Saturday, 13 July 2019

About Doors and Demons and Locks and Keys

What I wanted to write was some sort of essay – a studied piece of prose highlighting the sweeping themes and sleeping nuances, the essential elements and hidden treasures of Locke & Key.

That’s what I wanted to write.

But that sounded a bit too much like work and would certainly have been a chore to read.

Also, we would swiftly be entering spoiler territory.  How – HOW? – without spoilers, do you discuss a story that can have the very ending of the tale pointed out no sooner than the fourth page of the first issue?

Maybe I could write the Welsh translation of Locke & Key? Cloy ac Allwedd! Having taken only the first two introductory Cymraeg courses, I suspect I’m not up to that task . . . yet.

But I have been wanting to write something for a long time, something to honour the Fab Five who through IDW gifted us this great comic. A thank you note? A celebratory oration? This is probably a love letter!  And with filming of the Netflix show wrapped and the gang’s SDCC 2019 appearance days away, now’s the time.

[Cover of Welcome to Lovecraft ©IDW, Joe Hill, Gabriel Rodriguez]

From the moment you see it, you know it’s special, you’re in for something different.  The cover, like most traps, is deceptively simple. There’s the house – here’s the key – come on in – if you dare.

The house is enticing in its own way, unique and identifiable yet with obvious appreciation and homage to the spooky houses that came before it: Hill House, the House of Mystery, The Addams Family home, The Haunted Mansion and many more.  Of course most of these houses have the same parentage, the large “Victorian” home of the American northeast, old enough as it is yet you know it has roots and this house’s roots pre-date the American Revolution – hell, this house WON the American Revolution!

But don’t be fooled.  Don’t just walk in and expect to make yourself comfortable.  Look again at that key.  There’s a skull on it and it’s on a blood red background. Warning! Something dangerous is about.  And yet, it is a key – it’s meant to open a door.  Should you?

[SNAK! - ©IDW, Joe Hill, Gabriel Rodriguez]

SNAK! Quick as a snapped neck, you’re dead and now you are the ghost who haunts Key House and must witness its story.

Having been promised horror, you’re given it, immediately – strangers at the door, the angst of growing up, the gruesome loss of one family member and the horrible abuse of another – real life horrors not ghosts and demons (not yet) but things that really scare us.

And away we go!  The adventures of the Locke children have begun and 40 of the finest issues in all of comics history are yours to enjoy.

[Tyler and Jordon flunking; I said FLUNKING - ©IDW, Joe Hill, Gabriel Rodriguez]

Well, that was 250+ words mostly about the cover alone.  With so much more to be said about the actual pages of the first issue, spoilery or otherwise, you can see why a full blown doctoral dissertation or even a Master’s thesis on all 6 books and extras would be way too much.  So, to continue this meagre undergraduate candidate’s project, let’s have some fun looking at Locke & Key to see what’s NOT there!

[October Locke Lived With Bears - ©IDW, Joe Hill, Gabriel Rodriguez]

There are so many moments of the unknown and the unanswered to ponder and enjoy in Locke & Key.  We are treated to mere snippets of Key House history via the Guide to the Known Keys (clearly indicating there ARE unknown keys!) and though sets of comics from every time period in this home’s story would be glorious, we can appreciate in its absence the space in which to wander and wonder.  Of course we want more Locke & Key stories, as many as we can get, but the gift of being shown only fractions of other families and bits of here and there in town and then be allowed to think and dream on these aspects rather than be given any one resolution becomes part of the joy of reading.  For example, I’d LOVE a story about October Locke who lived with bears, but I’m loving *thinking* about October Locke living with bears!

So here, without any big spoilers though obviously some details of the story will be described, are a few of the unexplained (some as of yet and some maybe never) elements of Locke & Key:

From the very first and very last pages of this saga, is the appearance of a death head’s moth.  It reappears a few times in other issues, even in other forms, such as a kite.  So one would assume it has some significance.  Perhaps it can and perhaps it does.  It does tend to appear before a character’s death, rather convenient for a death head’s moth.  But then why does it appear at the very end . . . whose death is next?

