Are children's picture books a dying art?
As someone who spends a lot of time reading children's books to children, browsing the children's section of the library, and updating my kindergartener's "reading journal" that he is supposed to keep this year, I was fascinated to read this article in the New York Times Review of Books. Apparently, children's picture books are selling very poorly nowadays, and it's not just the economy's fault. According to publishers, parents are shunning picture books and preferring to introduce their preschoolers to chapter books at earlier and earlier ages, perhaps hoping to give them an edge in school.
The first thought that occurred to me was, if that's the reason parents aren't buying picture books, they obviously haven't read any picture books recently. Some books in the "Juvenile Easy" section of the library have few or no words, but many are far more sophisticated than "chapter books" for beginning readers. Think "The Story of Ping," "Make Way for Ducklings," or "Miss Rumphius." Books like these employ much higher-level vocabulary and more complex sentence structures than many books with fewer pictures. In fact, many picture books aren't at all appropriate for beginning readers; they're designed to be read TO children, not BY children. The pictures are there not just to be pretty and interesting, but to help the non-reading (or just beginning to read) child figure out new vocabulary from context.
That thought led me to the conclusion that the publishers the New York Times talked to were on the wrong track. It can't be that parents actually think chapter books (at least on an early reading level) are more challenging than picture books; it must be that parents aren't reading to their children as much, and therefore they need to buy their children books they can read themselves, with minimal help.
But then one person who commented on this link when I posted it on my Facebook page reminded me that ideas about what are the proper books to read at a particular age don't just come from parents; they also come from schools and teachers. I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing that "I Can Read"-type books, with fewer (and lower-quality) pictures and more, larger-typeface words, make it easier for teachers to evaluate their students' progress because they are clearly marked as to reading level. They introduce a carefully controlled vocabulary. It could also be the case (in fact, I'm almost sure it is the case) that some parents are misinterpreting assignments like the reading journal I'm supposed to be keeping for my child who is in kindergarten. My son's teacher (only meaning, I'm sure, to encourage the children to read more) occasionally includes in her weekly letter to the parents a list of which children have read 100 books, 125 books, or 150 books so far this year. I'm pretty certain, though, that the effect on some parents is to throw them into a panic (in fact, I had to fight that impulse myself) - "Oh, no, twelve children in the class have already read 100 books, and my child has only read 50! Maybe I need to do something to help him read faster. Or maybe I need to get him shorter, easier books. Maybe I shouldn't read to him so much; maybe he should be reading more on his own." And so it goes.
The NYT article also makes a good point that publishers have been inviting the obsolescence of picture books by charging so much for them. A hard cover, dust-jacketed, full-color children's picture book is a real luxury, often costing $20 or more when it's first released. "I Can Read" books and simple chapter books, by contrast, are usually paperback and can often by had for $5 or less. What illustrations they contain are usually the one-or-two-color variety, and so printing costs less. But this isn't just a story about beautiful, high-quality books that cost more, versus lower-quality books that cost less. At least judging from my browsing the "JE" section of the library (I hardly ever visit Barnes & Noble, Borders, or their ilk), not all picture books are equal. For every Caldecott winner, there seem to be five or ten books with obnoxious and poorly written stories, cartoonish drawings, and little overall merit. When we parents think of picture books, Goodnight Moon and Richard Scarry's Busytown may come to mind, but when we go to the library or the bookstore we're often disappointed in the selection.
In thinking about this question, though, I have to come back to the idea that picture books, at their best, are really an art form. A good picture book, while written for children, can be appreciated by anyone. The illustrations in some picture books could just as well be sold in an art gallery or hung in a museum; the prose, while written with children in mind and devoid of any objectionable content, can be poignant and speak beyond childish comprehension. One of my favorite author/illustrators is Jerry Pinckney, responsible for retellings of The Little Red Hen, Sam and the Tigers, and Three Little Kittens, among others. His illustrations are vivid, sunbathed, and gorgeous; his sense of texture is amazing. Another of my favorites is Carolina Shout! - a book that certainly is poignant, well-researched, and informative for adults as well as children.
I would hate to see this art form left by the wayside simply because we parents don't have time to read to our children or because, in our ambition to further our children's education, we are rushing them on to "more grown-up" books that actually aren't. Ideally, I'd like to see children coming back to the better picture books when they're old enough to read them for themselves, but before they've grown up and had their own children. I know that's probably not going to happen, because we have compartmentalized our children's education and development so thoroughly. I can only hope that the downturn in the picture book market weeds out the less worthwhile specimens but doesn't kill the genre altogether.
