Ravioli, I'm curious, are you currently illustrating something for an author prior to the author having a deal with a publisher, and is that why you are so frustrated? Because the author was planning on subbing the two of you together and now you are worried that the publisher would just hire a different illustrator after you've done all this work? Are you also doing this work for free or for very little money with the hopes that later when the book gets published you'll get money on the back end and now realising that that might never happen and you've done all this work possibly for nothing, not even exposure?
Neither. While it would be disappointing, I would have had my fun and my pay, made a friend, and could probably get his permission to use the images for private bragging/portfolio.
I am "frustrated" that the logic "Publisher/editor knows best, so an author's pick CAN'T be good and SHOULD NOT even be considered" is being defended while nothing short of ridiculous and small-minded, and actually I should not have used the word "logic" at all as there is none. After all, never did I say an author's pick must be accepted or is always better, but I refuse to see the reasoning behind not even
considering it. An author, for not being an editor, isn't necessarily less competent in finding good art appropriate for the project. Hell, what if they happen to have the same illustrator in mind?
And it is the author's work the publisher is gonna make another load of money off, so one might just NOT DIE from giving the author the respect of
having a look. Plus, many illustrators will misrepresent things. I would never tolerate that to be done to my story. Images are powerful. If the image is incorrect, the story is done. Get a friend with a dog to hold out the leas and climb over it, and take a picture in the middle of the motion. Put it online. The person is kicking the dog. Shamed, death-threatened, fired. No. Images must respect the story and STICK TO IT.
That is a reasonable fear to have, and it would absolutely suck royally to be in that position. But it doesn't change the facts, and it doesn't matter how indignant you get about this, the industry is what the industry is. I would suggest that instead of getting mad at how the industry is run you might want to do more research and see how best you can play the game within the industry.
The industry being what it is, doesn't make it logical or fathomable to reject without consideration, a potential gem. Sometimes your on-site illustrator may not be right for that particular book. That, too, is a fact. No illustrator can take ALL jobs and do them well. You won't find many cute fuzzy animal watercolours in a portfolio full of 3D renders of space- and warcraft. Why not HAVE A LOOK at alternatives just because god forbid the author suggested them? This question is being meticulously avoided. "It doesn't work that way" makes no sense, because sometimes the way it's usually done needs an update or a case-by-case deviation.
Global warming happened with that reasoning. It worked fine, so why change. Now we have 17° Celsius Christmas in the Netherlands. A fast and doable switch to alternatives, nah, that's not how it used to work so well, let's carry on over-producing cattle which farts holes into the ozon layer and needs tons of heat-generating electricity instead of breeding as much as is eaten. It would kill NO ONE to CONSIDER alternatives. EVER. And now we're headed for a 7 billion strong mass suicide. No, wait, 8 billion, because procreating responsibly among humans is also "not how it works".
For example, have you considered putting together a portfolio and submitting yourself as an artist to various publishers? I have a lot of artist friends who illustrate for publishers and it's a similar process to become an illustrator for a publisher as it is to become an author for one. You don't have to just sit there unemployed. Nor do you have to wait around for some benevolent author to find you. You can take charge and send your work to publishers without having an author attached.
Nope, I will make no such efforts
I have no ambitions in the field as I love drawing and don't want to get sick of it by drawing what I'm told to rather than what I love. If I ever want to illustrate a book, I will do it based on my personal interest and for pay, or my own for the sake of the illustrations themselves - so there will be no trade publishing if my art is to be disrespected by scrapping my hard work to have it replaced without truly considering the need to do so. I mean seriously, how does this scenario look right:
- Author submits story and illustrations by external artist
- Editor reads story.
- Sees included illustrations. Thinks they're great. They do the job. Save time and money of getting own illustrator to it.
- Throws them in the trash.
...uh what this makes no sense whatsoever.
Also author/illustrators are something a little different. As in, if the author is ALSO the illustrator it is possible to get a gig with a publisher as well. Of course you'll still need that illustrator portfolio. Again, I am friends with several such creators. Have you considered writing and illustrating your own work that way?
