CPSIA Rally Update Coming - I'm Whupped

I'd like to thank everyone who left words of encouragement for me over the last couple of days; your good wishes are much appreciated, and I hope I did well by all of you. My plan had been to get everyone updated this evening, but I'm going to have to ask for your patience until tomorrow. 

Yesterday was a LONG day for me and my daughter. We got up at 3:30 a.m. to drive to DC and didn't get home until 10:30 last night - and then because I was speaking at a literacy organization midday today,  I had to get up early and spend the morning preparing for that and the afternoon catching up a bit on various things. I'm so tired now I'm heading to bed with a good book.

Publishers' Weekly interviewed me last night about the rally as I was getting ready to head home, and though I'm sorry they couldn't use most of what I told them, the article is excellent coverage - and more than a little worrisome for new books too. You can read the article here.

I was/am a bit disheartened about what my senators' staffers told me about the likelihood of the CPSIA being amended - but it does sound like other rally people felt more hopeful after meeting with their congressmen, so overall that's encouraging. And the staffers I spoke with were not only polite and listened, I think they are genuinely willing to learn more. Please everyone, don't let up now - keep working to get this law changed, sooner rather than later.

Okay, more tomorrow.

CPSIA: Should Schools Be Exempt?

Illustration by Jessie Willcox Smith, public domain

There has been little discussion in the press or even the blogosphere about how schools will be affected by CPSIA - but that doesn't mean they aren't concerned, confused, and seeking guidance from both Congress and the CPSC. They are particularly worried about the ban on pre-1985 books (as well as the impact of testing on the costs of books and other supplies going forward), which flies in the face of the CPSC's assertions that schools have no pre-1985 books to worry about (more about this in a minute). 

Michael Resnick, Associate Executive Director of the National School Boards Association, wrote to the CPSC on March 6th, urging them to recognize the safety of books and exempt all of them. He noted that schools are concerned about liability even during the one year testing stay, and need some guidance immediately. So far, I do not believe any has been forthcoming (based on a discussion with a school official following the law and the lack of any follow-up correspondence on the NSBA website; I'm awaiting comment from their go-to guy).

Resnick further asks that schools be exempt from the law all together. A public school official I spoke with today (off the record) noted that her school district is well aware that many of their ordinary, necessary actions would classify them as "manufacturers" under the guidelines issued to small businesses etc. and thus either subject them to unaffordable testing or force them to drastically change the way they operate. For example, schools frequently assemble and bind packets and books for students to use and keep (with plastic comb, stapled, or glued bindings); they put together science kits; they make art projects that are intended for use by children; and many of their fundraising and charitable projects also involve "manufacturing" things for children. (For example, parents at my kids' elementary sell handicrafts, many intended for children, at the holiday shop that funds many school extras; the kids assemble toiletry-and-book packages for kids in homeless shelters; and the school sponsors book drives either to promote literacy or to donate to children locally or abroad.) Recognizing these issues, Mr. Resnick asks:

"As you continue to address enforcement and implementation issues, NSBA urges the Commission to exempt local school districts from the lead level requirements under the law; or at the very least, to establish a transition period that would enable public schools and libraries to meet the spirit and intent of the law without creating financial burdens on states and local communities in this dire economy and extreme reductions in their revenues. "

You can read the whole letter here. 

Betsy McCall paper doll, public domain. More available at the bleu door.

Meanwhile, the CPSC seems to be getting their information about how schools are affected from some other source - some unnamed "trade associations" (not sure who the public schools trade association would be). On page 17 of Nord's response to Rep. Dingell, the Commission asserts: 

Based on information from the trade associations with information regarding books in libraries and schools, the Commission staff understands that most textbooks in schools are less than ten years old. Likewise, the information received suggests that most library books lent to children are recycled approximately every 18 lending cycles or three years. Thus, it appears that few of the books being provided to children in their schools and libraries would be more than 20 years old.

The school official I spoke with today just laughed at that statement; she said if schools were forced to discard all their pre-1985 materials, they'd basically stop being operational. Although schools do strive to replace text books more often than that, occasionally they get stuck with a series for longer, especially in subjects where the information changes little (math for example) or where the books are for a minor subject (like Health). Not only is buying new sets of textbooks expensive, it's a slow process, more akin to turning an ocean liner than swinging a Mini Cooper around - it takes years for most districts to go through the textbook adoption process. The bigger problems though, are with things like classroom sets of novels (which get used for a few weeks at a time rather than all year), classroom libraries, and books in the school library, which most certainly not are not fully recycled every three years. 

