LNC Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 (edited) I adored this book when I borrowed it from the library last year, so I added it to my Amazon order. The publisher changed the cover to some Gothic Font and a modern girl in full makeup (with black and white on) looking seductively to the "camera". It is ridiculous! This is an old-fashioned and wholesome book. It doesn't need some modern cover design. I suppose it isn't worth sending it back to Amazon bc the cover isn't what I ordered.... Would you? Edited July 17, 2009 by LNC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffeefreak Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Post a picture of it. I can't find a picture of it on Amazon and I'm curious as to how bad it is. Depending on how it looks, I might return it and buy it from a seller that carries the older one. Dorinda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingersmom Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 I am so particular about book covers. When I order books on paperback swap I tell people I want exactly the cover as pictured. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnandtinagilbert Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 if I found it offensive, yes I'd return it and at their expense cuz I'd call and complain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueridge Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 ETA...Is this the right one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNC Posted July 17, 2009 Author Share Posted July 17, 2009 ETA...Is this the right one? That is the one the library had, and the pic that Amazon displayed. I thought that was what they were sending. This is the new one: http://www.randomhouse.ca/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780440995777 What do you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantlion Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Ugh! I'm with you. That is one of my favorite books ever and the new cover is kind of horrid. She looks like one of those women standing behind a carnival person cutout. where is her neck? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renee in NC Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 That is the one the library had, and the pic that Amazon displayed. I thought that was what they were sending. This is the new one: http://www.randomhouse.ca/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780440995777 What do you think? That is HORRIBLE! Blech. Even aside from the new "design", the artwork is terrible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tammy Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 You would really send a book back because of the 'cover'.....? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnandtinagilbert Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Tacky, but not offense enough to return, for *me* at least. Modernization is yucky! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffeefreak Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 I guess while I don't like it as much as the original, I don't find it offensive. To each their own! I thought she was in modern clothes from your original post. Don't forget, Kit was different from those around her and she was stunningly beautiful. I think that's what they're trying to depict here. Blessings! Dorinda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarenNC Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 (edited) Is it this one? The Laurel Leaf edition? http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0440995779?ie=UTF8&redirect=true#reader If so, I really don't see "seductive" or "unwholesome" in it. The clothing is standard Puritan basic, covered to neck and wrists, and while the style of the art is a bit more realistic/photographic than the other options, I don't see that she is a "modern" girl other than she's not wearing a cap. It appears to be a 1978 release. As for makeup, a hint of possible eyeshadow, but nothing garish (though I agree even that is not "period") and could even simply be artistic rendition of shadowing under the brows. Honestly, to me it looks a lot less what I would describe as "romance novel book cover" than the one we have;)--at least she looks to be in the right age range in the previous one (and no cap here either). I'm not sure of the date on that one, and not sure where our copy is at the moment. http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-media/product-gallery/0440995779/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_0?ie=UTF8&index=0 Here's a shot of the 35 different cover styles---perhaps there will be one more to your liking. It's a wonderful story! http://www.librarything.com/work/11990/covers/ Edited to add: Ah, saw the posting of the actual cover and it *isn't* any of the ones I thought. Agreed, pretty cheesy and definitely makeup in that one, and the whole "windblown model hair" is a bit ridiculous. If they weren't blowing the hair around, I don't think I'd class her expression as seductive, though. Let's hear it for used bookstores :) Edited July 17, 2009 by KarenNC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNC Posted July 17, 2009 Author Share Posted July 17, 2009 Is it this one? The Laurel Leaf edition?http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0440995779?ie=UTF8&redirect=true#reader If so, I really don't see "seductive" or "unwholesome" in it. The clothing is standard Puritan basic, covered to neck and wrists, and while the style of the art is a bit more realistic/photographic than the other options, I don't see that she is a "modern" girl other than she's not wearing a cap. It appears to be a 1978 release. As for makeup, a hint of possible eyeshadow, but nothing garish (though I agree even that is not "period") and could even simply be artistic rendition of shadowing under the brows. Honestly, to me it looks a lot less what I would describe as "romance novel book cover" than the one we have;)--at least she looks to be in the right age range in the previous one (and no cap here either). I'm not sure of the date on that one, and not sure where our copy is at the moment. http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-media/product-gallery/0440995779/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_0?ie=UTF8&index=0 Here's a shot of the 35 different cover styles---perhaps there will be one more to your liking. It's a wonderful story! http://www.librarything.com/work/11990/covers/ No that is the one I wanted. The modern