A reason not to give your books generic titles

[ritaxis]

There is an illustrated children's book called "The artist" in which the characters are mostly dogs. It's a horrible, horrible book, and I wanted to write about what is so very wrong with it, but I can't find it with an internet search because -- well, it's called "The artist."  And so are a jillion other books and movies.

So, the book gets off without a scolding from me because I can't find it, but you know what?  Nobody's going to say "Well, Lucy hates it, but she makes it sound interesting, I guess I'll check it out," either, and as far as I can tell the book has died a lonely and obscure death.

It did deserve it, though.

On another front: I have a new spot to pick wild plums, and therefore over four kilos of plums . . . but I can't find any canning lids despite the fact I know I have at least two boxes somewhere, so I hope the plums keep till tomorrow night.

Comments

[del-c.livejournal.com]

Is it "The Artist" by John Bianchi, with illustrations of a dog artist?

You were right that it's tricky to find. My google-fu failed me and I had to bring in specialist search engine (in this case Amazon). Obviously I'm showing off, but the generic title genuinely did make it tricky like you said.

[ritaxis.livejournal.com]

Yes, it is. It is a horrible, horrible book. I don't mean that it is poorly written or illustrated, I mean that it is an unethical thing, which attempts to discourage children from striving for a meaningful life.