“I could get used to being dead myself,” says Bode during one of his earlier uses of the Ghost Key.  As demonstrated by a couple of characters, there doesn’t seem to be any time limit on the use of this key, until the user returns through the Ghost Door into a host’s body, that being remains in a spirit form.  So, without giving away titles or characters or too much of any plots, we know there is one character who went through the Ghost Door and did not come back through.  So is Key House truly a Haunted House?

Again, without trying to give too many details away for new readers, in a particular story we see the character Louis leaving Key House distressed and in an altered state, heading who knows where.  Once must assume headed to Lovecraft.  What happened to Louis?  Did Louis keep running or decide to make the best of the situation and settle in town?  If the latter, it’s possible, just maybe, that one of our current characters is the great-grandchild or later of Louis and you must wonder what stories may have been made up and passed down through the decades.

[What's missing? - ©IDW, Joe Hill, Gabriel Rodriguez]

It’s written somewhere (and I really wish I could remember where) that Joe Hill was talking about how some dialogue was accidently dropped from a panel of Locke and Key and yet the result was quite good, it looked really natural and was quite dramatic.  That’s the specific panel, right up there.  It does look good, huh?  The whole page is full of action and emotion.  But no dialogue.  What was said here?  Now, (psst! Chris) unlike most of the other questions in this piece (Chris! Chris Ryall!) *this* one actually HAS an answer.  But how can we discover it? (Chris, psst! Hey!) WELL, if you’ve been collecting IDW’s gorgeous oversized special editions of Locke & Key, like I have, (oh, Chris . . . ) you know these tomes come with Joe’s original scripts! SOOO, we could know the answer (Pleeeeeeease!) if IDW publishes the fourth volume, Keys to the Kingdom in special edition (Please, Chris, PLEASE!). (And in a spirit of fairness and curiosity, Subterranean Press HAS published their collector editions of the fourth volume so if any of you good folk out there have one, could you please share the missing quotes with us? Thank you!)

While we’re on the topic of things missing from comic panels, let’s turn our attention to Bode’s very own comic art from the second issue of Welcome to Lovecraft.  Here, he retells the story of how he and his family came back to Lovecraft.  And his eye for details is extraordinary.  I mentioned the potential “page 4” spoiler earlier, well Bode could spoil it here too, so I’d better hurry.  This page is an amazing work of “meta”; a simultaneous full page single panel and five panel page, an amazing second issue recap, a wonderful insight into Bode and a highly effective push the plot along device.  In addition to all that brilliance – what’s in the last panel???? We could easily believe it shows Bode being a ghost with his ghost dad, I believe that’s the surest bet, but if there is an answer, I’d love to know it.

[C'mon Bode, show us what's in the box - ©IDW, Joe Hill, Gabriel Rodriguez]

In a scene not quite identical to Miranda and Benjamin Locke living in the Well House, in Open the Moon we see Harland and Chamberlain discussing poor Ian Locke, with Harland hard at work on, what else, a lock.  But is this a simple everyday common lock?  Well, it could be . . . sorry but it could, I don’t really know . . . however we know Harland is one of the most talented creators of the keys there is, making truly gorgeous keys and usually quite exquisite items to be used with those keys.  So there is a good chance this is something beyond a normal lock.

Clockworks shows us all about Rendell and his gang and how they used the keys – often and extravagantly!  But what about poor little brother Duncan?  He obviously got to use the Gender Key, almost exclusively it would seem, and he shares his memories with Nina, of playing games with Rendell that seemed magical in retrospect, because of course they were!  But after the terrible events new readers will have to read about, the keys are dispersed and I for one wonder what effect this had on Duncan who would still be of age unaffected by the Hannes Riffel rule for a few more years.  Did he have trouble adjusting without these keys?  Were there still other ones at his use?  Did he ever use the Echo Key like Rendell did?  Some interesting wonders and what ifs.

