Charlie and the Chocolate Factory gets new, anniversary cover

[crich70]

Originally Posted by sun surfer

Sure.



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.

Ah, I wasn't saying that adults couldn't read and enjoy the story, just that it teaches a lesson that we have to learn as we grow up. I.e. that there are limits to what we can have. While it is also true that some adults never learn that lesson Gene Wilder (on the Willy Wonka DVD) makes the point that children who see the movie understand the message.

[caleb72]

I don't hate the picture itself. It has a sinister feel to it which I did get from the book and from the newer version of the movie. However at the same time, I got the sinister feeling from Willy Wonka himself, not from the children.

For all their faults, the children were just children in the story. Whereas this girl looks completely creepy - like she's about to crack someone's skull with a hammer. I don't read "sexualised" from it; I read "deranged".

[mrscoach]

I don't like the cover because it dates the book and make it seem old. Can anyone say 'the seventies'? If you are trying to bring in a new audience then try NOT to make the book look old and irrelevant. If a book is set in and is about a certain time, then at least make it seem appealing, instead of blech. Maybe use something that isn't tied to one specific time. That picture is just old looking and creepy. Stepford-ish

[Waylander]

I agree with sun surfer, basically on everything he says. The girl is surely Veruca Salt, can no-one see that? This is what she is like in the book, or are we going to start demanding that someone censor the cover? If the cover was censored then we should censor the entire book, as that is what the cover is based on. This edition is aimed at a more mature audience, so of course it was going to be different. The cover is done in the same style as all other Penguin Modern Classics, same with the typography. The cover is creepy, but that is surely the point. From the comments so far, it seems as though most people on here think everyone should be morally outraged and disgusted with Penguin, but I just find it a creepy picture, not overly sexualised.

[Bookworm_Girl]

Penguin UK has stated that the cover is not intended to represent specifically any of the children in the book including Veruca. It is intended to depict the "light and dark" aspects of life.

[Anthem]

I don't understand the cover in the context of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory as a book. But I do like the surreal nature of the covers imagery.

And I actively dislike the Quentin Blake imagery used in the current edition of the book through Puffin (with it's horrible and garish red all over the place and the back cover which just has cheap written all over it).

So change is needed, and the surreal is quite possibly the correct direction to go, but this is a somewhat perplexing decision.

[sun surfer]

Originally Posted by Bookworm_Girl

Penguin UK has stated that the cover is not intended to represent specifically any of the children in the book including Veruca. It is intended to depict the "light and dark" aspects of life.

Hi Bookworm_Girl, I addressed that at the end of a previous post:

Originally Posted by sun surfer

...<snip>...

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.

[Bookworm_Girl]

I agree that it makes me think of Veruca too. I don't understand why they said it wasn't intended to be. I just think it is creepy!

[wannabee]

If you keep doing the same thing you keep getting the same results. Penguin obviously wanted a different result from previous and any publicity is good publicity.

[doubleshuffle]

My initial reaction to this cover was the general WTF response. But on second thoughts: if you consider how creepy Dahl really is - why not make an attempt to shock adult re-readers out of their childhood nostalgia comfort zone?

The fashion editorial they took the image from is brilliant, btw.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by wannabee

If you keep doing the same thing you keep getting the same results. Penguin obviously wanted a different result from previous and any publicity is good publicity.

http://www.ereleases.com/prfuel/biggest-pr-myth-of-all/

Then again, not necessarily:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succès_de_scandale

So, which one is this?

I think this adequately explains when and why any publicity is good publicity:
http://www.entrepreneurs-journey.com...ood-publicity/

Notice that Penguin doesn't really fit anywhere on the list of exceptions. I think it is because they are not a bad-boy celebrity.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Waylander

I agree with sun surfer, basically on everything he says. The girl is surely Veruca Salt, can no-one see that? This is what she is like in the book, or are we going to start demanding that someone censor the cover? If the cover was censored then we should censor the entire book, as that is what the cover is based on. This edition is aimed at a more mature audience, so of course it was going to be different. The cover is done in the same style as all other Penguin Modern Classics, same with the typography. The cover is creepy, but that is surely the point. From the comments so far, it seems as though most people on here think everyone should be morally outraged and disgusted with Penguin, but I just find it a creepy picture, not overly sexualised.

Creepy or not, character or not, it's an ugly cover with hard-to-read text unless it's large.

Generally speaking, while there were some dark overtones to the book that most audiences would probably miss (choose to miss?) given the other light-hearted elements there is NOTHING in this cover that makes it striking or appealing to any audience IMO. If this were an indie cover...well, at least if it were an indie cover, it would be getting a lot of discussion and being made fun of far and wide and probably garner some sales as a result. Which is pretty much what is happening here. Maybe that was their plan? It has gotten discussion if nothing else.

I don't think it represents the book at all--even if you can sort of try to relate it to one character or another.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

If this were an indie cover...well, at least if it were an indie cover, it would be getting a lot of discussion and being made fun of far and wide and probably garner some sales as a result. Which is pretty much what is happening here. Maybe that was their plan? It has gotten discussion if nothing else.

See above, under good/bad publicity.

(I think if it was an indie, that wouldcould be good publicity. Considering how big Penguin and Roald Dahl are... they will lose more than they gain. )

[doubleshuffle]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Considering how big Penguin and Roald Dahl are... they will lose more than they gain. )

I think Roald Dahl hasn't had much to lose for about 25 years or so...

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

See above, under good/bad publicity.

(I think if it was an indie, that would be good publicity. Considering how big Penguin and Roald Dahl are... they will lose more than they gain. )

I agree. I think people who have read the book or seen the movie are a little insulted by the cover (this impression comes from forum threads). But even under the "any publicity" rule...the cover is a turn-off. If I didn't know what the book was about, I'd never pick this book up. Even KNOWING what the book is about I would look for an old copy if I needed one rather than buy that book.

One of the good things about ebooks is that you can read books and not have the cover displayed. (I hate the Patricia Briggs covers in general. Was always glad I didn't have to see some of those covers every time I picked up the book). If I owned this book, it is one where I would likely rip the cover off. It's is creepy and ugly.