Wednesday, November 01, 2006


Here comes part two. I will admit that I feel a bit like I shouldn’t do this... but I'm forging bravely on! I thought I'd spice this blog up a bit.

The first contender for things hidden in the artwork is the SALLY books. You know, the cute books about the dog.

I will now reveal to you all the kinds of things many booksellers talk about and breed while at work.

Look at the nose of this dog very carefully. Does it look like something else?

Please know that I did NOT discover this first and this is NOT what I do as a bookseller! However, once you see it you'll never see those Sally books the same way again!

Stay tuned for the second book on my list. The things hidden in this book coming up, in my opinion, HAD to have been done on purpose, but I think it'll be fun to discuss.

Please don't hate me for ruining children's books for all of you!


Stephanie Roth Sisson said...

Oh...gosh...there it is....right there...huh...not a very little one one caught that before it went to print? ooops-

Meghan McCarthy said...

Uh, yeah. And every dog is like that in every book!

alvinaling said...


Libby Koponen said...

It's hard to believe that the Art. Dept. didn't notice this -- though would I have noticed if it hadn't been pointed out to me? Probably not.

If kids notice, the fact that it's hidden will probably become a source of hilarity: Maurice Sendak said in a talk that in one of his books (you will probably know which, I can't remember) he drew a naked boy. Librarians freaked out and put tape over the offending part, which of course just made the kids pay more attention to it (they held the page up to the light). Lots of kids wrote to Sendak about this -- they thought it was great that he drew a naked kid.

Anonymous said...

Libby, I think you're referring to "In the Night Kitchen". Sendak certainly wasn't trying to hide anything. I wonder if that book would be printer the same today?

This kind of reminds me of the Disney "The Little Mermaid" video cover in the late 80's. I didn't notice until it was pointed out, but once I saw...there was no mistaking it.


Meghan McCarthy said...

I think Sendak's point was that there's nothing wrong with nudity. A little boy without clothes on is harmless. Kids run around naked all the time (well, at least where I come from). Hiding sexual things in artwork is a bit different. I really don't know that this example was intentional (possibly not) but just wait for the next one!

Anonymous said...

The next one?!!??

Libby Koponen said...

I agree, Meghan -- to Sendak, naked little boys (age plays a part!) are normal and natural....the librarians with their tape were making a big deal out of something that wasn't a big deal.

Anonymous: "the next one" is Meghan's next post about this.

Anonymous said...


Greg Pincus said...

My word... it's as plain as the nose on its face, isn't it?

(Actually, I wouldn't've thought twice had it not been singled out, I don't think. Looks dog-like to me. Funny, though)