Is re-creating reality for a better image okay?

[SueC]

It seems that Harper Collins has decided to alter the image of Clement Hurd, author of "Goodnight Moon" for future publications. Here's a quote out of a newsletter that I get from a local children's bookstore:
"In a single stroke, Harper Collins Publishers has changed our collective history, and created an alternate reality in which Clement Hurd does not smoke. It calls to mind a censorship tactic most famously associated with Joseph Stalin, wh o falsified the archival record of the Soviet Union by literally removing images of his political enemies from photographs in an effort to recreate history in his own image. In the case of "Goodnight Moon", Harper Collins has come to think that it is okay to tamper with the archival record and the heritage of a national treasure in an effort to sanitize our past, for the sake of our children. As if, by removing the cigarette, they have made the world a better and safer place."

***If you want to protest you can go to http://www.goodnightreality.com.

What do you all think? Is censorhsip okay to project a more wholesome image of Mr. Hurd? I personally think it is unnecessary to alter his image and would have no problem fielding questions from my children regarding to the cigarette in his hand. I think there are a lot of bits and pieces of American history that are altered needlessly in order to "sanitize" the past.

[Auspicious]

I say not okay because he dead and can't approve it and because it's too material a change and because it's overzealous p.c.ness. I think that kids understand that there were things that were considered okay in olden times that we have since learned aren't okay.

But I have to confess that just yesterday I was photoshopping my wedding photos. A stray bit of hair or two, etc, etc. There was a picture of a sixpence taped to the bottom of my shoe, and right next to the sixpence it clearly says "WIDE" on the sole of the shoe. Yes, thank you, I have ginormous feet, let's be sure and record that fact for posterity. So I photoshopped that out, but I wouldn't want others photoshopping them after I'm dead. And I agree that if that had become a famous and historical photo of my giant shoe, then the wide would have to stay.

That's funny, Julie.

I had a response that somehow didn't stick here. I think the modification of the original is silly. I would like to think that my converstations regarding smoking would carry more weight with my daughter than one drawing in a book. And, seriously, should we go around and deny that people smoke? Or deny that they used to think it was safe (even healthy)?

[DCJenn]

You know, I am married to the biggest anti-smoker in the world. But pretending that no one who was famous or, as in our case, no one that we loved dearly smoked and then died from the resultant lung cancer gets rid of a very valuable teaching tool.

I smoked, I loved smoking, I can imagine that if my life werew different, I'd still be smoking. BUT I will make sure that Nikolai knows that I smoked and that I'd be very disappointed if he did- and I will ensure that he understands how unbelievably difficult it is to stop once you start. (Let's see, the patch, twice, gum once, hypnotism once, cold turkey at least five times a year for at least 10 years, threats, begging, cajoling from my parents and various boyfriends.)

We don't need to sanitize life.

Jenn

PS- Kelly, I'm right there w/ you on the Wal-mart thing.

I think it's silly. I agree with the reasons Julie cited, and also with Sue that IF a toddler happened to notice the 2"x3" photo of the man on the back of a book I would be fine fielding questions about it.

Jenn - how did you finally quit? My dh (the PATHOLOGIST) smokes and is in the process of trying AGAIN. I'm using a financial penalty (I get one purse / week at 1154 Lill if he keeps smoking), and I've got the kids asking him to stop (emotional blackmail, I know). He's tried the patch, the inhaler, and wellbutrin. Maybe acupuncture?

[DCJenn]

It was a combination of the patch, threats from Rick (that I knew he would carry through on) AND participating in a study. (I had to blow in a breathalizer once a week to measure my carbon monoxide and participate in daily phone calls and I had unmarked patches- but I'm 90% sure I had the nicotine patches)

Jenn

They digitally removed a smoke? Rather than just finding a picure of him not holding a cigarette?
Whats next? Getting rid of the Man with the Yellow Hat's pipe? Redoing the Night Before Christmas? Old King Cole?

BTW, I, Arborea, am guest...

Dh used Zyban, the patch and copious amounts of fried/baked goods to quit after 12 years of smoking.

Ok, I just looked at the back cover on amazon.com. We have the board book and it doesn't have the picture. What came to mind was an illustration in the book -- and I can't check because Anna is going to bed -- that has a pipe in it or someone smoking. ???

I think the photo is obviously old and the cigarette isn't the highlight. The only way I think it would be remotely ok is if his family requested that the photo be changed and provided one they preferred. But even then, I think it is kind of silly.

Man, quitting smoking has got to be hard. Didn't Ray Charles say it was harder than giving up heroin?

yeah. Ray said that - so I promised my dh I would never make him give up heroin.

yeah. Ray said that - so I promised my dh I would never make him give up heroin.

Does he realize how good he's got it?

[Rapunzel]

OK - I'm confused:

Was it a photo of the author of Goodnight Moon that was altered or was it an illustration in the book?

If it was a photo of the author then I agree, that's just silly. If the man smoked in public (especially while having his picture taken) then it's weird to photoshop that out. I don't know if I'd call it "immoral" or anything - but definitely weird. I think that it's OK to change photographs in order to "clean them up" (ie color correction, removal of stray hairs, etc.). But, completely changing them is altering history - I agree.

If it was an illustration that portrayed smoking that was altered or removed then I don't see what all of the fuss is about. In fact, I won't purchase children's books that portray smoking. It reinforces it as "normal" and, thus, "OK" to small children. Removing a person smoking from an illustration in a children's book is called: editing. And, I see nothing wrong with that!

Jennifer

Jennifer, As I understand it, it is the photo of the illustrator on the back of the book. Our copy is a board book and there are no photos -- I had to look on amazon.com to see the back cover. In the photo the illustrator has a cigarette in his hand which is near his waist (he's not smoking). I just looked at our copy of the book -- no one in the drawings is smoking, no pipe, etc.

I'd be less inclined to buy a newer children's book that shows smoking than an older book. But I can't think of any older books -- Curious George, other Margaret Wise Brown, etc -- that show smoking in the illustrations.

OK - I'm confused:

Was it a photo of the author of Goodnight Moon that was altered or was it an illustration in the book?

It is a photo of the book's illustrator, Clement Hurd. I agree with the above posts....the photo is a part of history and should not have been changed...especially since Hurd and the photographer are not able to approve of any changes. If having a cigarette in the picture is such a big deal, why couldn't the publishers have chosen a different picture of Hurd?

What came to mind was an illustration in the book -- and I can't check because Anna is going to bed -- that has a pipe in it or someone smoking. ???

Nellie, I don't think there is a pipe in the book, but maybe I've missed it. You might be thinking about the old lady bunny who's in the chair knitting.

OK - I'm confused:

Was it a photo of the author of Goodnight Moon that was altered or was it an illustration in the book?

It is a photo of the book's illustrator, Clement Hurd. I agree with the above posts....the photo is a part of history and should not have been changed...especially since Hurd and the photographer are not able to approve of any changes. If having a cigarette in the picture is such a big deal, why couldn't the publishers have chosen a different picture of Hurd?

What came to mind was an illustration in the book -- and I can't check because Anna is going to bed -- that has a pipe in it or someone smoking. ???

Nellie, I don't think there is a pipe in the book, but maybe I've missed it. You might be thinking about the old lady bunny who's in the chair knitting.