Charlie and the Chocolate Factory gets new, anniversary cover - Page 3

DrNefario · 08-09-2014, 04:55 AM

The real anniversary edition, for kids, seen further down in this bbc story (if someone wants to link the picture, it was a bit too fiddly on my iPad) is perfectly fine. A variation of the regular current cover. This edition is just penguin adding the book to their modern classics range.

It's a bad cover. There are plenty of them about.

The typography and layout are exactly the same as all the other modern classics, as far as I can see, it's just a bad choice of image for the book.

JSWolf · 08-09-2014, 05:21 AM

This cover is not bad...

tubemonkey · 08-09-2014, 05:36 AM

I like this one - very simple

pwalker8 · 08-09-2014, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fjtorres

https://www.facebook.com/penguinbook...type=1&fref=nf

Image violates posting guidelines for size - MODERATOR]

Discuss.

For once, I have to agree with you. I can't imagine how anyone would think that cover was a good idea for a children's book.

DrNefario · 08-09-2014, 08:39 AM

It's an adult edition of a children's book. The regular edition (in the UK, at least) has the cover posted by JSWolf above.

I think my biggest problem with it is that it doesn't suit the book at all.

fjtorres · 08-09-2014, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrNefario

I think my biggest problem with it is that it doesn't suit the book at all.

It would've been perfect for VALLEY OF THE DOLLS: THE PREQUEL.
Or THE STEPFORD KIDS.
Or INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS.
Or LOLITA, THE EARLY YEARS.
But a kids book? Any kids book?

Totally inappropriate.

Shane R · 08-09-2014, 11:31 AM

No publicity is bad publicity.

It's been in all the major newspapers...

j.p.s · 08-09-2014, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Discuss.

Anyone rethinking their stance on generic Penguin ebook covers?

pwalker8 · 08-09-2014, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrNefario

It's an adult edition of a children's book. The regular edition (in the UK, at least) has the cover posted by JSWolf above.

I think my biggest problem with it is that it doesn't suit the book at all.

It's still a children's book. I agree with you that it doesn't suit the book, if you mean from the stand point that it doesn't say anything about the book.

JSWolf · 08-09-2014, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pwalker8

It's still a children's book. I agree with you that it doesn't suit the book, if you mean from the stand point that it doesn't say anything about the book.

It doesn't suit the book from the standpoint of being any good.

Ripplinger · 08-09-2014, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fjtorres

It would've been perfect for VALLEY OF THE DOLLS: THE PREQUEL.
Or THE STEPFORD KIDS.
Or INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS.
Or LOLITA, THE EARLY YEARS.
But a kids book? Any kids book?

Totally inappropriate.

All of the above and all the comments already made. Completely inappropriate for this book, creepy doesn't even begin to cover it.

What were they thinking that this cover represents the book in anyway? From the above BBC article linked by DrNefario it says "Other children's titles in the range include Tarka the Otter and Alice in Wonderland." I'm dreading seeing what those covers are going to look like and ruining those 2 books.

Edit: This Telegraph article states that the cover "has been approved by the Roald Dahl Literary Estate" (including their typo).

I still have to wonder what were they thinking as a cover for this particular book...

sun surfer · 08-09-2014, 02:59 PM

Much ado about nothing.

I'll have a say for the defence since no one else has yet.

First, who is anyone to say that this book should only be for children? A book is for anyone who wants to read it. Penguin Modern Classics seem aimed at a more mature audience, one who is either studying the work or otherwise reading it to analyse or to familiarise themselves with "classics". There have been other children's books with this status, one of the most famous being Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.

As to the pearl-clutching claims of an overly sexualised girl on the cover and vague comments about Child Protective Services and paedophilia, in my opinion it's the same as a room full of elephants making a huge uproar over a mouse scurrying around. There is a "law" about Hitler always eventually being invoked in internet discussion; I would put forth that paedophilia could be added to that list as well.

The girl is basically completely covered and we can only see a bit of her lower legs on the bottom of the cover. She is dressed like a girl doll or a beauty pageant girl - both well accepted in our culture even for her age (and, by the way, the image as styled is nothing like Lolita in the Nabukov book so those comparisons are way off mark).

That doesn't mean the image isn't somewhat dark, or even creepy (not only the girl but also the prominent shadow of the mother by the girl), but that was the intention as the publishers have stated. This edition is for more mature readers studying a classic. Most covers of this book only allude to a cartoonish happiness, but to be sure the book definitely has dark elements, which were shown in different ways in both film adaptations as well. This cover is obviously intended to make the reader think about the darkness of the book, or the darkness vs the lightness, more than other covers might, and I think it succeeds at that, and frankly I am happy a publisher tried something different and risky.

I do think the publishers are lying about one point though - I do think this image, or the inspiration to use this image anyway, was based on Veruca Salt. The image was culled from an, I think, unrelated fashion shoot, but the girl certainly could be a twisted and stylised photographer's interpretation of Veruca and I think that's what the publishers saw. I have seen many other books, including many classics, with covers not directly related to the book, usually instead being a painting or photograph that somehow evokes some aspect of the book. This book is no different and I think the cover evokes in particular Veruca but more generally children as a product of their environment and their guardians, which is shown in extremes in the book and on this cover.

Ravensknight · 08-09-2014, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sun surfer

First, who is anyone to say that this book should only be for children?

