"Sultry Blonde" Anne of Green Gables Book Cover Causes Controversy

[overedge]

What were they thinking??

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/daily...213951688.html

[my little pony]

i dont remember her owning a plaid work shirt

that looks like a still from season 1 of dawson's creek

[cygnus]

It would appear that nobody involved in this decision had actually read the books!

[Alixana]

It's just wrong.

[iggie]

"it's blonde, ain't it?"

the girl let the braid drop back with a sigh that seemed to come from her very toes and to exhale forth all the sorrows of the ages.

"yes, it's blonde," she said resignedly. "now you see why i can't be perfectly happy. nobody could who had blonde, hair."

[Habs]

This is so wrong.

[Prancer]

Well, she should have red hair, but I must say that when I read that she was "sultry," I was expecting something more along the lines of a plunging neckline, visible cleavage and a through-the-eyelashes come hither look. It sure wasn't something that would have looked right at home on a book in the 50s.

[Kruss]

As I saw on Twitter, Gilbert called her 'carrots', not 'turnips'.

[Spareoom]

lol, that is hilarious. Whoever put that cover on there obviously knows NOTHING about the books, otherwise they would have known that they could have put ANYONE on the cover and it would have been fine AS LONG as she had red hair. I mean, "Anne of Green Gables" is practically synonymous with red hair, haha!

[Nomad]

...It sure wasn't something that would have looked right at home on a book in the 50s.

Pulp novels excepted. I love the lurid covers of the 40s and 50s drugstore novels.

[Wyliefan]

Saw that the other day -- isn't it awful? Of course, the irony is that now this little self-published version is getting all kinds of attention that it wouldn't have gotten otherwise. I doubt it'll translate into sales, though, so their marketing strategy may have backfired on them.

[skatingfan5]

What were they thinking??

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/daily...213951688.html

I guess they decided to put an uncharacteristically casually-clad Ruby Gillis on the cover instead of Anne?

[Artemis@BC]

A friend posted this on her Facebook page last week. My immediate response was "oh, it's Anne of Heartland."

Honestly, as wrong as this picture is (wrong era, demeanour, and obviously wrong haircolour) ... what disturbs me more is the fact that anyone can use "CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform" to just take Montgomery's text, slap a Photostock image on it, and sell it as theirs. I know that's how it works when a publishing copyright expires ... but it's still wrong in my book.

[DarrellH]

Sultry?

[backspin]

I'm a little surprised her estate didn't get the copyright extended, sometimes I believe they can do that.

[danceronice]

I would actually be very surprised if Sullivan Productions can't go after them.

And can someone who can rep please rep Kruss for the 'turnips' comment?

[Artemis@BC]

I would actually be very surprised if Sullivan Productions can't go after them.

Sullivan owns the rights to their own televised productions, not to the original text. There was a publisher on CBC radio the other day who said that the novels are public domain, although the copyright for some of Montgomery's short stories is still in effect.

Found the interview online: interview (probably geoblocked)

[Artemis@BC]

As I saw on Twitter, Gilbert called her 'carrots', not 'turnips'.

[Finnice]

This cover has nothing, nothing to do with Anne of the Green Gables. It is one of the worst examples of misleading book covers ever.

(Yes, I am a huge L.M. Montgomery fan who has even travelled to Prince Edward Island because of her books.)

[overedge]

Even though the book is in the public domain, I wouldn't be surprised if the Anne of Green Gables Licensing Authority (yes, it really exists) goes after them too.
http://www.gov.pe.ca/anne/license.php3