Friday, February 1, 2008
Silliest Enid Blyton Book Cover Contest
The majority of Enid's original book covers (pre-1970) are excellent. But since then some below-par artwork has crept in, ranging from really naff to downright atrocious. I can see that this topic might spark a deluge of suggestions for the Worst Cover, and anything I suggest below is probably the tip of the iceberg.
What prompted this post? Recently I've been toying with the idea of collecting the American editions of the Secret Seven books, since there seem to be so many of them knocking about on the US version of eBay. Well, I doubt if I'll collect them all, but a few might be interesting. I bought one just now for $1.50 — my first — and the cover just astounded me.
In this illustration, Peter and Janet are shown huddled in the back of their father's car as it's stolen by a couple of crooks. Just LOOK how small Peter and Janet are! I can imagine that it must be pretty unnerving to be sitting in the back of a car at night, quietly waiting as your father hops out and runs a quick errand in a nearby building, and then a couple of nasty-looking criminals hop in and drive off! You'd want to squash yourself down and make yourself really small, wouldn't you? In Peter and Janet's case, it worked.
I'm not sure what astounds me more — the fact that an artist painted this and actually submitted it as a finished piece, or that the publisher accepted it. It's such an unnecessary "mistake" too, when you consider how much wasted space there is to the left of Janet. Why not just make the two children actual human child size instead of this oddly surreal pixie size?
This isn't the first badly scaled cover I've seen. In my opinion, one of the few really bad original covers is The Mystery of the Invisible Thief (which happens to be one of my favorite Five Find-Outer Mystery books). I'm not sure what the artist was on at the time, but Mr Goon looks like something out of the Dandy comic, with his cartoon shoes and unusual posture. And he's superimposed over one of those little model farms you can buy for train sets. At first glance the scaling is all off — Mr Goon is enormous compared to the houses. But even taking into account that he's coming down a hill towards the "farm," it's still a terrible illustration. Nothing works. If the white house is drawn to the correct perspective, then planet Earth's horizon is about 100 yards away. Worse, those houses in the background are the size of sheds. And even though the gate is probably supposed to be hanging off its hinges, its odd angle and central position in the picture seems to scream "Look at me!" After this, that Picasso painting you saw at the local art gallery probably looks quite normal.
The 1970s are always good for a laugh, and I might as well grab the "gay and colorful flared trouser" version of the same title while I'm at it. Look and groan, folks. Sorry, but unhealthily skinny adolescents with bad hair and garish clothes is NOT how I imagine any of Blyton's characters. Heck, I don't even see them in jeans and t-shirts, never mind PINK jeans and ORANGE t-shirts. I'm guessing the yellow-haired girl is young Bets, wearing a dress that surely reveals her knickers even while she's standing still and upright. The two boys... well, they're Pip and Larry, but which is which? I guess Pip is the one with the orange t-shirt, but he's not exactly a pipsqueak, is he?
Aside from observations about terrible seventies' fashions (fashions which included skinny people wearing tight clothing that showed just how painfully skinny they were), all the covers from this era were kind of garish, sporting bright orange or green or purple backdrops. Yeesh.
Whereas the 1970s put some effort in and produced covers we wish we could forget, it seems the publishers of Malory Towers and St Clare's around 2000 really couldn't be bothered, as this cover proves. "Just make the author's name really massive," said the Man-in-Charge, "and bung in a small picture of something that relates to the story somehow. Don't waste too much time on it though. You haven't read the books? Don't worry, nor have I. I think it's about some kids at school, and this one's about twins, so paint something that represents twins somehow." *Sigh* I mean, what grabs you here? What inspires you to buy THIS set of books over another? I realize that the more famous an author is, the larger his or her name is printed on the cover — but these are still children's books and they should appeal to children. Shouldn't they?
On the flip side, it's possible to go too far in the task of appealing to children. Many will argue that the more recent Egmont covers are the worst yet, depicting the children as cartoons. Personally I think this is a vast improvement of late, and the paintings are really pretty nice... but still, it's a long, long way from the serious, realistic paintings of the forties and fifties. But apparently those kinds of covers are not appropriate for children anymore; no, today's younger generation wants their characters dumbed down. It's a strange phenomenon, if you think about it — kids today are supposedly more sophisticated, so perhaps the suitable age range of Enid Blyton books has slipped down a year or two. Let's say they're now more suitable for 7-10 year olds, rather than 9-12. Perhaps the original covers are deemed "too adult" for the appropriate age group? But if 7-10 year olds are sophisticated enough to read these books, then why are they not considered sophisticated enough to appreciate "serious" cover art? It seems a bit backward to me. It doesn't matter who the books are aimed at, the covers should depict the story and characters — and since these are not "cartoon" novels, the covers really have no business being cartoons either.
