Comments on: Do Children’s Books Need Pictures? Quote of the Day

By: shenaniganbooks

shenaniganbooks — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 17:46:33 +0000

There is no sweeter treat to tempt the imagination of a young reader than the combination of a great story with a great illustration! Of course, I might be a little prejudice on this matter.
I agree that poorly written stories can be disguised with colorful artwork but there’s just no fooling a kid. After just one read (sometimes after one page) if a kid doesn’t like the story the pictures can’t save the book.
TV, movies and even some animated Ebooks fill in the complete story leaving nothing to the imagination. But a good picture book just opens the door to the next scene in the reader’s mind.

By: 1minutebookreviewswordpresscom

1minutebookreviewswordpresscom — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 04:07:59 +0000

Yes, it’s a big mistake for picture-book authors to spell out too much. They have to leave room for the illustrators to cast their spell. I haven’t seen the “50-50″ figure, but I’ve heard many editors make the point you made in similar terms that are less specific.

By: anonymom

anonymom — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 03:55:28 +0000

When our daughter was about 3 1/2, I began reading to her from non-illustrated books, but she quickly became disinterested. However, I am fairly certain she had been conditioned to respond to pictures in the telling of a story. From the time she was an infant, we read several picture books daily. When I tried switching to just the written word, she missed the illustrations and became restless (even when reading about her favorite subjects like puppies and horses).

Editors will tell you that the best picture books tell the story 50% in words, 50% in pictures. They don’t want to see PB manuscripts with too much detail, for they eliminate the need for vivid illustrations. I find that the large chains put books with a lot of [unnecessary] bells and whistles on their shelves. For a quality story with rich text and beautiful images, visit an independent children’s bookseller.

By: 1minutebookreviewswordpresscom

1minutebookreviewswordpresscom — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 03:32:09 +0000

Janetleigh: Confetti? Really? Somehow I’ve been spared those. But I have seen — I’m not making this up — the picture-book equivalents of the old scratch-and-sniff ads (now replaced by scent strips) … Are the publishers confusing children’s books with, say, ads in Vanity Fair? And I never have a problem with bluntness, because I’m so direct myself. Love your site. Thanks so much for your comments, and I’ve enjoyed your site, too.
Jan

By: janetleigh

janetleigh — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 02:18:05 +0000

Janice, I agree that some publishers try to compensate for a weak story with gimmickery and confetti popping out between the pages of dreadful books. I guess I should have been clearer by saying “in my day, we read great books and stories accompanied by good illustrations of the subject matter nicely placed and pleasant.” This is not a jab at you by any means, it’s that I’m not very good at “writing” as poetry is my forte, I think. (Maybe you’d be a better judge of that, actually. I invite you to my blog and to give me the harshest CC you can dish out. I’ll learn from it, I swear. Just click on my name.) I found it a little eerie that you brought up simple rhyming poetry as an effective way to impart basic concepts because it’s the rhyming of words that helps many children to learn songs. I’m sure you knew this, but maybe some of your readers weren’t aware of it. I’m sorry if I sounded harsh in my comments to you. I’m a rather straightforward, blunt talker and it bleeds over into my written word, I’m afraid. Please keep this in mind for future reference. I’m not quite sure if it’s a personality thing, or being raised-in-Minnesota thing. However, if you “saw” me talking, you’d “see” my perpetual smile. Plus, I usually make a notation of (/sarcasm) when writing.

I love your One Minute Book Reviews, Janice. Not only do I learn something new, but it piques my curiosity to take a further look at an author you’ve highlighted in your blog here. Keep up the great work!

By: 1minutebookreviewswordpresscom

1minutebookreviewswordpresscom — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 08:01:27 +0000

Not sure our views differ on this, because I agree that pictures definitely can help to draw children in. It’s just that for me, a story needs to great, too. And I see so many books in which the publishers seem to be trying to compensate for a weak story with razzle-dazzle special effects (which drive up the price of the books and puts them out of the range of a lot of families).

I love old primers, too. Apart from the pictures, some of them used simple rhyming poetry so effectively to impart basic concepts … and that trend, alas seems to be waning. Thanks so much for your comments (there’s no such thing as a “too long” comment for me).

By: janetleigh

janetleigh — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 07:05:22 +0000

When I first began reading at a very young age, I would only “read” or look through books that *had* pictures. Pictures put meaning to words you don’t know when you start out reading. This is so obvious that I question the qualifications of any “scholar” who thinks differently. As a matter of fact, I venture to say if primary books are devoid of pictures nowadays it might be the reason why so many kids can’t read. I’ll bet no one thought of that! (/sarcasm). Early education is a “button” of mine which I should have pre-warned you about, Janice. *smile* Educators seem to be stymied about why they can’t teach Johnny to read. I have a clue. First, the teacher needs to be qualified to teach all subjects to her young kids and know how to spell in order to teach. Hmmm.. what a concept. Secondly, more than 30 years ago schools must have gotten a manifesto that forbid teachers to teach “values” and concepts like “right” and “wrong” or the attributes and traits which build “character”. This manifesto probably also forbid teachers to teach the benefits of helping others which strengthens our own sense of self and builds confidence in our own abilities. If educators are serious about putting our society on the right track for building “pillars” of our communities again, they ought to start looking at the *teaching methods* in place during the 40′s and 50′s, a time when kids loved going to school, loved reading, writing, and arithmetic. (oops, I guess this really dates me, huh? No matter, I enjoy being an old dinosaur. Really.) Those methods really work.
I apologize for this long comment, but the idea that “scholars” think pictures don’t go hand-in-hand with learning to read is ridiculous to me. Nothing could be more obvious. But again I’m confronted by the fact common sense doesn’t exist anymore.

By the way, I taught my son to read *before* he went to kindergarten. How? By old primers that I got copies of long ago. And they had oodles of pictures in them. *grin* Thank you for revving me up for a new glorious day, Janice.

By: 1minutebookreviewswordpresscom

1minutebookreviewswordpresscom — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 00:17:28 +0000

If I had children, I’d give them both types of books — with and without pictures — and see which they responded to best. Thanks so much for your comment.

By: Woeful

Woeful — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 03:28:16 +0000

Maybe not, but there are no irrefutable psychological or pedagogical reasons that children’s books shouldn’t contain both pictures and words either…