Worst designed covers

[Rob Houghton]

Publishers aren't stupid. I suppose they offer both sets of covers to cater for the purchaser; a child is more likely to buy the cartoony cover whereas an adult will be drawn towards the Soper cover if buying the book for a child.

Exactly! Mind you, as I said, I was an odd child. If an aunt or uncle had bought me a famous five with a cartoon cover I would have felt very embarrassed, like they thought I was a little kid, and would have felt like I was about 3. If I felt something 'talked down to me' I immediately hated it.

[IceMaiden]

I agree with Michael, I find the cartoon covers, any cartoon covers of Enid's books, absolutely abysmal. Apart from looking as if they were done by someone right handed using their left hand to draw with, to me, they seem to give off a feeling of complete lack of respect, like whoever's done them wasn't taking the job sincerely or seriously and instead was clowning around or mocking Enid's work. They also don't look right because the image on the cover doesn't fit at all with the age of the story inside. Their totally mismatched, they don't give a single clue as to what the book is really like, they don't conjure up any emotion or feeling whatsoever, they are totally soulless, uninspiring and unappealing in the extreme. Had someone given me an Enid Blyton book that looked like that as a child I'd never have looked at it and it would have put me off reading her books completely. As for the computer done images, I don't like them one bit either, no matter how skilful they may be.

[Rob Houghton]

I find it intensely interesting and intriguing that modern-day publishers are promoting the Famous Five books as jokey, far-out, uber cool, fantastical, lighthearted, inconsequential, irreverent stories similar to those of Roald Dahl.

Wonder how many children are disappointed when they open them?

[Daisy]

Let's hope they are pleasantly surprised with a jolly good story. I would not have said they were much like Roald Dahl's at all - except they are both written for children!

[Rob Houghton]

Of course, we are all fans of EB, and I'm sure many children would be drawn in by the story, regardless of the cover...BUT - it does seem, looking at it cynically, that publishers are aiming Enid's stories at the Roald Dahl, David Walliams fans - and surely that must lead to a lot of books being bought (which is great for the publisher) but never read (which isn't so good for Enid Blyton).

[IceMaiden]

I'm afraid I'm not a fan of the artwork in Roald Dah's books either (or the books, they don't appeal), I do not like that scrawly kind of drawing that looks like someone has been doodling at the dinner table to pass a few minutes. Beatrix Potter's new recently discovered book has been given this treatment, despite the fact that she had done one drawing of the character that an artist could have used as a guide, to keep the book consisent with her own unique beautiful style. Instead they've made it appallingly cartoony and what they've got doesn't even resemble a BP book - it may as well have stayed undiscovered .

How exactly can this:

http://www.newyorker.com/wp-content/upl ... k1-988.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Be compared to this:

http://www.randomreads.co.za/website/ad ... cover2.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Courtenay]

We had a whole discussion earlier on the new Beatrix Potter book with Quentin Blake illustrations, which certainly provoked some relatively heated comments. But as I discovered the other day, maybe one shouldn't judge a book by its cover after all... http://www.enidblytonsociety.co.uk/foru ... 75#p279279" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm a little sorry to see some disparaging comments about Roald Dahl's books here, by the way — I realise his books aren't everyone's cup of tea, but both his AND Enid's were huge staples of my childhood and I loved both, in different ways (and still do). There's no reason why children who are drawn to Dahl can't be drawn to Blyton as well, and vice versa. I generally don't think "scribbly" illustrations suit Enid Blyton's style of writing at all (they don't always suit Roald Dahl's, either). But the use of that style of artwork for Blyton books does not necessarily mean they'll attract readers who won't enjoy Enid Blyton.

[Rob Houghton]

I think what I said earlier has maybe been misinterpreted. I was using Dahl's books as examples of zany outrageous humour, which many children love (I didn't like Dahl much, I admit, but then when I was a child, don't forget, many of his most popular books had yet to be written!) - and suggesting that children might pick a famous five book up expecting, by the cover, that it will be a zany comical slightly irreverent story about kids having 'plenty of fun' (for example).

