Yet more “modern” editions of the novels
We missed this somehow…Penguin in the U.K. is re-releasing many of its classic titles, including Jane Austen’s six novels, in new editions with covers that look more like modern novels than classic novels. We think the cover drawings are quite nice and not too chick-lit; we don’t dislike the Headline covers, either, but we like these better.
This year has brought us two new editions of Jane Austen - one from Penguin Red Classics, and one from Headline. Both look pretty awful, if you ask me - Georgette Heyer meets Jane Green is the best description I can come up with.
[. . .]
The publishers would say that I am simply being snobbish. Their watchword is ‘relevant’; they don’t want to ‘intimidate’ readers; a great story is a great story - full stop.
Why, I wonder, must everything be made to seem so easy?
Jane Austen isn’t a writer of mere romances; she’s far more complex - and savage - than that. In this week’s arts column, I’m asking if this isn’t just a kind of cynicism on the part of publishers: are they duping people into buying books that, once they’ve opened, they will find unpalatable, even unreadable?
Or is anything at all that increases sales of classic novels something for which we should give grateful thanks? Are there less well-known classic novels that you think could actually benefit from a marketing push for today’s readers or should we leave well alone?
The question about “duping” readers into picking up something that they simply won’t like is a good one, but we hope that more readers new to Austen will be charmed than put off.
We (really a “we”, it was the Editrix and a friend) were in the local book emporium tonight, inquiring at the information counter as to whether Jane Austen for Dummies might have been released a few days early, when a young lady came up with a pile of four or five books in her hand, every one related to Jane Austen. She said she had only Love and Freindship left to read and she would have read all of Jane’s work.
We fell upon her with cries of glee and presented her with a copy of the JASNA brochure (which we just happened to have on hand) and wrote down the URL of our region Web site so she could check out our activities. She seemed not unhappy to be accosted by crazed Janeites but somewhat taken aback, as one might imagine, and the girl behind the information desk look positively frightened. But we hope that at least the young lady continues to read Jane Austen and indulge herself in the paraliterature and biographies and everything else associated with it. It was great to see another generation learning about the joy of Jane Austen’s work.
July 21st, 2006 at 2:58 pm
A thought: this style of cover looks a little more light-hearted and could be thought of as portraying the character/tone of the book in a modern visual vernacular.
I didn’t mean that to sound quite so technical — what I mean is that for someone who associates classic novels with boring, stodgy, old fashioned, a cover that expresses romance or humor or whatever through its artistic style can be a good thing.
However, I wonder how much Austen’s chick lit reputation negates this method. I would suggest something like Nicholas Nickleby that could benefit from such a modern cover. It’s an eminently enjoyable and ‘doable’ book in spite of its length and age.
(I saw the pastel covered Austen at Waterstones the other day and I like them much better in person. The ones I saw were larger than the usual ‘brick’ paperback and for me at least it helped a lot. Old news I know but I hadn’t seen them before then!)
July 21st, 2006 at 6:26 pm
Almost a month ago, Esther at JAcastellano had praised the new Penguin covers, but until now we were wondering how they look like. Thanks for this news. They are very pretty.
July 22nd, 2006 at 8:43 am
To me they’re somewhere in between chick-lit and the type of art design employed on modern novels. There’s some really beautiful and clever designs out there these days–go to the bookstore and just look through the tables of books with an eye to the design. I think the idea is that people who are used to purchasing modern trade paperback originals (the bigger size) will consider these if they look like the sort of books they usually buy. It’s probably a shame that people will need this visual to consider reading Jane Austen’s work, or some of the other wonderful books in the Penguin Red Classics series that have been redesigned, but I don’t think it’s a bad thing. There is an omnibus edition of JA novels that has two wedding rings on the cover, which really pisses me off (there’s a rant about it somewhere in the blog archives–ETA: Found it!) but I think these are nice. Obviously I’m rather fond of RedClassics!Anne and Wentworth, above.
July 23rd, 2006 at 5:44 am
I quite like these covers. The drawings are quite nice. Look at the editions of a couple of Brontë books with a neck theme (no joking) and you’ll see these with different eyes!
I laughed out loud at the little anecdote!
July 23rd, 2006 at 1:56 pm
[...] Rachel Cooke continues her rant in the Observer about the various tarted-up new editions of classic novels, including Jane Austen’s. (Here’s our previous post) Yep. As the Bookseller wryly notes, classics make sense to publishers not only because there are no royalties or advances to be paid; there is no frustrating wait for the ‘break-out’ book from Tolstoy or Dickens. [...]