Another problem for schools, libraries, and used booksellers, is the high number of books that lack accurate print date information. For example, the easy readers above (all still in good shape after heavy use by my 3 kids) were purchased new in the 1990s, and I suspect were printed sometime near then - but they all have copyright dates prior to 1985 and no print date information at all. A librarian I know said some libraries could track likely print dates through purchase records, but that would take hours of research, especially since few libraries had gone electronic in the mid 1980s. And it would still leave them uncertain in many cases and vulnerable to a dispute with a disgruntled patron. (Keep in mind the expenses of defending a lawsuit are typically not awarded even if you win, so every lawsuit is bad news.) If the law remains as is, they'll probably just toss questionable books. 

All of this is a huge headache for school districts - and for Congress and the CPSC. On the one hand, if they enforce the law for schools, they'll send school budgets out of control and probably deprive many students of necessary materials at least in the short run. On the other hand, if they exempt schools, they open themselves to the criticism that they either don't care about kids since they're willing to force them to wallow in dangerous lead-laden environments 6 hours a day, 180 days a year, or that lead in things like books and school supplies really isn't much of a threat to kids at all. It's basically a lose-lose proposition, which is probably why the CPSC guy I spoke with danced around the issue, promised to get back to me, and never has. And my congressmen have been utterly silent in response to my specific questions too.

The book above, about a school that's as ridiculous as the CPSIA, is much funnier than the law because it's fantasy. It's also not clear whether it's a banned book, since it was printed in 1985. For quite a while, CPSC seemed to be using that as the year that was safe going forward, which would make this copy okay to sell or distribute - but more recently, agency spokesmen have been using a new cut off year - 1986 - which would make it toxic waste. (See, for example, this AP article).

These books above are all well used cheap paperbacks, all printed in the 1970s or earlier. The pages have yellowed a bit and a couple of the most heavily read have mangled spines (like the copy of The Four Story Mistake by Elizabeth Enright which was part of the "Bathtub Books" collection in my family growing up - it's a really excellent, old-fashioned yet timeless story about a large family living in an interesting old house in the 1940s). But all are perfectly usable - and are still re-read by me and my kids occasionally and are similar to books still found in many classroom libraries. This is part of what CPSC doesn't get - old books, even the cheap, not particularly well-made ones, typically have very long lives. The good quality hard covers go on and on and on, and may well outlast new paperbacks. I can only remember having thrown away about a dozen books in my whole life - I've donated or passed along plenty of others - but few have been in such bad shape they only deserved tossing. 

One funny note about ratty paperbacks: one of my kids used to consistently select the most bedraggled looking copies when I gave the kids money to get a book or two at a library sale or used bookstore. When I asked him why he picked those particular books over the nicer ones, he said (quite logically) that the beat up ones had obviously been read many times which meant they were probably good.

Illustration for Ring o' Rosies by L. Leslie Brooke, public domain

Finally, a reminder to consider joining the April 1st rally in DC, either in person or via the webcast at www.amendthecpsia.com. And check out recent coverage of the law on Walter Olsen's Overlawyered, the Deputy Headmistress's Common Room, Valerie Jacobsen's Bookroom Blog, and Rick Woldenberg's Learning Resources, Inc. blog. (I have no idea why Blogger is underlining all this text, but it won't stop!)

CPSIA and Books 5: The Threat to Staple-Bound Books and Literacy Efforts

Vintage books are not the only ones affected by the CPSIA interpretation of which books are exempt from the testing and certification rules. According to the Statement of Commission Enforcement Policy on Section 101 Lead Limits, dated February 6, 2009, which grants the exemption to ordinary books:

"The term "ordinary book" in this context means one that is published on cardboard or paper printed by conventional methods and intended to be read. It excludes children’s books that have plastic, metal or electronic parts. "

This definition is a footnote to Section 5 at the bottom of page 4 of the document. You can read the whole pdf here.

