Quote:
Originally Posted by DNSB
A couple of the authors I chat with are playing with AI as an assistant. You can almost see the hearts in their eyes when they talk about what AI makes easier (outlines, research assistant, etc.) and what it doesn't. Evidently AI does a lousy job of emulating an author's 'voice' and often writes very stupid paragraphs when brainstorming. As one author put it, they have now written two books where they didn't screw up a character's name or used the wrong homonym which were two of their bêtes noire. OTOH, the opinion is that it still their book. AI is simply a tool much like Word or LO Writer or Vellum.
|
Well, on that front, similarly, I guess, I have to say that something that
I encounter, constantly, is the firm and unshakeable belief, by the authors in the matter, that the author of an illustrated kids book is the creator. That the book, in toto, is their book--that the illustrator solely works "for" him or her.
I've had any number of email discussions in my office, with angry kids' book authors who tell me that (basically) their illustrators tried to take credit for "their" book and that they'd
forgotten their place, essentially.
Now...that's all well and good, but you cannot tell me, or anyone that does not have an emotional attachment to a kids' book, that the illustrations don't, by and large, sell the book. Sure if you're Theodore Geisel (Dr. Seuss), you can probably say that (although he drew his own stuff too, so bad example, really); his written work was brilliant.
But the reality is, very few "brilliant" kids' books are out there. Most are pretty mundane. Johnny wakes up in his world; something happens; Johnny realizes that ZZZ is bad and then John takes steps and learns a good moral lesson. That's that and what makes people BUY, really, are the charm and charisma of the cover and the first few pages--and a huge percentage of that is down to the illustrator. NOT the author.
Now, financially, sure...if the author pays the illustrator, that's work for hire and all that entails. Not arguing that.
BUT, pretending that the illustrator's work
plays no part, whatsoever, in the book's success? Cracked, IMHO.
I'm just thinking that this scenario--how the author views the illustrator--isn't
totally dissimilar to how they may view the AI.
Hitch