Good point, Rob. I enjoy many of the cartoon-style illustrators in books that suit that style, but I know the books I enjoyed most as a child were the ones with beautiful artwork — and I don't mean always "photo realistic" styles, but ones where the artist had clearly put a huge amount of work (and love, one assumes) into creating the pictures and was really striving to catch the spirit of the story, whether it was funny, exciting, moving, a bit spooky, or any mix of the above. Having illustrations of that quality is essentially a way of saying this story is special — it deserves to be illustrated, even if only on the cover, in a way that captures young readers' imagination and draws them in.Robert Houghton wrote: I have to say I'm not convinced that these cartoon drawings are being used because children prefer them! That's very easy to say, but I'm sure the artists who produce this kind of work are also cheaper to commission work from! You only have to look at the illustrations Courtenay has given links for and compare them to any of the modern Blyton covers to see which versions would take the most effort to draw and paint! The cartoon illustrators definitely have their place, but the publishers seem to be hinting that Enid's books aren't worthy of the better illustrators.
Despite the old saying, people DO judge a book by its cover, and publishers know that very well. So if they're commissioning illustrations that are quite simplistic and probably fairly quick to prepare, they're essentially saying these books are just cheap fodder for kids, not something that's going to be treasured and read again and again. Do any of us long-standing fans think of Enid's books like that?