Thrilled to see you guys get into the research! As a research librarian, I did a deep dive here (interlibrary loaned like ten copies) a few months ago, getting into the publishing history, and found out a few other things. So, from what I found, the first edition with the italicized instructions was really for the educational market only, and then they started expanding which is when you get the mother as well as a non-italicized/non-instructional "regular" version.
I'm so glad you talked about how the page turns works! because I've experienced both versions with my child and have a very strong preference (and never thought anyone else besides me would care about such things.)
I very much prefer the 1970s pagination ("Red bird, red bird what do you see?"--page turn--"I see a yellow duck looking at me" with the yellow duck there on the same page.) Because when my 3 year old "reads" this book: she's memorized the rhythm and fills in the animal part based on the picture she sees. She DOESN'T know what the next animal is until she turns the page because she can't actually read the words in the 1967 version. So having the words "yellow duck" before she sees the yellow duck doesn't work. Well, since she's not reading the words either way I suppose it doesn't matter, but I AM reading the words in my head (while she's reciting out loud) so the experience for me listening to her read is more congruent in the 1970s pagination. And I like the suspense of thinking, "What will the red bird see when we turn the page?!"
Jessica, rest assured, there are others who care - we hear you! And just to add, some people care about scansion so much they might have received an odd look or two when they got caught audibly chiding a book about a clunky line (thank gone that elephant is gone, Bill) in the kids section of their local bookstore. Your people understand you.
I wish I knew more about book-printing tech. Pages were printed off physical plates made from physical negatives shot off physical paper illustrations, right?
I remember (from life) that for newspaper print plants in the ‘70s-‘90s, paper, chemicals and photo and metal production equipment changed radically. Repair parts for older presses became expensive and hard to find. We couldn’t reuse old print plates without a lot of bothersome work. They didn’t fit the machine. Also, negative masters got scratched or were stored under a leaky ceiling tile or just coagulated themselves. Original art walked away. If we’d been in the business of putting out successive editions of a good-selling product, we might have had physical and mechanical reasons to commission new art — in addition to an aesthetic desire to modernize the look and capitalize on a newly famous illustrator’s new signature style.
So interesting! And as a book hoarder, it's a BIT dangerous to know there are so many different versions to potentially collect? 👀💸
Okay, first things first: AD could be...artistic detour? after dawning? (only works for those who didn't prefer the previous art style, tho)...anno draw-many?
Also, might as well share other thoughts, if only for my own amusement: I'm squarely Team 1970 due solely to the page turns with the youngest readers in mind--the ones that are still so short-term-memory that they get that "Celine Dion, All Coming Back to Me" vibe going from, like, even seeing the dog they see every day again. ("Hey! It's THAT thing!") Those kids will get the double-surprise each reading, with that cute little gasp they do, and the older kids can feel all smart by saying what's coming next before the text says--win/win.
But--wow, how I (unexpectedly) love the SHADED SCRIBBLENESS of 1983! (Happy sigh.) I love that it almost looks like how a kid might add to the art in their book sometimes? (I find that charming, probably because it hasn't historically been me who has had my hard-won visual art, um, thoughtfully annotated in that manner.) 😂
That mouse is amazing! Too bad that scurried--but not at all surprised the pink elephant disappeared since they were already so visually connected with Disney's Dumbo movie (and drunkenness, ha ha).
This was fascinating! And how did they get away with printing multiple versions of this? I want to hear the conversation from inside the publishing house!
I was positively giddy when I found two different versions of Tomi Ungerer's "The Three Robbers," with different illustrations, different fonts, etc. Why do these changes get made? Fascinating stuff!
Although from the lack of interest on my socials... most of my friends were too lazy to post the bar meme.
Thank you for embracing the nerdiness and creating a space for fellow nerds! ♥
Freaky stuff, you guys are really into research!! Love the articles and especially older picture books…. I’ve found lots of great kids books at the local Goodwill for $1.00 each. Life is good 😊
Wow! Who would have known? Revisions of Brown Bear, Brown Bear! Love the new learning about this classic book! Of course, your write up is always entertaining and informative. Thank you! Write on.....
This is SOOO fascinating!!! So, after 1983c, the text reverted to 1970 again, right? I read copies after 2010 to my kids, and I’m thinking the answer was on the page with the animal.
I’d love to hear what changes you would make in your books. What would you try?
Thrilled to see you guys get into the research! As a research librarian, I did a deep dive here (interlibrary loaned like ten copies) a few months ago, getting into the publishing history, and found out a few other things. So, from what I found, the first edition with the italicized instructions was really for the educational market only, and then they started expanding which is when you get the mother as well as a non-italicized/non-instructional "regular" version.
I wrote about it here: https://childrenslitpilgrim.substack.com/p/teacher-mother-monkey
Your essay was so interesting! Immediate follow from me!