- KPE
The first thought that occurred to me was, if that's the reason parents aren't buying picture books, they obviously haven't read any picture books recently. Some books in the "Juvenile Easy" section of the library have few or no words, but many are far more sophisticated than "chapter books" for beginning readers. Think "The Story of Ping," "Make Way for Ducklings," or "Miss Rumphius." Books like these employ much higher-level vocabulary and more complex sentence structures than many books with fewer pictures. In fact, many picture books aren't at all appropriate for beginning readers; they're designed to be read TO children, not BY children. The pictures are there not just to be pretty and interesting, but to help the non-reading (or just beginning to read) child figure out new vocabulary from context.
That thought led me to the conclusion that the publishers the New York Times talked to were on the wrong track. It can't be that parents actually think chapter books (at least on an early reading level) are more challenging than picture books; it must be that parents aren't reading to their children as much, and therefore they need to buy their children books they can read themselves, with minimal help.
But then one person who commented on this link when I posted it on my Facebook page reminded me that ideas about what are the proper books to read at a particular age don't just come from parents; they also come from schools and teachers. I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing that "I Can Read"-type books, with fewer (and lower-quality) pictures and more, larger-typeface words, make it easier for teachers to evaluate their students' progress because they are clearly marked as to reading level. They introduce a carefully controlled vocabulary. It could also be the case (in fact, I'm almost sure it is the case) that some parents are misinterpreting assignments like the reading journal I'm supposed to be keeping for my child who is in kindergarten. My son's teacher (only meaning, I'm sure, to encourage the children to read more) occasionally includes in her weekly letter to the parents a list of which children have read 100 books, 125 books, or 150 books so far this year. I'm pretty certain, though, that the effect on some parents is to throw them into a panic (in fact, I had to fight that impulse myself) - "Oh, no, twelve children in the class have already read 100 books, and my child has only read 50! Maybe I need to do something to help him read faster. Or maybe I need to get him shorter, easier books. Maybe I shouldn't read to him so much; maybe he should be reading more on his own." And so it goes.
The NYT article also makes a good point that publishers have been inviting the obsolescence of picture books by charging so much for them. A hard cover, dust-jacketed, full-color children's picture book is a real luxury, often costing $20 or more when it's first released. "I Can Read" books and simple chapter books, by contrast, are usually paperback and can often by had for $5 or less. What illustrations they contain are usually the one-or-two-color variety, and so printing costs less. But this isn't just a story about beautiful, high-quality books that cost more, versus lower-quality books that cost less. At least judging from my browsing the "JE" section of the library (I hardly ever visit Barnes & Noble, Borders, or their ilk), not all picture books are equal. For every Caldecott winner, there seem to be five or ten books with obnoxious and poorly written stories, cartoonish drawings, and little overall merit. When we parents think of picture books, Goodnight Moon and Richard Scarry's Busytown may come to mind, but when we go to the library or the bookstore we're often disappointed in the selection.
In thinking about this question, though, I have to come back to the idea that picture books, at their best, are really an art form. A good picture book, while written for children, can be appreciated by anyone. The illustrations in some picture books could just as well be sold in an art gallery or hung in a museum; the prose, while written with children in mind and devoid of any objectionable content, can be poignant and speak beyond childish comprehension. One of my favorite author/illustrators is Jerry Pinckney, responsible for retellings of The Little Red Hen, Sam and the Tigers, and Three Little Kittens, among others. His illustrations are vivid, sunbathed, and gorgeous; his sense of texture is amazing. Another of my favorites is Carolina Shout! - a book that certainly is poignant, well-researched, and informative for adults as well as children.
I would hate to see this art form left by the wayside simply because we parents don't have time to read to our children or because, in our ambition to further our children's education, we are rushing them on to "more grown-up" books that actually aren't. Ideally, I'd like to see children coming back to the better picture books when they're old enough to read them for themselves, but before they've grown up and had their own children. I know that's probably not going to happen, because we have compartmentalized our children's education and development so thoroughly. I can only hope that the downturn in the picture book market weeds out the less worthwhile specimens but doesn't kill the genre altogether.
- KPE
posted by The Eastvold Blog at 11:04 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home