It's hard to find anything to complain about when you look at the original covers by the likes of Eileen Soper, Stuart Tresilian, and Gibert Dunlop. But you can't talk about book covers and fail to mention the greatest blooper of all time, as shown here. You can perhaps excuse Soper for getting the telescope the wrong way round — this was 1947 and, I don't know, perhaps telescopes were a rarity then? But not only did she get it wrong, but the publishers printed it! Or maybe they had no choice — a deadline is a deadline, and they had to go with it. In any case the error was corrected in the reprint. I wonder if this was a result of thousands of fans writing in saying, "Oy, you muppets! You got it wrong!" or just something they planned to do anyway. I guess we'll never know.
This post could easily be longer, but rather than blather on about it all by myself, it might be far more interesting to hear suggestions for the silliest covers from all you good folks out there!
This post has 16 comments
My least-liked Blyton cover is the cover of the 1980s Beaver paperback edition of "Up the Faraway Tree." Moonface looks like a cross between an escaped convict and a jaundiced witch! He's long, thin and bony with a red and white striped all-in-one bodysuit and he has a bright yellow face, no ears, a pointed nose and a missing tooth. He really looks creepy. Any child who encountered him would run away screaming! The children riding on a broomstick with him seem very "1980s." Around the main picture is a border which is more attractive, consisting of twisted trees, pretty little toadstool houses, a brownie and a hedgehog.
Anita, you're right, that Moonface picture is terrible! *grimace*
In case you're still wondering, this is the modern French edition for 'The Mystery of the Stuttering Parrot'.
The illustrations are too bad to be looked at. I can't believe the illustrators or the publishers couldn't be bothered with the illustrations that suit the story of the books. My, it feels like wearing a black tee shirt in a party that is themed to be white. Thank goodness that the story is good and that people will buy it without doubt, which is Enid Blyton's fans and had known that all her books are outstanding.
Imagine a stranger that know nothing of Enid Blyton -- perhaps there isn't one -- and decides to stretch his legs to the nearest bookstore to find a good storybook to ease his mind from his bad day and he came through Enid Blyton's books corner and what he saw was only books and tons of books with poor illustrations. What would make him pick up the book if he was in a hurry and purchase it? If he had the time to read the synopsys, maybe he would buy it but if he didn not have the time? He would simply glance at the book and choose others.
See how important the illustrations are? Not just a simple illustration based on what the title is, but a very good illustration based on the story of the book.
Vote for good illustrations,
Mimsy
Oh, and the new Six Cousins book cover looks very strange too -- rather like a cartoony New Year's party. *rolling eyes*
I expect Eileen Soper got a good ribbing after it was published. However, one potential explanation is, subconsciously Soper proved that George was "just like a girl" after all, by demonstrating she didn't even know how to handle a telescope properly. Although you would have thought the fact that Kirrin Island was a mere speck through the glass might have given the game away.
I'm probably ascribing motives here that didn't exist, and maligning poor Eileen Soper even more!
Mimsy, you're right of course. I wonder, though, what a publisher would say about this. I can't help thinking these poor covers would put people off buying them... but do they? If they're the only covers available, would you buy it simply because you have no choice? Hmm...
Sayyada, that Secret Seven cover is indeed funny, as all in that series are. But Ming, I'm not sure which cover YOU meant. The 2001 version of Five Get Into Trouble doesn't have Timmy on it. But you're right about the Six Cousins book. I owned that one myself...!
Kay, I love the idea of George seeing her island as a mere speck. "They're towing my island away!" she cried furiously. Or, "It's sinking! My island is sinking! Only the tip is showing now!"
I have been chuckling since I opened this page -- a very hard chuckle until I was red in the face when I saw the cover of the Mystery of the Invisible Thief above.
It's just so funny, I couldn't help myself going all red with endless laughter until my mother looked up from her recipes book that she had buried herself in most of the time. My cat, Phantom jumped over the wall, startled.
One thing that tickles me so much is Keith's description about the "beautiful indeed" cover: "unhealthily skinny adolescents", "PINK jeans and ORANGE t-shirts" and the sentences that followed. I had mentioned of Keith being a column-writer in "Those crazy Americans" post, but I think he should be a clown now.
Hohoho...
Mimsy
Yes, I think you do have a point, Nigel. The picture does look awfully terrible. I think the drawer must be sent back to his or her drawing class again because they should be trained properly to draw before they put down their pencil!!! While Fatty looks like a mutant boy, Bets look absolutely larger and bigger than she ought to. Ah, everything's not okay for sure!
POSTS ARE NOW CLOSED