The Underneath discussion

I agree wholeheartedly. It reinforced my sense of it being the sort of animal story I had no interest in reading. I think it was either KT or Robin who said it made them think it would be K. Decamillo-like. I actually think the book has something in common with Despereaux, but certainly not Winn-Dixie which may have been what they were aiming at with this cover.

I also wonder if they were worried about the harsh elements and thought that both the cover and the illustrations would make it go down easier for kids. While I'm fine with the illustrations, I don't think they are necessary.

I disagree. To me, the cover doesn't look sweet at all. Ranger seems terribly tired and sad, and the cats so alert with those wide, round eyes -- like they've been taken by surprise. I opened The Underneath fully expecting a different breed of animal story.

This is just a matter of personal taste, but Stephen Gammell would have turned me off. He's great at mood, but I don't know if he would have captured the same depth and breadth. David Small doesn't shy for portraying weighty emotion in his drawings (see "The Friend" for a primo example) yet his style is still conveys a sense of warmth to me. I find Gammell to be very much an acquired taste. (Of course, I'm still hoping David Small and his wife will let me live under their porch someday, so take that into account!)

The darkness is indeed striking in a story for a relatively young audience so I understand why it's getting so much attention, but IMO, darkness isn't the overriding feature. In the end, the dark and the light balance each other; this is a story about love and redemption, so a dark or creepy cover would have given me an equally wrong impression.

Matter of fact, I think I'll start a thread on darkness...

I agree with Sarah that Small's cover works for me. I don't find it particularly attractive, granted, but there's something downtrodden about Ranger. Small's work in the book (Hawk Man's conspicuously missing hair aside) was right for the text. It had a weight to it that fit. Gar Face's actual features are never seen, which lends to his aura of menace. I would have designed the cover differently, but I wouldn't have switched illustrators for anything in the world. I mean, don't get me wrong. I love Mr. Gammell too, but this is not the right matchh for him.

I'm also of the opinion that the Small illustrations strike the right tone for this book. As for the jacket design, I think it may have revolved around explaining what "The Underneath" is -- that is, the area underneath the porch. "Underneath" usually isn't a noun; it's a somewhat puzzling title unless you know the context. The cover seems to provide a little bit of that context.

I'd have preferred a much "darker" cover, but feel the illustrations inside worked really well. The 11 and 12 year old kids I know adore those silly Twilight books, and part of their appeal is in the packaging. My students appreciate a little blood, death, and evil in their reading lives, which is why I've got such high hopes for this book. The cover seems targeted too much at the adult audience---at adults who don't really like to acknowledge that 11 and 12 year olds are more than ready to chew on big bites of dark realism.

I'm chiming in to say that to a child-reader, this cover looks just "oh, so cute." Seriously. I've had first hand experience by now with such reaction. The creamy color and the straightforward font do not convey the dark and deep tone of the book. That is NOT what the wood of the tilted house would look like! AT ALL. It looks clean and not dangerous.

Small's interior illustrations are fine, although I don't think they add any depth or help the readers with understanding further of the book. For example, on page 98, Grandmother Moccasin does not look anything like a mythical creature who is over-sized and commands reverence. The pictures are simply not swampy or steamy enough to match the tone of the telling. And WHY would this book need illustrations????

I just also read the jacket flap summary and it still does not reveal enough of the extend of the cruelty or the raw and graphic descriptions of the few torturous scenes enough to warn unsuspecting parents/young readers of the nature of this telling.

I also completely agree about the illustrations. I paid no attention to the illustrations as I read, developing my own images instead. The author provides such an incredibly vivid sense of place that illustrations seemed besides the point to me.

The flap copy is tricky. I was also mislead by it, expecting something more on the lines of Shiloh. But I'm just not sure how someone would manage to indicate the harshness without completely putting off all comers.

I agree that the cover is misleading. Although Ranger has the right look, your average kids aren't likely to pick up on that. I believe they'll think this is a fun, comical, dog-and-cat book like Bill Wallace's Snot Stew. (And boy, will they be in for a surprise.)

I think the idea of the cover is perfect, with the dog and kittens peeping out from underneath the porch, but the scene should look darker and more foreboding, to give readers a better sense of what to expect.