In other words, this definition of "ordinary book" excludes many popular children's books: for example, the "touch and feel" baby books like the classic Pat the Bunny by Dororthy Kunhardt; cookbooks and craftbooks with metal or plastic spiral or comb bindings; what the trade calls "book plus" formats (for example, a book packaged with a stuffed animal, one that incorporates a finger puppet or some other toy element, or a project book that incorporates supplies, like the enormously successful Klutz line and many American Girl craft books); many cloth and all vinyl baby books; and those horrid things that have buttons kids push to make screechy electronic sounds at the appropriate moments (or inappropriate ones, as the case may be - personally not sorry to see those go).

There's lots of gray area too: what about paper and board books that seem no different from other ordinary books except that they're intended more for play than reading, like the ones that form a play set or include paper dolls? What about pop ups that have a fabric element (since fabric is deemed safe too)? Books with metallic lettering or foil along the binding (like the Little Golden Books) or gilt edges like many children's Bibles?


I'll discuss these issues in later posts, but for today I'm going to focus on books with stapled bindings (which in the trade are called "saddlestitched" bindings). The books above and in the top photo below are typical examples of staple-bound paperbacks, held together not with glue or thread but with two small metal staples. Extra tall picture books might have three staples. (The ones in the second photo before are examples of glued bindings, called "perfect bindings.) These stapled books are tremendously important to literacy groups, schools, and other organizations that promote reading.

The staples are clearly metal and equally clearly part of the book, which under the CPSC's earlier definition of an ordinary book seems to make them subject to the same testing and certification requirements as other non-exempt children's products. I say "seems" because there's some confusion about whether they are in fact included in the ban, confusion that arises in part because of CPSC's inconsistent language in defining an "ordinary book." For example, in their more recently published Guide to Small Businesses, Resellers, Charities, and Crafters, a guide that nonprofit literacy groups, thrift stores, and small used booksellers might well rely on to make decisions about which books it's okay for them to distribute, an "ordinary book" is defined this way:

Children’s books printed after 1985 that are conventionally
printed and intended to be read, as opposed to used for play"

Note the absence of any language about metal, plastic or electronic parts. I've come across similarly abbreviated definitions of an "ordinary book" in other documents posted by CPSC. I spoke with a lawyer about whether this change in the wording could be interpreted to reflect an actual change in the definition. (While not an expert on CPSIA or product liability in general, this lawyer deals pretty much daily with other federal regulatory agencies.) He said that typically agencies are extremely precise about their language when offering guidance, so most of the time it would be reasonable to assume that yes, they'd changed their minds about the definition if they changed the wording. In this case though, because the language occurs in a glossy brochure written in layman's language, he'd caution against relying on the more casual definition and advise you to consult with someone at the agency.

Good luck with that.

I've emailed and called CPSC dozens of times now with specific questions about this and other issues. I assume my emails go through, but my calls to the ombudsman's office don't. I'm working on a couple assigned articles about the CPSIA, which makes me a member of the press so I tried the media number early in the week and did get through to someone - who couldn't answer my questions. Late Friday someone else finally called me back (after I got my congressman's office to intervene for me) but unfortunately I wasn't home and he didn't try my cell phone despite having been given both numbers. So I still don't know whether staples are in fact okay, but I'm inclined to think not.

I'm not the only one. Many booksellers are removing the stapled books from stock (see this post from semicolon and the coverage on books from Walter Olson at overlawyered.com). And other groups are simply panicking. I've spoken with representatives at several large literacy organizations. At Reach Out and Read, a very successful program in which pediatricians "prescribe" books and give out both books and lessons on reading to youngsters at regular health check ups (check out their website here), the coordinator opted to pay for testing of their inventory after doctors and parents expressed concern about the stapled copies that are the bulk of the books they give out to kids over three - and that's money she now doesn't have to buy new books or use to train doctors and nurses in teaching literacy. As she expected, all the books passed with flying colors. (In an earlier post, I linked to an article about this group's concerns - read it here if you missed it.)

But the most common reaction I get from groups that distribute these books to schools, from publishers to schools to other literacy organizations is "Huh?" If they've heard of the law, most have some significant area of misinformation: "It doesn't apply to us because we're nonprofit," or "They exempted all books except vintage ones," or "Someone would have notified us if we were supposed to comply with that." But the most common response is, "I have never heard of that law and I have no idea what you're talking about." (So far, no school district I've called has heard of the law at all so of course they are taking no steps to comply with it. One teacher I chatted with though noted that she regularly assembles packets of papers on a topic and staples them together herself or has the district bind them together with a plastic comb binding if they're thick and will get heavy use - guess that makes schools manufacturers of potentially deadly books too in need of testing and certification too.)

