Quote:
Originally Posted by Pulpmeister
Too often publishers resort to Stock photo libraries for covers, which are irrelevant to the books. BITGOD ("back in the good old days") they hired artists and graphic designers, who often actually read the book and then epitomised it with tempting, inviting cover art. What a daft idea that was, eh?
|
I don't know, I've seen plenty of older books with covers (and text blurbs!) that weren't even in the same ballpark as the actual story. I'm not sure it worked like that all that often. The cover art was often better than what you get nowadays, just not always relevant.
This cover though, is really, really bad. I noticed the dark elements to the book when I first read it (even as a kid), but I just can't see any relation with that picture to those elements within the book. If they'd claimed it was Veruca Salt, they might have some standing, but I don't see that either. Veruca was spoiled rotten and given everything she wanted. The girl in that photo looks like she's drugged and not remotely happy. That girl looks like a little girl being forced to live out her mother's dreams for her, even though she doesn't want to. That is
NOT what Veruca was about. (Actually Veruca is more the polar opposite.)
Looking at the full photo set someone linked, it's even more apparent. That girl looks miserable as hell to me. Veruca was ostensibly happy, just needed to learn self control. I think the facial expression of the girl, more than her appearance, is what we find so disturbing. I actually thought she was a doll at first because she looks so soulless. I don't really see where it's sexualized though, unless you have a doll fetish.
Ironically, Veruca's story is much more of a lesson to her parents than Veruca herself, making her nicely suited for a cover targeted at adult readers. Mike Teavee's would have been good too, as his is also more of a parental failing.