San Anselmo, CA: Treasure Bay, 2007

It feels good to start with editions you love, illustrations you adore and adapted versions that are worth analyzing. It is scary to remember what abominations I have back home. Which is also interesting in a way, but... ok, let's procede with this masterpiece of a picture book.

Title: Thumbelina

Language: English

Translation by (if any): not credited (Sindy McKay?)

Adaptation by (if any): Sindy McKay

Illustrated by: Quentin Gréban

Andersen credited as the author on the title page: yes

Place of issue: San Anselmo, CA, USA

Publishing house: Treasure Bay

Year of issue: 2007

Notes: after a French edition (Mijade Publications, 2007)

Annotation: This is probably a staple of how an Andersen adaptation for small children should be made, if it has to be made at all. Some of the greatest illustrations Thumbelina ever got work perfectly with simple and short, but very well-made retelling that, given the book’s aim at pre-readers, stays remarkably true to the Andersenian spirit.

Hands down: Quentin Gréban is  one of my favourite artists who draw for children. When I was able to lay my hands on this edition, I was happy. Or, as the story's retelling for pre-readers puts it, 

This edition, however, is not all about Gréban's awesome illustrations. It is quite special on its own.

The use of space in this book is outstanding, and really makes one feel how large everything is compared to Thumbelina. This is, of course, Gréban's achievement to a large extent, but the typesetting is done just correctly in order for the contrasting illustrations and dramatic two-page openings to work. Flowers are Gréban's favourite means of showing off the scale, like in this opening with a striking opposition between the perspective of an adult human being and Thumbelina's 
perspective:

 – or in what may be the most exciting depiction of Thumbelina meeting the prince I have ever seen:

The same technique, however, can make produce a frightening impression; see, for example, how the two toads (here frogs) are depicted so large that they won't fit into the page in the right:

And they are both male in this version. That's a bit weird but also funny and refreshing.

In fact, I adore this book so much that I would be happy to share every page with you, but you know I can’t – just buy this book if you have a child. Or get it for yourself. Or just google Gréban's work – he shares a lot on his Facebook page.

Anyway, as you may have noticed, this is a book for really small children – 'pre-readers as well as for beginning or reluctant readers', as Parent's Introduction puts it. This inevitably means adaptation, and Sindy McKay's approach is a very interesting one. For example, as you can see in the first opening above, Thumbelina now has a married couple as her parents rather than a single woman – pretty much like many of the children reading the book, if they are lucky to have a full family. In contrast with many other adaptations that depict Thumbelina's mother as an old woman, the couple also looks quite young. Gréban depicts them both in a very sympathetic way, so that the child will inevitably feel sorry for them when Thumbelina gets kidnapped by the frog.

Thumbelina's mother is a big problem for any adaptation. Andersen's text is basically nightmare fuel for any child who takes the story seriously. I must confess that I cried a lot because I felt sorry for that woman, and I am grateful for Hans Christian for that emotional experience, but that's just me: I am still a terrible cry-baby, only now I have La Traviata instead. For other people, it may be a good idea to cushion the blow now and then. I have already shown how Lauren Mills deals with this problem by advocating the idea parents should let their children go, and ranted about the fact it takes away all the awesome melodrama Andersen is so good at. The way Sindy McKay solves the parents problem is quite ingenious. Remember how the swallow visits Andersen himself in the very end of the original fairy tale?

            Jean Hersholt’s translation

"Good-by, good-by," said the swallow. He flew away again from the warm countries, back to far-away Denmark, where he had a little nest over the window of the man who can tell you fairy tales. To him the bird sang, "Chirp, chirp! Chirp, chirp!" and that's how we heard the whole story.

            Andersen's original

»Farvel! farvel!« sagde den lille Svale, og fløi igjen bort fra de varme Lande, langt bort tilbage til Danmark; der havde den en lille Rede over Vinduet, hvor Manden boer, som kan fortælle Eventyr, for ham sang den »quivit, quivit!« derfra have vi hele Historien.

Sindy McKay makes the swallow visit Thumbelina's parents instead:

Soon it was time for the swallow to leave for the north once more. As a wedding gift to Thumbelina, he promised to visit Thumbelina's parents and to make his nest in their window. From there, he would sing to them all summer long, to let them know their tiny Thumbelina would live happily ever after.

Simplification? No doubt. What is way more important, this is a really well-made simplification. Most adaptations do not care to reflect this last paragraph in any way, and Lauren Mills just says the swallow 'sang [Thumbelina's] story wherever he went'. What Andersen makes in the end of the story is creating a very strong connection between the swallow and the person who hears the song, and re-establishes the swallow's role as the supernatural border-crosser, only this time the border is that between the artist and artistic creation. Even though McKay's account is less complex than the original, the border-crossing imagery is still there. That is really an achievement for such a heavily adapted text.

Another thing that struck me in a good way is that the book includes the episode with the white butterfly who helps Thumbelina escape the toads. This uncomfortable episode is often left out of the text even in editions aimed at older children. Comparing Andersen's text in Jean Hersholt’s translation to Sindy McKay's adaptation is very characteristic of the principles behind this adaptation.