Umm, could you please provide a quote of anyone!!!!! who said this is ONLY for children?

This is a children's book. The fact that Dahl is a good enough writer to keep adults entertained with it also in no way removes that fact.

sun surfer · 08-10-2014, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravensknight

Umm, could you please provide a quote of anyone!!!!! who said this is ONLY for children?...

Sure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by crich70

I don't get it, how can it be for an adult audience when the story is about learning that there are limits to be learned in life. i.e. that we can't expect everything to be handed to us just because we want it. That's a lesson that children learn as they grow up.

However my previous post isn't directed at anyone in particular but rather is an amalgamated response to the fuss going on about the cover elsewhere and here.

eschwartz · 08-10-2014, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by j.p.s

Anyone rethinking their stance on generic Penguin ebook covers?

BRING 'EM BACK!!!! PLEASE!!!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Free (Kindle) A Memoir of Life on the Set of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory	arcadata	Deals and Resources (No Self-Promotion or Affiliate Links)	5	01-11-2012 06:36 PM
Unutterably Silly Dark chocolate	AprilHare	Lounge	25	03-02-2011 10:08 AM
Finest Chocolate May Get Better	wodin	Lounge	2	12-30-2010 04:53 AM
85% dark chocolate	AprilHare	Lounge	11	07-03-2010 01:16 PM
Unutterably Silly Do you like chocolate?	Wetdogeared	Lounge	146	01-13-2009 08:19 AM

08-09-2014, 04:55 AM	#31
DrNefario Wizard Posts: 2,207 Karma: 12029046 Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: UK Device: Kindle, Kobo Touch, Nook SimpleTouch	The real anniversary edition, for kids, seen further down in this bbc story (if someone wants to link the picture, it was a bit too fiddly on my iPad) is perfectly fine. A variation of the regular current cover. This edition is just penguin adding the book to their modern classics range. It's a bad cover. There are plenty of them about. The typography and layout are exactly the same as all the other modern classics, as far as I can see, it's just a bad choice of image for the book.

08-09-2014, 05:21 AM	#32
JSWolf Resident Curmudgeon Posts: 79,796 Karma: 146391129 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Roslindale, Massachusetts Device: Kobo Libra 2, Kobo Aura H2O, PRS-650, PRS-T1, nook STR, PW3	This cover is not bad...

08-09-2014, 05:36 AM	#33
tubemonkey monkey on the fringe Posts: 45,767 Karma: 158733736 Join Date: May 2010 Location: Seattle Metro Device: Moto E6, Echo Show	I like this one - very simple

08-09-2014, 08:39 AM	#35
DrNefario Wizard Posts: 2,207 Karma: 12029046 Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: UK Device: Kindle, Kobo Touch, Nook SimpleTouch	It's an adult edition of a children's book. The regular edition (in the UK, at least) has the cover posted by JSWolf above. I think my biggest problem with it is that it doesn't suit the book at all.

08-09-2014, 11:31 AM	#37
Shane R Fanatic Posts: 518 Karma: 4274548 Join Date: Nov 2013 Device: None	No publicity is bad publicity. It's been in all the major newspapers...

08-09-2014, 02:59 PM	#42
sun surfer languorous autodidact ✦ Posts: 4,235 Karma: 44667380 Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: smiling with the rising sun Device: onyx boox poke 2 colour, kindle voyage	Much ado about nothing. I'll have a say for the defence since no one else has yet. First, who is anyone to say that this book should only be for children? A book is for anyone who wants to read it. Penguin Modern Classics seem aimed at a more mature audience, one who is either studying the work or otherwise reading it to analyse or to familiarise themselves with "classics". There have been other children's books with this status, one of the most famous being Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. As to the pearl-clutching claims of an overly sexualised girl on the cover and vague comments about Child Protective Services and paedophilia, in my opinion it's the same as a room full of elephants making a huge uproar over a mouse scurrying around. There is a "law" about Hitler always eventually being invoked in internet discussion; I would put forth that paedophilia could be added to that list as well. The girl is basically completely covered and we can only see a bit of her lower legs on the bottom of the cover. She is dressed like a girl doll or a beauty pageant girl - both well accepted in our culture even for her age (and, by the way, the image as styled is nothing like Lolita in the Nabukov book so those comparisons are way off mark). That doesn't mean the image isn't somewhat dark, or even creepy (not only the girl but also the prominent shadow of the mother by the girl), but that was the intention as the publishers have stated. This edition is for more mature readers studying a classic. Most covers of this book only allude to a cartoonish happiness, but to be sure the book definitely has dark elements, which were shown in different ways in both film adaptations as well. This cover is obviously intended to make the reader think about the darkness of the book, or the darkness vs the lightness, more than other covers might, and I think it succeeds at that, and frankly I am happy a publisher tried something different and risky. I do think the publishers are lying about one point though - I do think this image, or the inspiration to use this image anyway, was based on Veruca Salt. The image was culled from an, I think, unrelated fashion shoot, but the girl certainly could be a twisted and stylised photographer's interpretation of Veruca and I think that's what the publishers saw. I have seen many other books, including many classics, with covers not directly related to the book, usually instead being a painting or photograph that somehow evokes some aspect of the book. This book is no different and I think the cover evokes in particular Veruca but more generally children as a product of their environment and their guardians, which is shown in extremes in the book and on this cover.

Advert

Advert