SCBWI's Blueboard - A Message & Chat Board

Genres & Age Categories => Picture Books (PB) => Topic started by: SarahW on August 05, 2014, 08:32 PM

Title: Good Picture Storybooks?
Post by: SarahW on August 05, 2014, 08:32 PM
Picture storybook next time I go to the library? I'm still unsure what makes a picture storybook a storybook instead of a picture book. I remember Peter And The Wolf (one of my favorites) being slightly longer.

Then of course does anyone remember The Stinky Cheesy Man? I remember refusing to eat cheese for about a year after I read that book. (I was at the beach, at the nights dish was feta. Which didn't help.)

Of coarse I would want something more recent, for story pitch reasons.
Title: Re: What would be a good,
Post by: Arona on August 06, 2014, 04:44 AM
According to a recent definition (within the last few months) of a picture storybook, it is for 5-8 year olds, is heavily illustrated with a more complicated plot than a PB, and tells a story through lots of action.

There was no mention of word count, as I recall, but if you have a plot that is more complicated than a PB, it makes sense, in my mind, that the word count would have to be higher than the PB sweet spot--meaning up to 1,000--but that's just my thought.

Don't have any solid examples in my head...sorry. Examples of them would be older, yes?, since pubs have been shying away from them?
Title: Re: Good Picture Storybooks?
Post by: onestepp on August 06, 2014, 06:02 PM
The Littlest Angel is an older and longer Picture Book which is more story like.  ::-)
Title: Re: Good Picture Storybooks?
Post by: Debbie Vilardi on August 11, 2014, 08:26 AM
In many, the text tells the story. The illustrations show the text. Some of Patricia Polacco's books would qualify, I think.
Title: Re: Good Picture Storybooks?
Post by: Arona on August 11, 2014, 03:48 PM
Okay--what Debbie said--prompts me to ask something that has confused me.

In threads here I've read critiques that state "let an illustration say that," meaning, cut that sentence or phrase, etc.

I get it if illustrations are running (dictating) the text, but if you're writing a PB or story PB, why wouldn't the writer write FOR illustrators to illuminate the text? If an agent/pub wants something different, fine...but if we write for illustrations that don't even exist, how do we get our story across to anyone?

I write as if a people were blind-folded--they can SEE the story unfold in their heads as it's read. If an agent wants to cut a stanza or two to let an illustration speak, I get that...but writing for illustrations that don't exist...?

Title: Re: Good Picture Storybooks?
Post by: Debbie Vilardi on August 25, 2014, 05:54 PM
This is just the way it seems to be done today. Illustration notes can take the place of text where what is in the picture really conveys the story. The text and illustrations are supposed to marry to carry the story equally. The picture story book did what you suggested, but the illustrator's role has become more valued. The key is still story. Sometimes a picture really is worth a thousand words. Often you can cut that sentence and still have the action be clear. The text is now meant to convey what illustration can't  - like smells and sounds and emotions. (Some times those can be conveyed in pictures.) This is part of why picture books are skewing younger. That, however, is a long discussion for another thread. In fact, there is one.