[If only Rendell lived that to be that old - ©IDW, Joe Hill, Gabriel Rodriguez]

What is (to my thinking, please let me know if you think there are others) the only key USED in Locke & Key but neither shown nor named?  For instance, there could be a key that was “named” and used, but not shown, that is assuming that the Hannes Riffel rule was created by the use of a key, we would assume that’s its name and we know it has been used, because the rule is in effect.  Well, since it wasn’t named, I have to call it the Age Key, though it might be the Grown-Up Key.  The Girl in the Well mentions it to Bode right before describing the Gender Key and naming the Anywhere Key, “Want to be a grown-up? There’s one that will turn you into an old person when you walk through it.”  When was it used?  At the same time as no less than five (I’m cheating a bit) other keys, maybe more, during the performance of The Tempest.  That’s not makeup on “Prospero”, that’s an old Rendell, sadly, older than he would ever actually get to be (Do any of the keys have side effects?).  So what does it look like?  Has it actually been shown, thus ruining my little trivia question?  And how is it used – when you walk through it – a door, a mirror, a gate, a hall?  I do suppose we will be shown this one, one day.  I think (hope) Joe and Gabriel have a surprise for us.

Most of the keys were born in war.  Most of them are, quite literally, weapons, and even some of the ones that aren’t, can be “weaponised”.  The generations of the Lockes have had their fair share of enemies and it was very kind of the Locke & Key team to interrupt their story of adventure and terror to give us a sweet interlude called Open the Moon (Yes I cried and so did you!) and introduce us to Chamberlain Locke, a delightful man whose only enemy seemed to be life.  I was thrilled to see Chamberlain’s name on the IMDb cast list for Netflix’s show and I am excited and anxious to see how the writers are going to use him so early in their narrative.  Quick Side Note: If IMDb information is correct, the cast list shows the writers have made some very interesting changes for the television show and this is quite exciting.  We are definitely getting a somewhat different story from the books and I look forward to seeing it.  And what a treat anyone has in store if they see the show first and then read the books! Any way – I really like Chamberlain but I suspect he has his secrets and dark sides, too.  He also had his enemies as indicated in his entry to the Guide to the Known Keys for the Chain Key and the Great Lock.  I would be glad to see more of his story but I am also glad to imagine my own.

Depending on how widely read you are with Joe Hill’s stories, the mostly unspoilery answer to this is yes and there is photographic evidence.  There, I’ve said too much and have said nothing at all.  But the point I am making is that while reading Locke & Key I always wondered if ONLY a key was made from the Iron and not the object or part of the object keys are sometimes used with.  The Anywhere Key needs nothing else except one’s mind to work.  The Ghost, Animal, and Gender Keys all have corresponding doors to function properly, and those doors are merely plain doors without the Keys. The Timeshift, Music, and Mending Keys need their corresponding Clock, Music Box, and Cabinet to perform their magic.  I had wondered if there was any Iron in these items.  I don’t think so, after all the magic is in the Keys and the Keys do what they are designed to do.  But why always keys?  Surely someone else made something else from Whispering Iron.  Which of course leads us neatly to . . .

Well, I mean, really, just think about it . . . wow!  From here questions, like the keys in the final panel of Welcome to Lovecraft, just spiral out of control. HOW MANY KEYS ARE THERE?  We’re told a hundred, but, I mean, really, just think about it . . . WHO MADE THE KEYS? Or more accurately  WHAT KEYMAKERS (or lockEsmiths!) HAVE WE YET TO MEET? Really, just think about it . . . wow . . . I mean HOW DID THEY GET THEIR IRON?  HOW MUCH IRON WAS THERE?  HOW MUCH IRON IS THERE?  HOW MUCH IRON WILL THERE BE? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Well, I mean, really, just think about it . . . this is up to the Locke & Key team and wow! . . . we can’t wait to see what they do next!

[We've got 9 of the 14! - ©IDW, Joe Hill, Gabriel Rodriguez & Shane Leonard & Skelton Crew]

There are many more questions, some of them sheer speculation and curiosity like wouldn’t it be great to see some of the Lockes from the Swingin’ 60s but many others of them with MASSIVE spoilers –
!!!IF YOU HAVE NOT READ LOCKE & KEY SKIP THE REST OF THIS PARAGRAPH!!!  !!!IF YOU HAVE NOT READ LOCKE & KEY SKIP THE REST OF THIS PARAGRAPH!!!  !!!IF YOU HAVE NOT READ LOCKE & KEY SKIP THE REST OF THIS PARAGRAPH!!! like these two questions which I will still ask as sparsely as possible – Has Rendell knowledgeably / subconsciously / unknowingly “armed” at least two of his children? and Is the “Whispering Iron” able to communicate with Rendell on any level?  Perhaps there is some place safe to discuss these meatier topics but definitely not here.

