I am writing here in response to this Guardian feature.
I do quite like some of these illustrations... but surely these pictures are no less "accessible" than the originals, or any other illustrations, they're all fairly meaty older children's books- so surely it's less about the pictures and more about the WORDS?! am i mistaken?
I quite like most of them (as stand alone illustrations), however I REALLY dislike the Alice ones. surely turning her into some kind of vampy knicker-flashing rah compromises the aforementioned WORDS... isn't she fairly boisterous and tom-boyish but in a victorian dress and petticoat?! jesus, even young girls have to be sexualised these days.
I'm moaning, i know, but i just think that we need to give children a bit more credit. look at the modernisation of the Mr Men for crying out loud, last year (or perhaps before) roger hargreave's son, or someone, wanted to modernise the characters to make them link more visually with their identities. so he gave mr strong a weight-lifting belt and muscles. when we were younger, we didn't doubt that mr strong was strong just because he was a big red square- we knew he was strong because the WORDS told us he was strong.
don't target the children... target the parents! who aren't stimulating or interested enough to persist in making their children interested in reading!
in fact, everyone should just give their children to me, and i'll form some kind of reading circle. a PICTURE-LESS reading circle.
love love x