But back to stapled books. Why don't publishers and sellers just switch to glued bindings for their picture books and easy readers, if the stapled ones are a problem? After all, there are other reasons too that make stapled bindings less desirable than perfect bindings - the stapled books have no spine so it's hard to find a shelved book, they also often have lighter-weight covers and look more like a pamplet than a traditional book, and there's always the risk of getting poked by a bent staple, or swallowing one if you're inclined to eat your books (as CPSIA presumes).

First, there are as many reasons to prefer the stapled bindings as to dislike them. Glued bindings just don't hold well unless there are lots of pages, and a standard picture book has only 32 pages. You may have had the experience with a perfect-bound book of pages coming loose (like the book above - a copy of Alfie's Feet by Shirley Hughes, one of my favorite children's book author-illustrators) or even coming out all together and getting lost. The stapled bindings which fasten folded pages rather than individual sheets almost never lose pages unless they're ripped. In addition, the stapled bindings generally lay flat and stay opened, an advantage for little guys and kids just learning to read, who may find juggling holding a book open and steady to be just one task too many on top of the challenging job of deciphering the words.

Sometimes, especially with older books or ones that get heavy use like in classrooms, the glue in a perfect binding just gives out all together, and the whole book separates into chunks which come loose from the cover, as with this copy of Angus and the Ducks by the talented Marjorie Flack.

I'm going to blog about this vintage book in a separate post, so check back if you want to learn more about the notable book about the curious little Scottie .

The main advantage of the stapled bindings, though, is cost. Sticking a couple of staples through the pages and cover in one fell swoop is both faster and way, way cheaper than applying glue, letting it dry, then gluing the cover on and letting it dry again. The coverstock can also be thinner, which means it's cheaper, and in addition these books are often printed on thinner, lower quality paper.

Publishers can thus offer these stapled picture books at a pretty substantial discount, which is why they're common in the book club offerings, stocked by the checkout counter at the supermarket, popular with libraries with smaller budgets or who want to stock some books with time-limited appeal or lesser literary merit, used for classroom collections of literary readers, and much used for literacy programs that do free book distributions.

Many of the groups offering these inexpensive stapled books (like the book clubs, many of the larger publishers, etc.) also award bonus points that can be redeemed for classroom books or other supplies (like math manipulatives) when students order books, and others kick in extra books or even deeper discounts to organizations that buy in bulk.

Most of the book distribution programs, like RIF (Reading is Fundamental), Reach Out and Read, First Book, and Beginning with Books are nonprofits with tight budgets and a determination to get not just one new book but many in the hands of needy kids at risk for low achievement. These programs are consistently successful and have the research to prove it, but they don't have the funds to buy as many hardcover or even higher-priced paperbacks for all the kids they try to serve. This matters because research has shown that kids who own more books are more likely to become both capable and eager readers (see this pdf of a study from Columbia University's Teacher College as an example, and see these links to studies about the relationship between the number of books a family owns, poverty and outcomes in the U.S. at the First Book website).

If these literacy groups have to forgo both older donated books (which some distribute and others resell as fundraisers) and either or test or discard their inventories of the affordable stapled books, their programs will be severely affected and many fewer children will get books in their hands this year. It's unclear what will happen to the prices or availability of these books once testing and certification of non-exempt products goes into effect in February, 2010 - but it can hardly be good.

And now to why this really, really matters, in terms of children at risk for lead poisoning. Right now, there are no effective medical treatments for kids with elevated blood levels. For kids with dangerously high levels, doctors do chelation therapy which removes heavy metals, but it's risky and not effective at the low levels more commonly seen. Bellinger, one of the major researchers on lead poisoning, has noted that there is not a consistent dose-effect relationship between lead and neurological functioning (information I suspect was likely missing from the Congressional hearing on this issue). See this abstract of a journal article on the research here. Based on his review of the body of literature and his own research, Bellinger hypothesizes that an enriched environment can prevent or ameliorate the effects of lead exposure, which is especially significant in light of the absence of an effective medical treatment. In the journal Pediatrics, Bellinger noted (emphasis added is mine):