Okay! Safe to pick-up reading from here:

As the title clearly shows, Locke & Key is the story of the family and the keys – the story of the keys IS the story of the family, a point made, it should be noted, by the villain in volume six.  And the key to the future? Well, the Netflix series hopefully airs in February 2020 and we sincerely hope more new comics are to follow! I hope if you’re already a fan, you’re ready to read it all again and if you are new to the title, oh yes, please, please read it.

I thought discovering exciting reads had left me after childhood, the joy of meeting new things to love like Narnia, Doctor Who, and the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, was gone.  The last true love of mine was a trilogy of strips that all folded by the mid-90’s, Bloom County, The Far Side and of course Calvin & Hobbes.  So to find over a decade later something that lit the same fire in me all of those titles did was truly joyous and obviously I love it.

Thank you Joe, Gabriel, Robbie, Jay and Chris, thank you! To those of you bringing the Netflix show to us, wow, we can’t wait.  (And the fact that Rodriguez’s Key House *might* now exist as a built set is beyond my excitement threshold – skuh-rooo Disney World, I want to go to Key House!)  Oh, Kathryn and Israel and the gang of Skelton Crew, thank you!  To be 50 years old and playing with keys from comic books is great!!  I’m still working on the new display for the keys we have so far (and the ones we yet to have!) but pictures will go up on Twitter as soon as it is finished.  I’m still worried I stole the idea for the display from someone else but I have searched and can’t find where anyone else shared it, so hopefully not but just in case, my apologies to you if we stole this display idea from you – except for Joe and Gabriel, oh yeah, we totally stole this idea from you guys – lump it!

To all of you going, have a great and safe 50th anniversary SDCC 2019!  Celebrate your favourite titles and may you find some new ones.  I hope Locke & Key is one of them.  Now . . . where did I put the Anywhere Key and that picture of Hall H . . .

Thursday, 23 June 2016

The Marvellous Misattribution of Oz

An image on a greeting card will hopefully renew interest in its creator, especially since the credit for his work was given to someone else. This simple yet significant error should also stoke ongoing debates about certain copyright issues and further prove the need to credit artists for their work.

For decades, museums and other visitor attractions have sold books, prints and trinkets to help raise funds needed to continue their operations. An article from The Pittsburgh Press in January 1979 shows Max Leason's success in the National Gallery of Art, Washington DC, overseeing the sale of prints of famous paintings from their collection. Today, tourist sites and publishing companies have combined online to sell such products nearly anywhere in the world where access to the internet is readily available.

If you are in a museum shop and you see cards, magnets, tablet cases and so forth adorned with old book covers, adverts from long ago, nostalgic children's book characters or artwork of contemporary and classic artists, then you are observing the merchandise from one of these companies.

Take for example this card featuring the cover from an adaptation of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. It is produced by Museums & Galleries Ltd, and its sale raises money for the British Library.

Card design copyright Museums & Galleries Ltd 2014; Cover copyright The British Library Board 2014; Card can be purchased online at

L. Frank Baum's first and most famous story from his 14 book series has been reprinted numerous times. It's been adapted into many other formats, translated for readers all over the world and even continued by a troop of successive authors each hoping to be considered by fans as the next true "Royal Historian of Oz".

Oh yes, you *might* have seen a film of the story, too.

The original illustrator of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz was William Wallace Denslow and arguably the most well-known artist, certainly the most prolific, was John R. Neill who drew the pictures for 36 of the subsequent Oz books written by Baum, then Ruth Plumly Thompson followed by Neill himself. Two books illustrated by Frank Kramer and one by Dirk Gringhuis followed. There was also Dick Martin though he possibly did more to make Oz famous by being a long-time leader of the International Wizard of Oz Club and editor of its magazine, The Baum Bugle.

