Markup View

Author: LordGro

Jun 14th 2012 at 4:13:34 PM

^ My current definition ("the illustrations are a vital, non-interchangeable part") indeed excludes ''Alice'', as Wikipedia lists ten other artists who provided sets of illustrations (eleven if you count Carroll's own illustrations). The only condition on which it might fit under it would be if the other illustrations are really dependent on the Tenniel illustrations (remakes, so to say).

The same definition also excludes ''Discworld/{{Eric}}'', albeit for a different reason.

It ''does'', I think, include the Creator/WalterMoers books, which are young adult novels coming with extensive illustrations by the author; still they aren't what you would normally call "picture books".

Certainly we can change the definition, but this leads to the question: which one? I suppose ultimately every definition is going to produce borderline cases. I tried to formulate a definition which is clear and concise; but if I'd have to change it, I personally would tend to make it more narrow instead of wider (so that it excludes the Moers books, for example). ''Alice'' and ''Eric'' are more what I would call "illustrated books" and it feels a bit like overstretching the term "picture book" to include them.