Finally, characteristics of a child’s rearing environment might influence the
toxicity of a given lead dose.47 Lead seems to be similar to other biological risks, such as low birth weight, in that children from environments that offer fewer developmental resources and supports express deficits at a lower blood lead level than do children from more optimal environments45,48
and show less recovery after exposure.43

In his book Human Neurodevelopmental Toxicology (at $250 from Barnes and Noble not a cheap read, but you can view the relevant pages on p. 76 at Google Books here) Bellinger asserts that his idea about the benefits of enriched environments is also supported by animal studies (which are critical in lead research because experimental studies obviously cannot be conducted on human beings). For example, in one animal study, lead-poisoned rats raised in an enriched environment outperformed non-poisoned rats raised in a regular rat environment and didn’t differ significantly from non-poisoned rats raised in an enriched environment. These findings are also consistent with the every day observations you see in blogs and comments to news articles every where: "If lead is always so bad, why are people like me who were obviously exposed to lead as a child just fine?" It's also consistent with the research going back many decades that consistently shows that children who read a lot (and thus would likely have had the most exposure to lead in books) typically have better achievement scores and lower rates of the behavioral problems like ADHD and aggressiveness than kids who rarely read (and thus presumably have the lowest exposure to lead in books).

And, what's one of the easiest, cheapest ways for a low-income parent to provide an enriched environment for his child? Books of course - which are free through the public library and book distribution programs, and inexpensive through used booksellers and book clubs.

Or used to be. Good luck with that post-CPSIA.

P.S. Reviewing the research on lead toxicity is tremendously difficult for the average person. Not only does it involve slogging through lots of technical language and reams of data and statistics, it's nearly impossible for someone who doesn't have access to a university library or a huge discretionary budget to obtain whole journal articles (you can often find abstracts on Google Scholar) and book-length professional summaries and analyses of the literature. It might not matter, except that folks like Jared, a staffer at the Senate commerce committee, informed me that the only thing likely to push the DeMint bill out of committee is high quality scientific research suggesting that the law is over-reaching. Since not only is conducting research like that out of the reach of the typical person affected by this law, but looking it up is too, it's going to be hard for the people who care to build the case that will persuade Congress to try again.

CPSIA and Vintage Books: A Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Law

I went to sleep with no coffee in the house and when I woke up there was still no coffee in the house and the garbagemen came before I could stick the smelly leftovers in the can and then I found an even stinkier new statement from the CPSC about books, and I could tell it was going to be a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day.

I think I'll move to Australia.

If you've ever read this childhood classic by Judith Viorst with expressive black and white line illustrations by Ray Cruz (Atheneum, 1972,), I'm sure you get my literary allusion. And if not, here's the first page as a teaser - you have got to read this book, which is still completely relevant and delightful 37 years after it was published. It's just as appealing to adults as it is to kids.

Copyright 1972, Judith Viorst and Ray Cruz

So here's why it was a THNGVB day. The CPSC put up some new "helpful" powerpoint slides for their staff today (you can read them all here).

Here's the line that's got me ready to move to Australia. Or, better yet, ready to make Congress move to Australia and let the country start fresh. Page 6 has the guidance on children's books (ordinary books safe if published after 1985, limited staff analysis has shown some lead in older books, blah, blah). And then this line:

Children’s books have limited useful life
(approx 20 years)

I had to read this statement about a dozen times before I could believe it really said this.

What planet do these people live on? Have they never heard of Winnie the Pooh? The Wizard of Oz? Peter Pan? Alice in Wonderland? Peter Rabbit? Charlotte and Wilbur? Mike Mulligan and Mary Ann? I could go on for quite a while.

Maybe, my son suggested, they were referring to the physical book, that volumes wear out after 20 years. Except that's equally asinine. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that there are millions of copies of children's books published and printed before 1989 that are still in excellent, completely useable condition, with content still just as capable of stirring the souls of children or tickling their funny bones or teaching them something interesting. Otherwise, there'd be no one out here making a stink about old books, but there are tons of us.

Well, maybe, said my Devil's Advocate, they were referring to library copies which can get some pretty tough wear and tear. True - but libraries are still sweating bullets about having to purge the pre-1985 books from their collections, which makes me think those old books are surviving at a pretty high rate. Doesn't surprise me, when you consider the industrial strength of some of those bindings and the fact that past the age of 2 or 3 kids start to treat their books with a little more respect.

