I remember, I think, that Germaine Greer took over a cover design of one of her books because she thought the designs the publisher was pushing didn’t do the job, but it’s easy to see why when you have limited space, time, and such a limited brief.

Of course these days the publishers are falling over themselves to punt “celebrity” books and all those need is a photograph of the Z-lister on the cover.

I wouldn’t disagree with any of that. I’m hoping I’ve at least hinted at the caveat that an illustartor who at least makes the effort to become familiar with the text will do a good job.

I’m with you on the movie adaptations and I think Clueless is as excellent adaptation of Emma.

I think Dracula is a good example of a text that could be improved from being “graphic novelised” because the original story is epistolary and in my experience that is not a reader-friendly format.

However, a minor counter-example comes to mind: I’ve had conversations with readers who enthuse at great length about some bit of symbolism or meaning I put into my book and I know darn well I didn’t do it deliberately (as in your “Prisoner” Rover example, the real answer is usually that it was cheaper, quicker or easier to do it that way). I don’t argue. If they got something out of my work that I didn’t necessarily put into it, I’m happy. I’ll take the credit. It’s out of my hands.

While I think it’s usually a mistake to do graphic or illustrated adaptations of great (and not coincidentally public domain) works, it doesn’t offend me the way it seems to do you. If the new version has an interesting take or twist, it’ll endure as a barnacle attached to the original. If it’s bad, it’ll slip off and vanish very quickly. I think “West Side Story” is an enduring adaptation of “Romeo and Juliet”; Baz Luhrmann’s “Romeo + Juliet” probably isn’t (though time will tell).

My more fundamental objection is that most classic works simply don’t need to be redone graphically. A good illustrated story or graphic novel is exactly that from the start; words and pictures both convey meaning and neither tells the whole story by itself. In general, I find that graphic “enhancements” of prose classics dilute the stories into pretty thin broth. There’s a mismatch in information density. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but just try doing a comics version of Dickens sometime (which I did in school once): you’ll need to draw three or four pages just to superficially cover the characters and action on one page of his. If I recall correctly, Will Eisner was adapting “Oliver Twist” when he died; I’m kind of glad he didn’t finish. As great as Eisner was, Dickens simply didn’t need him.

But if someone wants to take a shot, I have no objection. That is one of the beauties and purposes of public domain. Anybody who wants to take a crack at Dracula or Sherlock Holmes is welcome to try, and occasionally it produces something interesting and good.

I think that is also what Prof Carey was getting at, so you are in good company. But I think that Blake could have tried a little harder to show us what Milton was getting at, as a poet himself. I mean, I think at times that Blake is too determined to draw genitals-like shapes and symbols into his work, than actually conveying the text – just look at the snake above.

I don’t make a distinction between high and low art though, as far as I’m concerned they are all cartoons, or all art:)

I like the Carroll joke.

As an illustrator I know I will never make the author truly happy, I work for an honest compromise … or even better, I work with a dead author who can’t complain! Right now I’m doing Carroll’s Snark & blogging it as I go along, so far, Carroll has been the model of politeness!