Artwork by W. W. Denslow, copyright Dover Publications Inc 1960, originally George M Hill Company 1900

Artwork by John R. Neill, copyright L. Frank Baum, Reilly & Lee 1913

Artwork by Frank Kramer, copyright Reilly & Lee 1949

Hundreds of artists, familiar and unknown, have placed their artistic spin on the fantastical characters from this magical land. Indeed, there are collectors of Oz books as the first picture of this post clearly shows.

So, who is the artist of the cover that appears on this card? The back of the card gives this info:

card design copyright Museums & Galleries Ltd 2014; Please do consider buying this card - funds go to help the work of British Library

So the card shows W. W. Denslow as being the creator of the art featured. Well, let's play a game of "spot the difference".

Artwork by W. W. Denslow, copyright Dover Publications Inc 1960, originally George M Hill Company 1900; Artist to be revealed later, copyright Maud G. Baum, Bobbs-Merrill Company 1939

How many differences have you found? There's at least one major difference. The illustrator.

How did the mix-up happen?

Museums & Galleries Ltd produces cards and other items that not only support sites like the V&A and the Fitzwilliam but also charities such as the British Heart Foundation, NSPCC and Shelter. Though the cards can be sold anywhere, including many specialist stationary and arts and craft shops, the images that appear on their products are usually sold in the shops of the organisations that hold that artwork in their collection. Museums & Galleries Ltd, and any similar companies that exist, undoubtedly have rules and practices in place to ensure that the images they use are done so legally and correctly, so one image isn't placed with the wrong description or to avoid simple, easy to make typographical errors.

Products from the Museums & Galleries ranges would seem to have at least a little extra quality control already built into their system. The data with which they are provided is almost assuredly correct considering its source, some of the most prestigious academic organisations in the world. But anyone can make a mistake.

What was the source of the information for the Wizard of Oz card? The catalogues of the British Library. So what went wrong? Take a look at the record for the book from which the cover image is taken:

Though bibliographic records are used, shared and referenced all the time, this is a piece of data and can be considered intellectual property - the image also shows bits and pieces of graphics from the British Library website, therefore, image and data copyright The British Library 2016

All the information in this record is correct, just not complete - accurate but not necessarily applicable to the image from the card. The trust placed in this resource is understandable. The data is coming from the British Library, that's pretty impressive. But that confidence made the users surpass a simple step - check, double-check even, your data. Yet, how often does anyone question anything read in a newspaper or from an Internet based news site? With the speed in which the data is thrown out, everyone should practice vigilance but rarely anyone does. The warning flag in this case should have been the obvious lack of details. The record is even written out in full English, no old fashioned abbreviations or terms like "et al". It clearly states "illustrated by W. W. Denslow and others". Who are the other illustrators? What are the other books? Books about Oz, but not all titled The Wizard of Oz, in fact, by strict catalogue standards, none of the books bear that exact title.

There are dozens more questions that spring to mind, but most are probably only to the interest of a cataloguer. Other than the additional illustrators, the only crucial mystery is why is the record so sparse, what's the reason for the lack of detail? Investigating these books at the British Library, my guess (and only a guess) is the materials were considered to be more of ephemera than items worthy of keeping in the collection. Perhaps the plan was to either withdraw them or update the record later and the plan was never fulfilled. One of the items is a colouring book, another is a "paint" book. One item, though nearly a complete reprint of the original Oz story with lots of Denslow illustrations (yes, for sure, Denslow), the book was obviously just a fancy ad for the famous MGM film of 1939. The cover reads "Read the book-- See the film --" and says in addition to the Denslow pictures "also a coloured still from the £750,000 MGM coloured film". Even the book that is featured on the card is a mere ten pages in which approximately four-fifths of each page is picture and the entire story is summarised into approximately 500 words. Now, with about seventy years of hindsight from when the books were submitted to the collection, these are items that the British Library are fortunate to still have. Some of these items are completely British in origin while others are British editions of the American version, thus showing the international appeal of what many call "the" American fairy tale.

So, would a more detailed catalogue record have prevented this mistake? Maybe not.

Put yourself in the cataloguer's seat and collate all the details you can for this book. Here's the actual book:

copyright Bobbs-Merrill Company 1939

And here's ALL the bibliographic data from inside the book:

copyright Bobbs-Merrill Company 1939

Notice the obvious problem?

