I am always a little sad when I hear someone being steered away from a classic that has been illustrated for children.
The reasoning behind this seems to be in seeking to develop the inner eye (imagination), and appreciation for the language itself apart from the distraction of images.
On the very small chance that anyone reading this post holds that view, here is an analogy: Illustrations (when they are something the child is actually interested in, mind you) are very like bath toys.
There is an age when the water itself ceases to be infinitely entertaining and tub toys become a very motivating factor in continuing baths.
Pictures can serve the same purpose, holding the child’s attention long enough for us to pour the words over them and whet their minds with new phrases and ideas.
I am a visual learner so pictures aid my imagination. One of the horrifying realizations of this are my creations of monsters and evil things – assimilations from movie previews and other searing images in my mind. But you get the idea!
I also use combinations of illustrations or sets or other visual media to think about stories and characters while I’m away from the media and it really adds a needed context for me. It’s frustrating if I can’t “see” something in my mind.
Oh I looooove books with good illustrations. I can’t get enough Eric Carle books because I so love his artwork.
Because I am of an age, I remember seeing a lot of adult books from the turn of the century (1900) and they had beautiful illustrations. Gorgeous.
I’d love to see the return of that. And the rated G content (or at least pg)
Hugs-