'Creepy', 'misleading' and ' looking 'more like Lolita' according to author Giles Paley-Phillips.
'I'm not sure why adults need a different cover anyway, but who was it that decided "adult" meant "inappropriately sexualised?' tweeted author Joanne Harris.
In its defence Penguin, publishers of the Penguin Modern Classics range, said the cover of the new edition of Charlie And The Chocolate Factory (one of only a handful of children's books to be included in the 800 book range) stressed 'the light and dark aspects' of Dahl's work.
Available from the 4th of September in conjunction with the 50th anniversary celebrations of Charlie and The Chocolate Factory which was first published in 1964, OK, so the cover image (so we are told) is NOT intended to represent either of the female children in the book but I'm personally struggling with what exactly relevance it does have to the book.
What about you, love it or loathe it? What do you think Roald Dahl would make of it?
To see the article that in part prompted this post click here.
9 comments:
I don't care for it. In fact, I would never in a million years have guessed this was a cover for the Roald Dahl book. Creepy, indeed.
Yea, that cover is very creepy. And I wouldn't associate it with Charlie And The Chocolate Factory at all. Strange.
I do not like it! It doesn't look like it goes with the story at all. It looks creepy to me. I showed two other people that I am with right now and I wish I could have taken a picture I their faces! You gave us lots to talk about. :)
Ummm. What the heck was Penguin thinking putting talking Tina on the cover. I mean, she does look like a doll. It's very Retro, almost "Whatever Happened to Mary Jane?" looking. Gah! I'll have nightmares now!
I don't see the relevance of the cover at all.
I do love classic designs, and yet I am not against modern interpretations and something different. But, in this case, I really don't like this cover and don't feel it has much to do with the book at all. Really doesn't make me want to buy it.
I never actually read the story, though I have seen the films. This is a very strange cover and perhaps inappropriate,
I agree with Lindsay that modern covers for older books can work. I am not sure about this one at all.
When I first saw the cover without the title - I thought it was a mystery about one of those child beauty queens being murdered - or some type of abuse.
I'm ALL for creepy but this seems hyper-sexualized and has zero to do twist the story.
Hi Tracy,
I tweeted the original article on the day it was published, together with my own thoughts.
One word can probably sum it all up "disgusting" and I believe that Roald Dahl would be turning in his grave if he could see it!
This is a childrens book and given all the media hype and sensitivity surrounding child sex abuse allegations over the last few months,it probably isn't the kind of image you should be portraying to younger readers.
I can't believe that Penguin can have anything to say in their defence about this!!
Yvonne
Post a Comment