The artist isn't credited.

Additionally, or rather absently, the UK version of this book which is owned by the British Library and was published by Hutchinson, doesn't have ANY bibliographic information like the US version. The fact that Hutchinson was the publisher is known only because their name appears on the cover of the British book.

Here, I would normally show images of what I was discussing, in this case the UK cover of the book and inside page with the (missing) bibliographic data, but there is a slightly different copyright issue in the way. Most of the images in this post are legitimately out of copyright, though their details are given as if they weren't. This is done to fulfil some readers' curiosity about the sources of the images but also to emphasise some of the points being made in this post such as giving credit to artists for their work and crediting sources. Images still covered by copyright are being used in the understanding of "criticism, review and reporting current events" and "fair dealing" alongside the practice of "sufficient acknowledgement". (

All ten pictures from this book, as well as the front and back cover, along with many pictures from Denslow, are available for use with a license from the British Library. Images Online ( is a system the British Library runs to control the use of resources within their care whether they are in or out of copyright. The idea is hardly new, places like Bridgeman Art Library have been around since the 70s and many auction houses have a similar service like Sotheby's Picture Library. There are many online image collections, some reputable, some with issues, the most common problem being, whether accidental or intentional, theft of intellectual property as many comic book artists and cartoonists can attest to, having seen their work slapped over all sorts of merchandise without their consent or share of profits.

In the case of The Wizard of Oz Picture Book, since the British Library has a copyright on their images of this out-of-copyright book, I will not trespass on their holdings. Since I have no UK copy of the book, I cannot make my own images. However, feel free to visit the above link and, for a short while at least, type "Denslow" and "Oz" into the search box and view the results. Of course, at some time in the near future, you will have to type the correct name of the actual illustrator of these pictures.

So, who is it?

Return to your cataloguer's chair and the image of the bibliographic data. Do you see anything in the picture? Look closely at the very bottom right of the artist's work. No, that's not just blades of grass, that's a signature. Things still aren't quite perfect. To my eyes, I originally misread the name as "Larson". But the signature is clearer in other pictures, and it says "Leason". Before the Internet and thus access to almost every other libraries' catalogue, you were a fortunate facility if you had access to authority records. With these records, also called authority files or control files, you might have been able to track down the illustrator and even better, the correct illustrator, especially with such a less common name. Thankfully the artist wasn't named Smith. But even with an uncommon name, such a search isn't guaranteed. If you found the books The Open Sea and The Wonderful Story of the Sea both by A. C. Hardy, you would be certain they were the same person. Be assured however, that Sir Alister Clavering Hardy and Captain Alfred Cecil Hardy are two very different people with many other very different books.

There is a name for this artist. He is Percy Alexander Leason, and what an artist he was. If you want the facts (and you do) these resources already contain much better jobs than I would ever do:
I will make these brief statements. Percy Leason was an accomplished cartoonist - he was hired at the Sydney Bulletin when David Low came to England and later in Melbourne he created the single pane comic that would make him locally famous called Wiregrass. In the company of fellow artist Max Meldrum he would embrace and master the school of Tonalism and in 1934 he completed his most majestic project of all, 28 portraits of Aboriginal Australians who were alive in the last years of Queen Victoria's reign. These works were seen as controversial at the time but a revival exhibit at the National Portrait Gallery of Australia from 1999-2000 brought them to the eyes of modern Australia who understood their historical and social value. Upon moving to America he obtained a little work in illustrating children's books including of course, The Wizard of Oz Picture Book and a tome that has to be described as "lovely" as it was a "huge" part of my childhood, The Big Book of Dogs. (It was my sister's book, but boy did I look at it all the time!)

artwork by Percy Leason, copyright Felix Sutton, Grosset & Dunlap 1952

He spent several years teaching art in schools and privately and was commissioned for several portraits, too. Sadly, throughout the 50's, work disappeared and his health declined. In a biography accessible by the first link above, his son wrote:
"He died on Staten Island, New York, practically penniless and very despondent at not having received adequate recognition for his labours."