one is linked in my previous post. I guess I won't bother returning it. I really dislike it though... Bummer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WishboneDawn Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 I don't think she looks made up or seductive (at least in a sexual sense) at all. I think that may be more a matter of what the viewer reads into her expression and features. To me she looks more like she's got a secret, is clever or knows something she's dying to share with the reader. I think the expression is actually a lot more engaging then the original one. And centering her rather then having her off to the side is a bit more of a challenge to someone looking at the cover. That said, it DOES look like the face was stuck on the wrong body or something and as if she's got no neck. All the stuff I like about the cover is messed up because her pose is so weird and her body proportions are wrong. One more thing, I tend to question my reaction to things like book covers, most especially when they're books I have an emotional connection to. Is my objection to a new cover really justified or is it because my sense of nostalgia is being offended? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibraryLover Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 I rather like the new one. :001_huh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicole M Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 (edited) I don't care for either of those covers, frankly. But I wonder fi this is a US publisher thing. I ordered the hardcover British edition of Gatty's tale because the US edition was skanky. Here's the British: http://www.amazon.com/Gattys-Tale-Kevin-Crossley-Holland/dp/1842552732/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247852778&sr=8-1 And here is the US edition (they changed the title, too): http://www.amazon.com/Crossing-Paradise-Kevin-Crossley-Holland/dp/054505866X/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_8 Weird. ETA: I just re-read some of the other responses. I'm surprised. Long, flowing hair has historically been associated with sensuality / sexuality. Just because some of us don't find it sexual or seductive doesn't detract from the fact that it is completely anachronistic. My biggest gripe is that you are not going to get a boy to read a book with a hubba-hubba chick on the front. It angers me that "girl's books" are essentially kept in the "girl's book" category because of stupid covers. Girls are expected to read all kinds of books that are uninteresting to them because they are classics, but you won't find many boys willing to read girlie books (except mine, who are either bribed or threatened, lol!). Edited July 17, 2009 by Nicole M Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 I rather like the new one. :001_huh:It looks rather like the 1972 cover. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 I don't care for either of those covers, frankly. But I wonder fi this is a US publisher thing. I ordered the hardcover British edition of Gatty's tale because the US edition was skanky. Here's the British: http://www.amazon.com/Gattys-Tale-Kevin-Crossley-Holland/dp/1842552732/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247852778&sr=8-1 And here is the US edition (they changed the title, too): http://www.amazon.com/Crossing-Paradise-Kevin-Crossley-Holland/dp/054505866X/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_8 Weird. Oh my. I recently imported the third volume of Augarde's Touchstone Trilogy (The Various, Celandine, and Winter Wood) because of the horrible US covers. It doesn't happen often, but the reason I'd purchased The Various was because of its beautiful and elegant author illustrated dust jacket. [Happily, the story doesn't disappoint.] Here's the dust jacket on the new US edition. The third in the trilogy was released with this in the US and this in Britain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HollyinNNV Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 I've been reading a lot of English teacher websites. The overriding teacher p.o.v. is to appeal to the student. They are trying to focus on appealing to kids in every possible way. How does literature apply to your life? How can we make kids connect to literature? I think that this ever-present quest to connect to kids comes out in the photos where the character looks modern. As anachronistic as that may be, some teachers are of the opinion that everything must appeal to the modern student. I think that this p.o.v. is part of the cover art selections. The Great Conversation is now becoming The Great Twitter Tweet. Take the following-a group of teachers excited about getting their kids to actually read Dante. Then the kids have to twitter their reactions. This is a writing assignment, folks. Read it and weep: http://twitter.com/dante1300 http://twitter.com/danteschmante explanation of the project http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/article/CA6647718.html?industryid=47078 As far as the original question, does the cover art bother me, no it doesn't. I don't like it, but I probably wouldn't send it back. However, it is a small symptom of what I believe to be a big problem in education. If that Blackbird Pond cover art is a pimple, the Dante twitters are a festering, oozing boil on English teachers' buttocks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KristenS Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Ew, I don't like the new cover either. I do judge some books by their covers. There's a fantasy book I really enjoy but one of the modern covers made it look like a horror novel, and I couldn't bear the thought of having such a cover on my shelves. It took a while to find one I could stand. I might return a book just for the cover, since you do specifically pay for what they show, and if they send you something else, that is considered bait-and-switch or false advertising or however you choose to view it. They do need to know that's not really acceptable, even if you choose to go ahead and keep it. (I once returned a book I'd read to the bookstore, because I was so appalled at how badly it was written and how mangled the author turned the characters. I was livid that a clean series had gone, well, dirty. They actually took it back but they thought I was nuts. LOL. I did also gripe to both author and publisher but never heard back from either one. Hey, they don't know if we don't tell them.