I'm so glad you talked about how the page turns works! because I've experienced both versions with my child and have a very strong preference (and never thought anyone else besides me would care about such things.)
I very much prefer the 1970s pagination ("Red bird, red bird what do you see?"--page turn--"I see a yellow duck looking at me" with the yellow duck there on the same page.) Because when my 3 year old "reads" this book: she's memorized the rhythm and fills in the animal part based on the picture she sees. She DOESN'T know what the next animal is until she turns the page because she can't actually read the words in the 1967 version. So having the words "yellow duck" before she sees the yellow duck doesn't work. Well, since she's not reading the words either way I suppose it doesn't matter, but I AM reading the words in my head (while she's reciting out loud) so the experience for me listening to her read is more congruent in the 1970s pagination. And I like the suspense of thinking, "What will the red bird see when we turn the page?!"
Jessica, rest assured, there are others who care - we hear you! And just to add, some people care about scansion so much they might have received an odd look or two when they got caught audibly chiding a book about a clunky line (thank gone that elephant is gone, Bill) in the kids section of their local bookstore. Your people understand you.
I agree completely. As a first grade teacher, this is often one of the first books kids learn to read because the picture helps with the words!
The credit card lounge must have been buzzing after this one! Thanks for the great post
I wish I knew more about book-printing tech. Pages were printed off physical plates made from physical negatives shot off physical paper illustrations, right?
I remember (from life) that for newspaper print plants in the ‘70s-‘90s, paper, chemicals and photo and metal production equipment changed radically. Repair parts for older presses became expensive and hard to find. We couldn’t reuse old print plates without a lot of bothersome work. They didn’t fit the machine. Also, negative masters got scratched or were stored under a leaky ceiling tile or just coagulated themselves. Original art walked away. If we’d been in the business of putting out successive editions of a good-selling product, we might have had physical and mechanical reasons to commission new art — in addition to an aesthetic desire to modernize the look and capitalize on a newly famous illustrator’s new signature style.
But that was newspapers, not books.
In my library I have a "Happy birthday" version from 1992 with still different pictures! https://share.icloud.com/photos/027V5QMkBe2Rbtjb9jQBYMndA
So interesting! And as a book hoarder, it's a BIT dangerous to know there are so many different versions to potentially collect? 👀💸
Okay, first things first: AD could be...artistic detour? after dawning? (only works for those who didn't prefer the previous art style, tho)...anno draw-many?
Also, might as well share other thoughts, if only for my own amusement: I'm squarely Team 1970 due solely to the page turns with the youngest readers in mind--the ones that are still so short-term-memory that they get that "Celine Dion, All Coming Back to Me" vibe going from, like, even seeing the dog they see every day again. ("Hey! It's THAT thing!") Those kids will get the double-surprise each reading, with that cute little gasp they do, and the older kids can feel all smart by saying what's coming next before the text says--win/win.
But--wow, how I (unexpectedly) love the SHADED SCRIBBLENESS of 1983! (Happy sigh.) I love that it almost looks like how a kid might add to the art in their book sometimes? (I find that charming, probably because it hasn't historically been me who has had my hard-won visual art, um, thoughtfully annotated in that manner.) 😂
That mouse is amazing! Too bad that scurried--but not at all surprised the pink elephant disappeared since they were already so visually connected with Disney's Dumbo movie (and drunkenness, ha ha).
Thanks for sharing!
This was fascinating! And how did they get away with printing multiple versions of this? I want to hear the conversation from inside the publishing house!
I was positively giddy when I found two different versions of Tomi Ungerer's "The Three Robbers," with different illustrations, different fonts, etc. Why do these changes get made? Fascinating stuff!
Although from the lack of interest on my socials... most of my friends were too lazy to post the bar meme.
Thank you for embracing the nerdiness and creating a space for fellow nerds! ♥
Freaky stuff, you guys are really into research!! Love the articles and especially older picture books…. I’ve found lots of great kids books at the local Goodwill for $1.00 each. Life is good 😊
“I’m sure, Mr. Martin Junior.” Cannot stop saying this to myself. Truly laughing out loud.
The grey mouse is great, but PINK ELEPHANT DOES NOT SCAN!
So fascinating.❤️
Me: laughing out loud multiple times while reading this post
My partner: What’s so funny?
Me: So there’s this post about Eric Carle, and… um… nothing
Wow! Who would have known? Revisions of Brown Bear, Brown Bear! Love the new learning about this classic book! Of course, your write up is always entertaining and informative. Thank you! Write on.....
This is SOOO fascinating!!! So, after 1983c, the text reverted to 1970 again, right? I read copies after 2010 to my kids, and I’m thinking the answer was on the page with the animal.
I’d love to hear what changes you would make in your books. What would you try?
Holy cow imagine a world where you are allowed to revise and re-release the same book only three years later?!