Jean Hersholt’s translation of Andersen's text A lovely white butterfly kept fluttering around her, and at last alighted on the leaf, because he admired Thumbelina. She was a happy little girl again, now that the toad could not catch her. It was all very lovely as she floated along, and where the sun struck the water it looked like shining gold. Thumbelina undid her sash, tied one end of it to the butterfly, and made the other end fast to the leaf. It went much faster now, and Thumbelina went much faster too, for of course she was standing on it. Just then, a big May-bug flew by and caught sight of her. Immediately he fastened his claws around her slender waist and flew with her up into a tree. Away went the green leaf down the stream, and away went the butterfly with it, for he was tied to the leaf and could not get loose. My goodness! How frightened little Thumbelina was when the May-bug carried her up in the tree. But she was even more sorry for the nice white butterfly she had fastened to the leaf, because if he couldn't free himself he would have to starve to death. But the May-bug wasn't one to care about that.

Sindy McKay's adaptation A gorgeous butterfly landed on the lily pad and asked if she could help Thumbelina. Thumbelina attached her sash to the butterfly and the butterfly eagerly pulled her even farther away from the frogs. Thumbelina felt safe at last. But then, a June bug flew by and saw the pretty little girl. He dove down, snatched her up, and began to fly back to his home. Thumbelina was terrified! But she was even more concerned for the butterfly still attached to the lily pad. She begged the June bug to take her back so that she could help the butterfly, but the bug was mean and wouldn't listen.

           The Danish original (for your reference)

En nydelig lille hvid Sommerfugl blev ved at flyve rundt omkring hende, og satte sig tilsidst ned paa Bladet, for den kunde saa godt lide Tommelise, og hun var saa fornøiet, for nu kunde Skruptudsen ikke naae hende og der var saa deiligt, hvor hun seilede; Solen skinnede paa Vandet, det var ligesom det deiligste Guld. Saa tog hun sit Livbaand, bandt den ene Ende om Sommerfuglen, den anden Ende af Baandet satte hun fast i Bladet; det gled da meget hurtigere afsted og hun med, for hun stod jo paa Bladet.

I det samme kom der en stor Oldenborre flyvende, den fik hende at see og i Øieblikket slog den sin Klo om hendes smækkre Liv og fløi op i Træet med hende, men det grønne Blad svømmede ned af Aaen og Sommerfuglen fløi med, for han var bundet til Bladet og kunde ikke komme løs.

Gud, hvor den stakkels Tommelise blev forskrækket, da Oldenborren fløi op i Træet med hende, men hun var dog allermeest bedrøvet for den smukke, hvide Sommerfugl, hun havde bundet fast til Bladet; dersom han nu ikke kunde komme løs, maatte han jo sulte ihjel. Men det brød Oldenborren sig ikke noget om.

You can compare the passages I marked with bold emphasis to see the parallels and points of contrast. Let me specifically draw your attention to the following features:

• Despite the very drastic simplification and shortening on McKay's part, the structure of the episode is essentially the same. It includes such elements as the two-part narrative, the rhetoric exclamation (' My goodness! How frightened little Thumbelina… '/' Thumbelina was terrified!'), Thumbelina's concern about the butterfly, and an observation about the bug's mean character.
• The romantic implications of the butterfly's attachment to Thumbelina are disposed of in the adaptation. The butterfly becomes female, although in the Danish text it is clearly male (han), and the remark about the butterfly adoring Thumbelina is left away: instead of that the butterfly just wants to help.
• The transformation of nydelig lille hvid (lovely little white) into gorgeous reduces the typically Andersenian melodrama.
• The retelling is not as explicit as the original in that the butterfly may actually die, but it is still very clear in that the butterfly's position is desperate. The reaction to this fact throws negative light on the bug's character and emphasizes Thumbelina's kindness, pretty much like in Andersen's text.

We aren't left as upset about the butterfly as we are in Andersen's text, but the adaptation is still pretty tough on the reader, especially given that it is made for very little kids.  I've read many retellings of Thumbelina and I know that it takes some guts to kill the butterfly. For example, Lauren Mills doesn't – although she makes use of Andersen's pretty-butterflies-and-golden-water imagery at this point in her narrative. So I can only applaud McKay for preserving one of this work's most powerful images. I still miss the somewhat decadent idea of the poor doomed little white butterfly in love. Among other things, this idea is good for Thumbelina's overall structure: isn't it made of little episodes about Thumbelina's many admirers? On the bright side of it, the antagonist parallelism between the butterfly and the bug is depicted visually by Gréban even though it is missing from the text. Note how the bug looks like a caricature of the butterfly with its smaller wings and more massive body.

There are so many little things about this edition that I can’t mention all of them.  I just wish I had it when I was a kid. This isn’t Andersen, of course; this is essentially an adaptation for very small children, but made with great respect to Andersen. I wish there were more adaptations where the artist is really talented, the writer knows what he or she is doing, and the two of them work closely together. Unfortunately, adaptations ruin the text all too often, and I'm afraid that the next book will be an example of that.