In fact I recently finished reading a truly outstanding library book, Mine for Keeps, by Jean Little (Little, Brown, 1962) and although after 46 years the cover art looked faded, there weren't even any ripped pages or significant stains or anything else that would make this book unusable. And the content, about a girl with cerebral palsy who struggles to fit in at her local school after returning from a special boarding school was timeless and universal. I really cannot recommend a book more highly. I read it first when I was in 2nd or 3rd grade and when I rediscovered it I was overjoyed. What's really wonderful about this book is, despite my initial description, is that it's not so much about a girl and her disability as it is about the typical kid challenges faced by a girl who also just happens to have CP. That's an important distinction, and it's only part of what makes this book so great. (It's a great dog story too.)

Illustration copyright 1962, Lewis Parker

I'm now reading my way through all of Ms. Little's sensitive, moving books (thanks to the many amazon sellers who haven't yet been forced to remove their inexpensive non-collectible copies of vintage kids' books), including her memoirs, which I also strongly recommend. In the first volume, Little by Little, there is a hilarious scene in which Jean, who is blind from shortly past conception, subs for a last minute scratch in a championship college intramural basketball game. Today that scene would have been videotaped, become a viral youtube video and been re-broadcast on ESPN and all the morning talk shows.

No, the CPSC's completely ignorant statement is the equivalent of saying that we have no need of Rembrandt, Matisse, or da Vinci paintings since some perfectly nice ones have been made in the last 20 years. No need of Shakespeare, Jane Austen or Dickens when you can read John Grisham or Janet Evanovich (not that I have anything against those latter authors - fine beach reading. In fact, Grisham could write a pretty good thriller featuring an evil congressman in cahoots with the consumer lobbyists and aided by a nefarious CPSC enforcer as they pursue a beautiful crafter fleeing with his movie-star beautiful fiancee, the vintage bookseller.)

I had started a completely different post about the impact of CPSIA on literacy programs (I've been collecting info from several prominent ones), the economics of binding, and the research on the link between lead poisoning and exposure to books and educational toys (which I have a feeling will surprise Congress). But I'll save it for tomorrow.

Let this sink in meanwhile: Mary Poppins: irrelevant. Pippi Longstocking: useless. Babar, Ferdinand, Curious George, Frances, Corduroy, Harriet the Spy, the Very Hungry Caterpillar, Madeline, the Borrowers, Little Tim, the Runaway Bunny, Max in his wolf suit, Horton and the Whos, the Grinch, Sam-I-Am, Amelia Bedelia: who needs them?

Now this book above you might argue is an example of why a children's book is "useless" after 20, well, more like 40-some years. As you can see from the cover, this volume has had a long, rough life. The Trolley Car Family by Eleanor Clymer (David McKay, 1947 - my copy is from the late 50s or early 60s) was one of the many books in my family's collection of "bathtub books." The house we moved into when I was 10 had a huge claw-footed bathtub on the third floor, and my sisters and I spent substantial chunks of our moody teens in it reading and re-reading our favorite childhood books. But even though this book's cover is rather the worse for the wear and it's a bit wrinkled from too much hot water and Calgon, it still has all its pages. Twenty years after its bathtub duty, my own kids enjoyed sharing the old-fashioned adventures of the family who was forced to move into the trolley car their dad drove until the trolleys were replaced by more modern buses, Pa lost his job, and the family was forced out of their home.

Come to think of it, a story about job loss, home foreclosure and useful things deemed obsolete doesn't sound so old-fashioned these days, does it?

St. Nicholas Day Gifts - Printable Gift Tags and Paper Dolls

I know it's a bit late in the day for St. Nick to be stuffing little gifts into your cyber-shoes, but better late than never, right?

One of your gifts is a page of printable gift tags with images of the chicks who star in my book Merry Christmas, Cheeps! (or if you live in the UK, Merry Christmas, Little Cheeps!) written by Julie Stiegemeyer (Bloomsbury, 2007). The images aren't actually from the book, but do show the Cheeps doing various wintry and festive things, like the guy sledding or baking. Plus there's a penguin with a copy of the book and a nice big chocolate bar - what else do you need for a cold, winter's night?These can be printed with Avery labels (#s 5163, 5263, or 8163) to be self-sticking. Print all the labels you need (available as a pdf here), but please don't sell them. (Just click on the button that says iPaper to get to print options.)
I also have another page of color-your-own paper dolls, this time featuring the two littlest Cheeps. They don't have much in the way of clothing, but they do come with plenty of little accessories. You can access the pdf here.
One of these days, I'll get my act together enough to offer some color versions, with the 3-D art I use in my books.

