Is re-creating reality for a better image okay?

oops, I didn't see your above post.

I don't know why I was thinking that. The fire in the fireplace?

I think that if the family had a similar photo and felt really strongly, it would be reasonable but to change the image? That's weird.

[Vanquisher]

Okay, please excuse my bitter-assed reaction to this. I went on a hunt for the book, but cannot find it in my horrificly, disgustingly, dirty house, so I don't remember the picture in reference. I know that freaking book is down here somewhere!

Anyway, my reaction is, who cares? Some crazy person had to get all on a soapbox about this, and write a letter, and begin some kind of campaign to stop the man from having a cigarette in a picture in/on Good Night Moon. There have got to be better things to do with one's time. How do I get a life where I have nothing better to do than start a campaign about censoring tobacco from children's books? Damn, I need someone with a fire up their ass this strong to campaign for better working hours for residents.

We need to stop censoring every little thing. I am completely against tobacco, but we cannot bleach everything! We cannot make the world free of dirtiness and "no-nos" for our children. What we can do is freaking talk to them when we do see something like this, and use it as a teaching moment.

There.

Heidi - clearly not in a place from which she should be posting today.

[Rapunzel]

OK, thanks for clearing it up for me.

Why doesn't the publisher just NOT have a picture of the illustrator on the back cover? I can't think of very many children's books with an author/illustrator pic on the back cover (Shel Silverstein and Graham Base are the only two that come to mind). Why have it there at all? If it's objectionable to their customers just remove it and then the whole controversy is gone because it's moot.

I agree that it's just silly. But, I don't really feel strongly either way about it.

Jennifer