say, I thoroughly enjoyed it. In some ways, it is typical Disney fare (though in the good category). The story followed the typical boy meets girl style, added a few silly sidekicks (though I usually love the sidekicks), one bad guy, beautiful animation, great toe-tapping songs, and, of course, a happy ending. The result is a lot of fun.

But this blog always looks at things in terms of writing. Can we extrapolate parts of a movie and put them towards a book? Absolutely! A story is a story. It has plot and characters, just like any other story. When I watch something, I always look at it in terms of writing.

I would like to focus on the main character, Tiana, for she was the one I liked the best. I liked the fact that she was determined, smart, and hard working. One of the things that really irks me in most movies is when the hardworking person is always told by her/his friends to lighten up. Now, could some uptight, type A people learn to relax? Of course. But is it by learning meditation, how to paint, or just hanging out more with good friends and family? No, it's almost always how to party more. Great way to achieve your goals. Tiana knows that you don't achieve your dreams by wishing on stars or waiting for your prince to come; she knows it comes through hard work. But every character should have a fatal flaw - in her case, she works so hard for her dreams that she misses what's really important - love, in this case, not really from her prince, but from her family. She had worked so hard to achiever her and her late father's dream of owning a restaurant that she forgot how devoted her father was to the people he loved. A quality she doesn't lack, but has put aside for other things. To really achieve her dreams, she must learn what she needs, not just what she wants.

What I liked best was that it is not Tiana's looks that get her Prince Naveen (in fact, she doesn't even want him at first), but it is her smarts and determination that make the prince fall in love with her (after all, they both spend much of the film as frogs). It is the prince who must change to get the girl - he must learn that life cannot be one big party and that you can just toss people aside like used handkerchiefs. Life is about balance, and being nicer to people. Only after he learns this does Tiana start to fall in love with him.

Overall, the movie is sweet, full of heart, and fun. It's very nice to see a movie that doesn't resort to bawdy jokes, edginess, and hipness. It's nice to see a movie that is, well, nice.

The Princess and the Frog

I am very excited to see Disney's latest movie The Princess and the Frog for a number of reasons. First, I have always loved Disney's ability to re-tell a traditional fairy tale. When I was growing up, Disney's movies were considered cannon - they were the ultimate authority for fairy tails. But now that I am older, what I really like is Disney's ability to re-tell a story (that is, take a traditional tale, but some sort of spin on it). In this case, set the familiar story in 1920's New Orleans. What an interesting way to re-tell an old, familiar story.

But that isn't the main reason I'm excited to see it.

I am also very excited because it is the first Disney movie to feature an African-American heroine (I refrain from saying princess as I so dislike that term. Princess, to me, denotes royalty, but little else. Heroine, on the other hand, can be anyone from a princess to a poor girl on the streets - it is her pluck that drives the story - but I digress). When Beauty and the Beast came out, I was very excited because it finally featured a heroine with brown hair and brown eyes - finally, a heroine who looked like me! Before that time, it seemed that only blonde, redheads, or girls with snow white skin and black hair were the standards of beauty. But what I felt cannot even compare to how hundreds of little girls (and their mothers) must feel right now.


But that also isn't the main reason why I'm excited to see it.

The main reason I'm excited is because of what I refer to as

It's the Story, Stupid!

Back in the 1990s, the Walt Disney company made what I consider to be their biggest blunder of all time - they decided to lay off all their traditional animators and focus solely on computer animation. I do not know the full reasons for this idiocy. I suspect it came at the time when Pixar was king of the box office, while Disney movies were lagging far, far behind. Among this hoopla for the new computer animation, Disney must have thought that traditional hand-drawn animation was as dead as the dodo and sacked all their traditional animators. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

I am a fan of animation. I have always enjoyed its ability to tell stories and take us places that we may not otherwise be able to go. But I enjoy it as an art form. I love the beauty of traditional art to capture human movements and expressions in a way that computer animation still cannot (notice I do say human - computer animation has always been great at depicting non-human things, but when it comes to humans, the people always seem to me more like bubbles than humans. It could never make that leap in the way traditional animation always could.) Just look at this frame. It is so much more beautiful than anything a computer animated movie could do. To me, this looks like a work of art and to me, that was what animated shows could be - moving works of art.

But having said that, if the story is great, it could be told using popcicle sticks. It's the story that is most important - more than great animation or computer wizardry. If the story is weak, then everything else falls apart (though Hollywood seems to constantly forget that). Let me go back to the time when Disney sacked it's animators. Pixar was creating movies such as Toy Story, A Bug's Life, and Finding Nemo. Disney, as I recall, was doing Lilo and Stitch, Atlantis, and Treasure Planet. Hmmm, not exactly the most memorable of movies. Why did Pixar succeed where Disney failed? Because Pixar has great stories! This is as true then as it was now. Disney had forgotten then what were it's great stories and went with the trend of the day. I don't know about you, but the thought of a traditional fairy tale done in computer animation seems about as appealing as Mickey Mouse rapping. Just because things look good doesn't mean they hold up (take a look at most of the movies made by Dreamworks and other such companies). In the end, it is the story that people come back to.

I have not seen The Princess and the Frog, but intend to soon. I will give my review next week.

Greetings After a Long Hiatus

Over a year has passed since my last blog post. Much has changed during that time including two deaths in my family, one birth, and a move from the east to the west coast. I hope my fans (two goldfish, a cat, and a golf ball!) can forgive my lax postings because of these major interruptions. I plan to not only keep up with this blog, but to post much more regularly as well. I plan to keep the focus on children's literature and writing, but will expand my focus to areas that I am interested in as well, just to keep things interesting. I hope that you'll enjoy this more expanded Slush Pile Chronicles and hopefully I'll be able to garner more fans (three goldfish!)