I wasn't suggesting fans of Dahl wouldn't enjoy Blyton. Many children would enjoy both...but I know as a child, if I hadn't known who Blyton was, I would probably have been put off by the covers, because they depict zany crazy stories with zany looking characters, and I wasn't a fan of that type of book, so would probably have missed out on many of Enid's books. On the other hand, children expecting zany irreverent stories inside the cover of a famous five might be disappointed.

[Courtenay]

Good points, Rob — sorry, I think I did misread your comments somewhat. Mind you, I would also add (and we've discussed this earlier too) that before Roald Dahl started collaborating with Quentin Blake, his earlier books were illustrated by several different artists, usually with much more realistic styles. It's only retrospectively that they've been re-illustrated by Blake in the newer reprints.

I like a lot of Quentin Blake's work — I grew up with quite a number of books illustrated by him, not just Roald Dahl ones — but there are plenty of stories I would say his style doesn't suit, including some of Dahl's, let alone Enid Blyton's. But then, as I said in the other thread I linked to, I was quite surprised to find his illustrations for Kitty-in-Boots were quite effective and amusing once one gets over the "ugh, a cartoony artist like this should NOT be illustrating Beatrix Potter" reaction. In fact, the story itself is so lively and quirky that I'm honestly not sure Beatrix's intricate and realistic style of artwork would have quite done it justice! (Is that blasphemy?? There, I've said it. )

But back on topic, I completely agree that scribbly, jokey-looking covers for Enid Blyton's books could give kids the wrong impression of the type of story, at least if they hadn't read Enid Blyton before. I get the impression the publishers probably have looked at other books like Dahl's and Walliams' and said "Well, this is the style of cover that other top-selling children's authors have at the moment, so this is obviously what appeals to the kids, so let's go for it." But I'm sure within a few years, fashions will change again and Enid's books will get more cover makeovers that perhaps we grown-up (?) fans will like better. Or maybe not.

[MJE]

Children have always recognised cartoony style characters as opposed to real actors ... and I suppose they just enjoy the actions and the story .... Come to think of it, the style of drawing is very similar to the early efforts of most people! Perhaps that's why children can relate to them.

     I can almost see philosophical issues here about what should serve as a model to others, about what quality is, and so on. I won't belabour them, but just comment that, as a child, I tended, in my areas of interest, to identify with things that were distinctly superior to what I was able to do at the time, rather than things on a similar level.
     I was composing music, and just trying to write more piano sonatas on the level of Beethoven - that's all! (Sadly, I failed in that, but it took me a while to realize it.) And I was writing Blytonian stories, and trying (but also failing) to do them as well as she did. But I don't think I would have in the least identified with work that was of a similar level to what I could do myself. But maybe it's different with children nowadays - I don't know; but I cannot think that, even when I was a child, cartoony covers that almost institutionalize mediocrity or unskillfulness would have appealed to me.

Regards, Michael.

[MJE]

Publishers aren't stupid. I suppose they offer both sets of covers to cater for the purchaser; a child is more likely to buy the cartoony cover[...]

     Just as a matter of interest: we have been assuming that children would usually prefer the cartoony covers, and I'm not saying that's incorrect, because I don't know. But why would this be so? Why mightn't there also be children who don't like them, who think they are a mismatch with the style of the stories within, and who might prefer something more like Soper? Are we stereotyping children too much if we assume their tastes aren't diverse, instead assuming they all like the same thing?

[...] whereas an adult will be drawn towards the Soper cover if buying the book for a child.

     So whom were *those* editions intended to cater for? Are they consciously aiming at the adult Blyton-nostalgia market here? Would that market be big enough to be worth catering for, from a commercial point of view? But then I'd expect many of those people to search for authentic old editions, and they are more likely than children to have the money to be able to do that.

