I actually haven't read any Shannon Hale either (though I own a couple that I will get to eventually). But hers are a good example. The first edition covers have some really interesting paintings, like this one for Enna Burning (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/22/Enna_Burning.jpg), and then I actually found a picture of the newer edition in the author's own blog (http://oinks.squeetus.com/2008/07/horrible-i-hope.html), with some discussion of the rationale behind the change.
It's clear that they make the changes to appeal to a different audience, but using photographs really changes the tone of the story that the cover is telling. Rather than appearing to be a dynamic story, it sends the message that the book is an examination of a particular character's psyche, in a way that even a painting of a single character doesn't. And mostly I look at those kids and say, 'I'm not particularly intrigued by your face', which has nothing at all to do with the book. Because to me it's just a kid in a dress, like many other kids who could be stuck in dresses and photographed.
I've seen that Pride and Prejudice cover; it's appalling. I think there was a Wuthering Heights one, too (for which the style was more appropriate :P), and maybe something else like Jane Eyre. It's great that they're trying to get Twilight readers into more well-respected romantic stories, but I could do without the sign that proclaims, 'If you liked Twilight, you'll love Pride and Prejudice'. Because anyway, why would you? My bet is you actually really wouldn't. It's completely possible that a person could enjoy both, and I know several who have. But if Twilight is the thing that got you into reading, and now you want more of the same, P&P will not deliver that.
That is a pretty bad cover for Wolf Speaker. I'm pretty sure Daine is never naked in that book - isn't she something like fifteen?
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 7/8/12 03:51 am (UTC)It's clear that they make the changes to appeal to a different audience, but using photographs really changes the tone of the story that the cover is telling. Rather than appearing to be a dynamic story, it sends the message that the book is an examination of a particular character's psyche, in a way that even a painting of a single character doesn't. And mostly I look at those kids and say, 'I'm not particularly intrigued by your face', which has nothing at all to do with the book. Because to me it's just a kid in a dress, like many other kids who could be stuck in dresses and photographed.
I've seen that Pride and Prejudice cover; it's appalling. I think there was a Wuthering Heights one, too (for which the style was more appropriate :P), and maybe something else like Jane Eyre. It's great that they're trying to get Twilight readers into more well-respected romantic stories, but I could do without the sign that proclaims, 'If you liked Twilight, you'll love Pride and Prejudice'. Because anyway, why would you? My bet is you actually really wouldn't. It's completely possible that a person could enjoy both, and I know several who have. But if Twilight is the thing that got you into reading, and now you want more of the same, P&P will not deliver that.
That is a pretty bad cover for Wolf Speaker. I'm pretty sure Daine is never naked in that book - isn't she something like fifteen?