I have and I'm done with one short chidlren's book. And it's either with my art, or no deal at all because my art was the point of it. I accept editing text for quality purposes, as is typically done in trade publishing. Likewise, if my art is part of my story, I will accept corrections be made to the existing image - not third party replacements misrepresenting everything. Or else, why not have the editor rewrite and reinvent my story just as my images have been replaced by another's? Why not? You don't change a good story, so why reject good illustrations? Where does one draw the line in maiming and misrepresenting a submission? If the illustrator can decide animals must be humans while animals in the story, let's make the hetero couple gay... the feline hero? A wolf!
I get the anger. We chatted in another thread about doing work for free in the hopes of exposure and you got upset there too when we said one should generally pay artists and as artists ask for pay.
When did I get upset about having to pay an artist? Of course you have to pay anyone working for you unless they volunteer. I said it is not exploitation if you consent. I actually recall saying something rather deprecating about aspiring artists who think "exposure" from an unpublished author would be a worthy payment. But presumably informed consent, no matter how desperate in a situation that is all about ego, is the opposite of (unethical) exploitation, so whoever wants to work for the lie of exposure, I won't stop'em.
I think you feel like things are out of your control and you are not in a position to ask for money and you feel you can't get into the industry and that you are desperately trying lots of different things but they aren't panning out. But I think you need to take a step back and do a lot more research.
The industry doesn't tempt me and I'd rather have no part in anything that involves deadlines but no 4 figure monthlies. I care for my hard - extremely hard - work to be respected. Which would be very easily done by
considering, not forcibly accepting, it with any submission it is attached to. Saying off the bat "We don't want your illustrator, we always know best and your picks can't be it because you're not us" is inherently disrespectful and illogical.
I don't care about my success as an artist. I do care about
respect. It takes no more than 30 seconds upon knowing the story to see whether or not the art is appropriate.
Mind you, I am ALWAYS referring to provided, finished art, not the promise of great art. A minute tops is too much of a show of respect to ask? Browsing deviantART, I know from a glimpse at a thumbnail whether to laugh or look, so I'm sure the editor can squeeze in those extra 30 seconds to decide whether or not dig up a new diamond or stick with the old one. Respect. It costs nothing. Neither does broadening one's horizons when you get it
served on a platter. Not "I'd like you to meet my illustrator who lives in a no-streetnames village in rural Timbuktu and has no internet access". "See images attached" is all. That is all it takes to show a hard worker a minimum of respect. No need to even get up.
Because you CAN get into the industry, and you CAN get paid for your work.
I wouldn't ever want that. I nearly rejected the guy I worked with now because I prefer not to commercialise a hobby as exhausting as creating images.
I am upset at the attitude of "OMG NO WE CANNOT EVER HAVE A LOOK AT YOUR PICK BECAUSE WE HAVE OURS!". Because it's illogical, kills potential gems, and disrespects the submitting author and their illustrator. I would never sign a contract disrespecting someone who worked for me. Unless they looked at my pick and have a convincing argument against it ("We know best" isn't one because exorcists tend to say the same).
they have access to a pool of very good ones.
Except sometimes they don't, what then? Let their poor pick maim a book? I have seen nightmares that cannot be excused by "But... but.. style!". I would take a selfie with an example, except when the art is poor for lack of skill or will to please the reader, the entire book flies in the trash and gets a 1 star review. People pay for books. Don't disrespect their money with disappearing limbs, incorrect colors, or the one I will never forget: the cover image of a book about a cat NAMED after his deformity. The cat in the title has a "monstrously" crooked jaw which hinders his eating and is so ugly his once-loving mother rejects him.
I have seen too many shamefully poorly illustrated books where animals had 2 instead of 4 toes, rabbits were yellow in an otherwise natural colour scheme, and limbs had different sizes. That is not style. That is sloppiness at best and lack of skill most likely. There are many illustrations in books and comics where facial expressions convey nothing. If you're not using images to express, why waste money and paper on them at all...
THERE IS NO RISK INVOLVED IN LOOKING.