Picasso was part of history however I am not a fan of his paintings. The book is well written! ( )

inv

easy language, but horrible art, being very dry and unimaginative ( )

Who was Pablo Picasso is the first book I have read in the series of Who Was...book. And, in truth, possibly the last. The series focuses on important figures in the arenas of art, science, government, and history. It has the main componets of a good nonfiction book: table of contents, easy to read bibliography, and a timeline of Pablo Picasso's life with a timeline of the world's events occurring simultaneoulsy with Picasso's life. However, it is the content and style that are lacking. The entire book is filled with statements that seem less facutal and more like opinons: "he had tons of energy," "everyone thought Picasso was an artistic genius- and they were right," and "Pablo was in shock. He may have also felt guilty about leaving his friend in such bad shape." These statements include inferences that should be left to the reader to make based on the facts. What the book lacks in direct quotes and primary sources, it made up in abundance with suppositions and generalizations. Furthering the unprofesional nature of the book were rudimentary pictoral renderings of Picasso, his friends and family, as well as his art. While I can appreciate trying to grab the attention of young readers, how much of what is essential to nonfiction has to be sacrificed? ( )