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarenNC Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 ETA: I just re-read some of the other responses. I'm surprised. Long, flowing hair has historically been associated with sensuality / sexuality. Just because some of us don't find it sexual or seductive doesn't detract from the fact that it is completely anachronistic. I don't remember if there are any passages in the books that talk of Kit ditching her cap when she could, but I wouldn't be surprised. Cavalier fashion did have women's heads often uncovered, as I recall, and that would have been the society from which she came. I realize that ringlets were the fashion for Cavalier, but it would have been just as odd to think that she would have had access to curling tongs in a Puritan household.:001_smile: Most importantly, I don't think that the primary concern of the folks who choose bookcover illustrations is historical authenticity;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blessedfamily Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 She looks like her name is "Tiffany" or "Paris", and she's on the cheer squad at Bayview High. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PiCO Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 You would really send a book back because of the 'cover'.....? I would send a book back because of the cover, if I really hated the cover and they had pictured a different cover. I really don't like modernized covers. The new cover for The Witch of Blackbird Pond doesn't really bother me, but I prefer the old one. I don't think I would send it back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blessedfamily Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 I don't think I'd send it back either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ibbygirl Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 She looks like her name is "Tiffany" or "Paris", and she's on the cheer squad at Bayview High. :lol::lol::lol::lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ibbygirl Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Maybe she can draw a mustache and Groucho glasses on the cover. It would be more amusing to look at anyway. :p hehe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tap Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Her dress collar is standing up and covering her neck, her hair is covering her shoulders so you don't get the perspective of where they are. If you look at the picture that way, maybe the no-neck look isn't as offending. She has makeup on but otherwise I don't find it that modernized otherwise. I wouldn't send it back, but it doesn't bother me. If it bothers you enough that you are willing to go thru the trouble to send it back...then do. Cover art should match (unless there was a disclaimer). If you send it back you can order it thru B&N to you local store and you can preview it before you purchase. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairProspects Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 I'd send it back. I realize how old fashioned I'm sounding, but that bodice looks like it was intended to resemble a corset (coming from someone in the costuming business), and the free-flowing/wind-blown hair is well associated with romance novels, sexy models on fashion covers, bed-head, etc. We have to deal with enough of that in our daily culture, I'm not going to add to the over-sexualization of young women/girls with the cover art on our classic literature. There are enough old copies of this around that I'd look for another. JMHO. But then, I am picky. I just sent The Wizard of Oz back to Amazon today because the cover art was not as advertised and I didn't like it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicole M Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 I'd send it back. I realize how old fashioned I'm sounding, but that bodice looks like it was intended to resemble a corset (coming from someone in the costuming business), and the free-flowing/wind-blown hair is well associated with romance novels, sexy models on fashion covers, bed-head, etc. We have to deal with enough of that in our daily culture, I'm not going to add to the over-sexualization of young women/girls with the cover art on our classic literature. There are enough old copies of this around that I'd look for another. JMHO. But then, I am picky. I just sent The Wizard of Oz back to Amazon today because the cover art was not as advertised and I didn't like it! Hey! I never click on people's blogs, but your mention of "costuming business" made me curious. And, lo! We're neighbors! Funny coincidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WishboneDawn Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 It looks rather like the 1972 cover. Oh! That's my favourite one! But I think you're right...the new one looks like a reworking of that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicole M Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Oh my. I recently imported the third volume of Augarde's Touchstone Trilogy (The Various, Celandine, and Winter Wood) because of the horrible US covers. It doesn't happen often, but the reason I'd purchased The Various was because of its beautiful and elegant author illustrated dust jacket. [Happily, the story doesn't disappoint.] Here's the dust jacket on the new US edition. The third in the trilogy was released with this in the US and this in Britain. Wow. Just wow. I don't have daughters, so I don't really understand this, but I know my friends' daughters eat up this romantic (is that what you call it?) style. Usually I'm kindof a girlie girl, but I agree with my boys on this: Barf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairProspects Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Hey! I never click on people's blogs, but your mention of "costuming business" made me curious. And, lo! We're neighbors! Funny coincidence. Too funny! Can you believe how hot is today? With no air conditioning, we're dying! And my poor ds has a fever on top of all of it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicole M Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Too funny! Can you believe how hot is today? With no air conditioning, we're dying! And my poor ds has a fever on top of all of it... Poor guy! It would stink to have a fever today. I'm stuck in an airless sound booth for the whole day listening to the Seattle Recorder Society. Fortunately, I have a fan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairProspects Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 :lol: Stay cool! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10Newtons Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 I guess I will be making a huge effort to find a used one when I am out book hunting! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abbeyej Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Okay, now that I've looked at 1972, 1978, and 2009, I have to say that I think the 1978 one is just plain hideous. ;) I do prefer the 1972, of those three, but I see nothing offensive about the 2009 one at all (and believe me, I was prepared to be indignant with you!). She looks rosy-cheeked and windblown to me, but I wouldn't call it "seductive". If you're really offended, I'm sure you could send it back to Amazon. They might even refund you the shipping, since it's not the cover that's shown. I returned a book that turned out to be abridged, after there was no mention of that in the listing, and they covered return shipping for me. But honestly, I'm obviously not seeing what you're seeing. (And yes, I was looking at the new link you provided.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 I don't have daughters, so I don't really understand this, but I know my friends' daughters eat up this romantic (is that what you call it?) style. Usually I'm kindof a girlie girl, but I agree with my boys on this: Barf.The irony is that the trilogy doesn't have those types of "fairies" in it at all, so someone purchasing it on the basis of the new covers will be sorely disappointed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2cents Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 She looks creepy (the no neck thing and facial expression) but honestly I don't think it is 'return' worthy. Was that the picture on the screen when you ordered? If it was the old picture you probably have grounds to return. :001_smile: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibraryLover Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 Oh! That's my favourite one! But I think you're right...the new one looks like a reworking of that one. I first read the book in '74. It was my fav childhood book for a long time, so I probably like the new book cover just fine for nostalgic reasons. At any rate, I don't see seductive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In the Rain Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 The new cover doesn't really bother me. If it does bother YOU, then you should absolutely send it back. I hate having what I consider "ugly" books on my shelves. I've sold books with covers or illustrations I didn't care for, and bought different covers. Dh thinks I'm crazy, but it matters to me. :lol: FWIW, my 5yo and 7yo are really bothered by the cover of "B is for Betsy". It is so modern that it bears no resemblance at all to the book character. I was somewhat surprised that they would notice! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karen sn Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 That is the one the library had, and the pic that Amazon displayed. I thought that was what they were sending. This is the new one: http://www.randomhouse.ca/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780440995777 What do you think? I like the new one! She's so pretty and witchy looking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebastian (a lady) Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 My biggest gripe is that you are not going to get a boy to read a book with a hubba-hubba chick on the front. It angers me that "girl's books" are essentially kept in the "girl's book" category because of stupid covers. Girls are expected to read all kinds of books that are uninteresting to them because they are classics, but you won't find many boys willing to read girlie books (except mine, who are either bribed or threatened, lol!). I guess that one of the side benefits of reading a lot of used and ex library books is that the kids do learn not to judge a book by its cover. They know that some of their favorite books have been in rebound library editions or even covered in surplus wall paper as a book cover. I did think your perspective on books for girls vs boys interesting. One of my gripes is that books written and marketed for boys tend to be very shallow, tv/movie ripoffs and have poor writing. And while you will find all sorts of books of anthologies of books for girls, frequently there is no companion publication for boys. Newberry Girls The Serpent Slayer: and Other Stories of Strong Women Not One Damsel in Distress: World Folktales for Strong Girls (There is a boys' version for this one, Mightier Than the Sword: World Folktales for Strong Boys All in all, I find a visit to the children's section of most big bookstores a pretty depressing occasion. Once I bypass the Captain Underpants, Pokemon, Transformers and other books of shallow content and writing (for boys and girls), we're frequently left with very little to choose from. One reason I was so excited when I got a copy of the Emmanuel Books catalog is that they are selling reprints of classic out of print books by authors we've enjoyed. But where some catalogs list a book by the author, Emmanuel might have five or six. I was turning pages and thinking, oh, we'd love that on almost every page. Not that I expect every book my sons read to have a male main character. We just finished Daughter of the Mountains and they really enjoyed the story. They added her tale of courage and adventure to their mind's treasury in the same way that I was inspired by The Mad Scientists' Club and The Swiss Family Robinson as a young girl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saille Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 I agree that the model in the new cover has lost her neck, but otherwise it doesn't bother me. I think the cover I remember must be old old old, because even the one at the start of the thread looks like a shampoo model to me. I feel this way about the Ramona Quimby books. What the heck happened to the old illustrations? They *are* Ramona to me, and I feel like my kids are missing out on part of what I was trying to share. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saille Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EKS Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 I would send it back if the cover wasn't the cover pictured. And I *hate* it when they put modern people on the cover of historical fiction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.