Regards, Michael.

[Rob Houghton]

As a child I definitely preferred artists and illustrations to have a greater skill than mine. I used to sit studying detailed illustrations for ages, wishing I could be as good an artist. The 'Teddy Bear' and 'Jack and Jill' annuals of the 1970s had some stunning artists who put in so much detail that an illustration could be studied like this for hours and still throw up something new. This was the type of illustrator I liked, and I still do.





Books like The Mr Men books were 'okay' but I genuinely thought that Roger Hargreaves couldn't draw very well. I think I thought the same about Quentin Blake and also Jolyne Knox when I saw her illustrations for the famous five. I used to wonder why these artists had been given jobs, because they were no better than your average child when it came to drawing.

[IceMaiden]

We had a whole discussion earlier on the new Beatrix Potter book with Quentin Blake illustrations, which certainly provoked some relatively heated comments. But as I discovered the other day, maybe one shouldn't judge a book by its cover after all... http://www.enidblytonsociety.co.uk/foru ... 75#p279279" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm a little sorry to see some disparaging comments about Roald Dahl's books here, by the way — I realise his books aren't everyone's cup of tea, but both his AND Enid's were huge staples of my childhood and I loved both, in different ways (and still do). There's no reason why children who are drawn to Dahl can't be drawn to Blyton as well, and vice versa. I generally don't think "scribbly" illustrations suit Enid Blyton's style of writing at all (they don't always suit Roald Dahl's, either). But the use of that style of artwork for Blyton books does not necessarily mean they'll attract readers who won't enjoy Enid Blyton.

I'm sorry Courtenay I didn't mean to upset you, I'm afraid I'm just not a fan of Roald Dahl (other than Boy, I do like that one) . If it makes you feel better it's not just him, I'm not a fan of any author other than Enid Blyton and Beatrix Potter, I think those two spoilt me as a child so I don't like anyone else . I like the odd story by another author, Watership Down for instance, but it's because I like the story itself not because I'm a fan of Richard Adams and I would be unlikely to buy another book by him unless I was drawn to what it was about. Whereas with EB, simply knowing it was by her would be enough to make me buy it in an instant and I wouldn't even have to look at the content to know I'd like and enjoy it.

The illustrations however are a different matter entirely, I do not and would not like Quentin Blake's drawings no matter what they were on. I'm afraid I don't find them likeable, well done or appealing in any way and if I were an author there is no way I'd want or allow my work to be illustrated by him. His style is not my cup of tea at all. I like cartoon animation as in old Disney/Scooby Doo/Looney Tunes type but not for Enid's books (or Beatrix's!) and definitely not those Charlie and Lola style ones.

[joanne_chan]

It may sound a bit simple -and probably knowing me it is- but what I looked for from a cover as a child was really something that produced an emotional resonance in me that was clearly connected to what what the book was about so an Eileen Soper original would work and even the Tv tie-in Famous Fives would because the real children photographed were clearly linked to the adventure.
The adventure was the thing I wanted to immerse myself in and in that way the covers were the signpost.

[Rob Houghton]

Basically I looked for realism in the covers of books I was interested in. I remember the Betty Maxey covers - all fine by me, as they were realistic and dramatic. Then there were the Derek Lucas covers for the Secret Seven - fantastic! They were my favourite cover illustrations when I was growing up. The dramatic paperback covers for the Barney mysteries and the Adventure series were also tempting (the Castle of Adventure with its dark blue sky and orange castle!). Lastly I loved the paperback covers by Mary Gernat - these made me want to open the books and read! I'm no illustration snob...I don't just like the original illustrations - in fact I prefer Derek Lucas over every other Secret Seven illustrator, and I prefer Rene Cloke's depiction of The Faraway Tree characters over Dorothy Wheeler's.

But these modern day covers leave me cold. I want my characters to look human.