Interesting that this is focusing on what makes them great from a "product design" perspective, and not the more subjective "artistic" or "book" perspectives. If you're interested in great picture books (with "great" defined more in terms of the art and storytelling), you might check out the Wikipedia list [0] of Caldecott [1] books. Never expected to be telling this story on HN but I'm the visual inspiration for the main character in Flotsam [2], the 2007 winner. One drawback to the Caldecott is that it only considers books drawn/written by US citizens; is anyone familiar with similar medals in other countries?
Too dry, too focused on the business of selling books. The Albergs are nice but there are an incredible number of children's book authors not mentioned as examples of 'great': e.g. Peepo is clearly influenced by Tove Jannson's The Book About Moomin, Mymble and Little My (1952).
A better article would be, what makes crap children's picture books crap?
"But there’s also much to be inspired by and learn from — recurring motifs, the product matrix"
I saw this and frowned. Because a lot of children's picture books are that. Predictable and targeted for best sale.
Children's picture books are a strangely risk averse market. Realistic fiction rules the segment, with publishers opting for extremely simply stories and wording and nice, but uncomplicated illustrations. There's been a real turn in the past few years away from thought provoking or older age fully illustrated books along the lines of Chris Van Alsburg and others in the form of a very early reader style. And this, unfortunately, has really stifled some of the more creative titles we used to see.
I remember seeing this quite clearly when my wife and I attended the Bologna Book Fair a couple of years ago. Her being a fantasy illustrator, we scheduled a large number of portfolio reviews, and from each of them, the message was the same. Too fantastical, too complicated. Stick with what sells, and target younger kids. So your picture books remain "Jimmy learns to poop" or something about animals.
I suppose you have to identify your market, but it was disappointing in hearing this, because your really "artistic" picture book seems to be a dying trend.
4 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 16.5 ms ] thread[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caldecott_Medal#Recipients
[1]: http://www.ala.org/alsc/awardsgrants/bookmedia/caldecottmeda...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flotsam_(David_Wiesner_book)
A better article would be, what makes crap children's picture books crap?
I saw this and frowned. Because a lot of children's picture books are that. Predictable and targeted for best sale.
Children's picture books are a strangely risk averse market. Realistic fiction rules the segment, with publishers opting for extremely simply stories and wording and nice, but uncomplicated illustrations. There's been a real turn in the past few years away from thought provoking or older age fully illustrated books along the lines of Chris Van Alsburg and others in the form of a very early reader style. And this, unfortunately, has really stifled some of the more creative titles we used to see.
I remember seeing this quite clearly when my wife and I attended the Bologna Book Fair a couple of years ago. Her being a fantasy illustrator, we scheduled a large number of portfolio reviews, and from each of them, the message was the same. Too fantastical, too complicated. Stick with what sells, and target younger kids. So your picture books remain "Jimmy learns to poop" or something about animals.
I suppose you have to identify your market, but it was disappointing in hearing this, because your really "artistic" picture book seems to be a dying trend.