And that's what this post is mostly about. Recognition. Because a publisher simply didn't put Percy Leason's name on the cover of a book all those years ago one of the finest institutions in Britain has passed his work on to someone else. It is with either none or complete irony, that the revival exhibit of his Aboriginal portraits was entitled, "Recognition". Samples of that work can be seen here:

I think some members of his family, obviously and understandably proud of his work, are behind this Facebook page with lots of his art:

It's a fantastic coincidence, that the object in question is a card being sold today to raise money for a "museum", just like Percy's son, Max Leason used to sell at the National Gallery in Washington DC years ago.

It's also a problem that hasn't gone away. Artists who decorated our lives in children's books and comics and posters and cartoons are thrown away from our memories like rubbish. Some lucky ones are occasionally remembered in waves of nostalgia and a few long-time illustrators like "long-ago" Beatrix Potter and "here-today" Quentin Blake have been cemented in our minds. But some artists, once loved and still important, like Charles Keeping and Erik Blegvad or Faith Jacques (the first illustrator of the UK edition of Charlie and Chocolate Factory by Roald Dahl) and Pauline Baynes (illustrator of Narnia AND Middle Earth AND the old Watership Down cover) are all but gone from the collective consciousness.

Wonderful artists still don't get credit either. Book reviews, promotional materials, award lists, even still the actual books themselves often don't mention the artist. HUGE thanks (and often HUGE HATS) to Sarah McIntyre and her campaign PICTURES MEAN BUSINESS which you can learn about here:

Finally, what next?

First, shortly after posting this story, I shall visit the British Library's website again and request additions be made to the catalogue record. It will be fairly easy, especially since Percy Leason is already in the BL catalogue for his work in poetry books and western adventure stories.

image and data copyright The British Library 2016

Second, I am sure after a quick message that Images Online will update their records and show the name Percy Leason next to his colourful, lively and wonderfully artful images of Oz (look at "the triangle" in the picture where the Wizard flies away or "the s curve" when the characters discover the Wizard behind the screen).

Third, I hope (hope, hope, hope) there might be the possibility of reprinting the card this time with Percy Leason's name on it. This might be too expensive to contemplate. The card may not be selling well, which would explain why no Oz fan has yet to say, "wait a minute, that's not Denslow . . ." It may be necessary to sell the current stock. Who knows? But as I wrote earlier, please consider buying this card - funds go to help the work of British Library.

image and data copyright The British Library 2016 Go ahead, buy a misprinted one and then buy a corrected one if they reprint it!

I also can't help but hope maybe the British Library can do "a little something" extra to help give Percy Leason some recognition. Maybe a small exhibit of Oz books in the lobby? A feature on portraiture or Tonalism with some of his works? Again, who knows? They're good and busy people there, you should go if you have never been. It's got a great gift shop!

And for all of us - remember that book you loved as a kid? Who did the art? Do you know? No, then find out. Yes, tell people about it. Find out about that person. What other work did they do? Are they still alive? Write them and say thank you. But don't let them become forgotten. Everybody likes a little recognition.

Until next time - Read, Care, Create
The Library Spider

[Disclaimer - The use of screenshots or other images in this post is in no way meant to be a breach of copyright law.  The images are being used to validate the text of this post.  All text and images are the intellectual property of their individual creators and this writer makes no claim to their authorship and will receive no financial gain from their clearly evident educational and journalistic use.  Images may have been altered to show only the detail needed to verify the facts of this post.]

Wednesday, 29 May 2013

Little Poem, who made thee?

A poem written by a contemporary American author is being taught in schools across the United States and England as the work of one of Britain’s most famous scribes.  This innocent verse is escaping the detection of experienced educators because an error exists in a lesson plan circulating many web sites, from loosely monitored forums to highly reputed and authoritative resources including some run by government agencies.

Teachers searching the Internet for examples of poetry to use in their instruction are finding a poem entitled “Two Sunflowers Move into the Yellow Room”.  A great number of the suggested web sites claim the poem was written by William Blake.  Rather than being composed around 200 years ago, it was written by the poet Nancy Willard for her 1981 book A Visit to William Blake’s Inn which won America’s highest award for children’s literature, the Newbery Medal.  This book shows Ms Willard’s appreciation for the work of Blake and her poems make many allusions to his verse, in this case “Ah Sunflower, weary of time” from Songs of Innocence and Experience.  Ms Willard’s prowess as an author is easily proven from her large amount of published works, collection of awards and career as a teacher of writing, but attributing any work from the 20th century to one of the best known and most studied poets of two centuries previous is a sizeable blunder.  So, how did it happen?