Sorry I couldn't figure out a way to give you free chocolates - but happy St. Nicholas Day anyway!

Update Notes See my other posts on St. Nicholas Day too. This one has a tutorial and link to a printable template for making paper shoes and more information about the holiday, and this one has a tutorial and link to a template for expanding the paper shoe into a paper boot.

St. Nicholas Day is Coming!

I've recently added a printable template and tutorial for making paper shoes for St. Nicholas Day. You can get the template here, and the tutorial here.

You have just three more days to get ready! December 6th is the feast day for St. Nicholas, the historical figure many believe is the model for Santa Claus. In some parts of the world, including the Netherlands, St. Nicholas Eve, rather than Christmas, is the big gift-exchanging day. Children put out their shoes (or in some places, put out their boots or hang their stockings), perhaps filled with some hay for St. Nicholas's white horse, and in the morning find their shoes filled instead with candies and small gifts. You can read about St. Nicholas Day customs in many countries here.


While I generally favor any holiday involving chocolate - and in the Netherlands, one of the big customs involves giving children large chocolate initials like these - I celebrated it somewhat inconsistently with my own kids. Keeping track of the advent goodies, gifts for family, friends, and teachers, gratuities for the various helpers in our lives, etc. seemed like more than enough.

But I do wish now that I'd celebrated it after all, a change of heart largely due to reading my friend Julie Stiegemeyer's informative and touching book about the saint, Saint Nicholas: The Real Story of the Christmas Legend.

And today I came up with the perfect way for families to get involved in this shoe-centered holiday: giving shoes to people who need them. You can get in touch with local charities that distribute clothing to needy kids and donate new shoes (or gently used ones if you can't afford to buy new ones) for a child near the age of your own. Winter boots are often badly needed this time of year as well. Make the gift extra appealing by removing the pesky tissue paper that some parents (who shall remain nameless) might accidentally forget about, thereby forcing their child to have painfully cramped toes. And then fill the shoes with small wrapped goodies before you drop them off. Most kids like shoe shopping, even if they balk at other errands, and what kid will object to a trip to the toy store or Dollar Tree? Especially if you remind them that St. Nick is watching and is sure to be pleased with how cooperative and generous they are.

Alternatively, you can donate money, your old shoes, or new shoes to this great organization, Soles4Souls, that distributes footwear to the estimated 300 million kids around the world that don't have any shoes. You can read all about the organization here.

In honor of St. Nicholas, I'm pledging to donate $5 (up to $300) to the organization for every comment on my blog between now and midnight December 6th.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! That's me laughing hysterically about the idea of getting 60 comments in two days.

Thanks.

3-D Thursdays: Mimi Proofs!

All images copyright Carol Baicker-McKee, 2008

Next to the moment when you hold the first published copy of your book in your hand, there's nothing quite like the moment when the proofs arrive. Seeing the words and the completed art together, getting to turn the pages and have the experience of "book" is magical every time. It really is like the cliche - akin to examining your newborn's tiny fingernails and smelling its delicious newness.

Anyhow, here are a few images from Mimi, the first book I wrote and illustrated. It's due out June 24th from Bloomsbury. I feel jumping up and down proud of it, so much so that I had to stick some of the pictures up now even though my scanner still won't work, and I have to settle for posting crappy photos of un-color-corrected proofs.

Mimi is her own "person," but there's no denying her character sprouted from my memories of my daughter Sara when she was that age. Sara's now 16 - so grown up these days that she even assisted with the artwork! For instance, she made the little flowers that dot the "i's" on the cover, helped me paint backgrounds (she's a much better painter than I am - any place you see brushstrokes: my fault), strung the beads for Mom's necklaces, made the spider plant on Mimi's dresser, and did other odds and ends for me. It was lots of fun to work together - and good for our relationship during the sometimes (okay, often) squabbly menopausal mom/hormonal teen daughter years.