The error began in 2001 on Oracle Education Foundation’s web site ThinkQuest, a collection of online educational resources designed by students from around the world.  A group of students contributed a project called “Poetry as We See It” which defines certain elements of poetry and gives samples to illustrate those concepts.  As stated in their introduction, the boys and girls looked for older poems which would no longer be subject to copyright law.  Amongst books with works by Robert Browning, Emily Dickinson and Robert Louis Stevenson, the students found Ms Willard’s homage to Blake.  But, as attested to on their bibliography and a page of examples (see following images), they thought the poems were actually written by William Blake.

With this mistake now in public view on a site that specifically promotes itself to be visited by other school students and their teachers, one would think within a matter of days or at most months either a reader of Blake or of children’s books would have spotted the fault and called for its correction.  Instead, some people began linking to this page as a resource and a few others clearly copied the sources these children had gathered and presented them online as a lesson plan of their own creation.  The misattribution began to spread.  The following images are from online lesson plan banks, Q&A web pages and other wiki-style sites.

There are many other types of web sites reprinting this mistake.  These are mostly personal blogs and websites created by individual students and whole classes that have all posted the poem for various reasons.  At the time of posting this entry, a reader would merely have to type “two sunflowers” and “blake” into any search engine to receive a lengthy list of such sites.  These results will also include a sufficient number of links that correctly mention Ms Willard’s book as the accurate source of the poem, too.  Hopefully over a short amount of time, the list of inaccurate sites will decrease sharply as the correct information begins to disseminate across the Internet.  However, the more teachers use the consistently re-copied lesson plan, the more accepted the mistake becomes.  The more accepted the mistake becomes, more users reprint the error.  The inaccurate data has even appeared in books printed for teacher use and other resources touted by reputable educators.

A survey conducted by the writer of this post of primary schools in three UK counties reveals the possibility that one out of every four schools is using the poem “Two Sunflowers” as attributed to William Blake.  The ratio is hopefully much less as the results were tallied from the first hundred replies of over 300 requests sent.

This error has now floated all the way to the top of authority and could be exponentially repeated by more teachers than ever but could also finally be noticed and identified.  Remarkably, it remains uncorrected in spite of its growing use and replication.  The following screenshots are from university based education programmes encouraging the use of the poem as written by Blake and from four US state government school boards.

Two of the last three images are from the resource bank of the Times Educational Supplement and from a site entitled Read, Write and Think which is promoted by the National Council of Teachers of English and the International Reading Association.  These are very dependable and effective sources of data, but this little slip-up shows how all too easily such an inaccuracy can slip into authoritative places without more cautious moderation.  Even an Ofsted inspector had to accept “the fact” of William Blake’s authorship of “Two Sunflowers” when it was presented to her by a group of young students via a project on their display board.

When told of the scope of this misinformation Ms Willard replied, “Blake must be turning over in his grave.”  She also added, “Do not put ALL your trust in the Internet.  Go to the firsthand sources.”

But what do we do now the Internet has become a firsthand source?

The amount of information on the Internet and the speed with which it can be accessed are two of its strengths as a resource.  But what use is quick data if it is wrong?  And yet, the acceptance of misinformation is hardly new and sadly neither is its intentional use.

In less than ten years a simple, rather innocent and easily fixable error has evolved into school policy and good practice simply due to the blind acceptance of quick and easy “research”.  Hopefully it will not take that long to repair.

Until next time - Read, Care, Create
The Library Spider

[Disclaimer - The use of screenshots in this post is in no way meant to be a breach of copyright law.  The images are being used to validate the text of this post.  All text and images are the intellectual property of their individual creators and this writer makes no claim to their authorship and will receive no financial gain from their clearly evident educational and journalistic use.  Images have been altered to show only the detail needed to verify the facts of this post.]