The story and illustrations are peppered with details from Sara's toddler days, from her fashion sense to the arched window in her bedroom. Other details are from my other kids (my son Kyle had a pet roly poly, and Eric was glued to his stuffed Ted-Ted), and even from chance kid encounters (Mimi's jammies-and-tutu outfit was prompted by a little girl I saw similarly attired at the grocery store). At conferences, it seems like editors and agents are always saying they don't want to hear how your story or art is based on your own kids, etc., etc. - but don't let that fool you into thinking you should ignore the material from your own relationships and experiences while you're creating your work. Those personal bits and pieces are what let writers and illustrators create characters and a story world that are simultaneously quirky and universal - that feel authentic, because they are. It's just that it's important to stay flexible and not get too attached to any one "real" thing - often the story will need you to change or leave out something that feels so special to you, and you just have to be tough and do it. "Kill your darlings" as some author, I forget who, said.

I can't look at the proofs without being reminded of all the things I struggled with in making the illustrations. Some things I figured out more-or-less successfully - like how to get the perspective right for the wagon - and others the designer, Daniel Roode, has painstakingly corrected for me. For example: the bubbles. (Sorry Daniel!) I had a terrible time deciding how to make them. Having learned the hard way from the illustrations for Merry Christmas, Cheeps by Julie Stiegemeyer that it's a bad idea to incorporate shiny things in my 3-D artwork - the reflections are a huge headache for the photographer and the designer too - I knew to avoid all the things like marbles, hollow glass balls, iridescent beads, etc. that sorely tempted me, but I didn't think through the implications of using solid balls made from Sculpey Ultralight clay and positioning them at different heights off the background with bits of foam core. I thought they'd have depth and the sense of floating in the air, but instead all they had was really dark, bizarre-looking shadows! I can't imagine what a headache it must have been to photoshop all those shadows away - especially since the page after the one shown above is almost all bubbles. But they look fantastic now - just like they're floating. Next time I'll glue something like that down.

I'm also incredibly grateful to my editor, Melanie Cecka, who truly deserves the adjective "brilliant." She can edit an already spare text down to the nub - leaving only the best bits to shine in their simplicity. The other day I looked over my first draft of this story (well, the one I submitted), and I couldn't believe how rambly and unfocused it felt. I'm so glad that Melanie was able to see the core of it, and to gently coax me to pare away until I found it too.

I'd love to hear reactions to Mimi - I feel like a first time mama wanting everyone to admire her beautiful baby (that probably really looks like an extra-wrinkly Yoda). And if you have any great ideas for making 3-D bubbles that photograph well, I'd love to hear about it, in case I'm struck by temporary insanity and decide to put them in another book.

cheeps-in-progress

When Cheep! Cheep! came out, a number of reviewers thought the illustrations were digitally assembled, and even some friends and relatives thought I made a handful of little chicks and then "reused" them for the different spreads -- but every chick (and egg, etc.) is handmade in a ridiculously time-consuming method. These photos (which aren't great quality -- sorry) are from the first book (somehow I didn't photograph the Christmas Cheeps in progress), but it gives you a sense of all the little pieces and my factory-assembly-line approach.

I recently finished up the first book that I wrote and illustrated, called Mimi. It's about a little pig, who has a stuffed bunny named Bunny, and a pet roly-poly bug named Frank -- who's missing! It will be out from Bloomsbury in Fall, 2008, and took me a good nine months (well, more really) to illustrate. That equalled many, many months that my family couldn't use the kitchen table because it was buried deep in pig, bunny, and bug parts. I do have a small studio upstairs in my house, but somehow I always gravitate to the kitchen. Well, partly that's because the kitchen is usually brighter and a more comfortable temperature, partly because it's nearer the stove which I use for baking my polymer clay parts (and the refrigerator which I use for motivation/consolation), partly just because I have liked to work at the kitchen table since I was a small child. When I redo my studio next year, I'm going to advocate buying a new table for the kitchen, and letting me have our old one (it's already covered with paint accidents and xacto blade boo-boos) for my workspace. But then I'll probably just end up messing up the new table too. Sigh.

I'm scrambling now to finish the art for a book called An Apple Pie for Granny by Susan vanHecke. I think it's supposed to be out next year too. I'm trying mightily to resist the temptation to work in the kitchen, but it's just very, very hard.