I read Anna Carey's piece in the Friday Times' Arts section with interest. It seems Penguin have decided that not enough people are reading the classic novels, and therefore they should be remarketed in the manner any newly-written book would be. The article opens with an interesting simile: 
Firstly, I'm uncertain as to whether the porridge viewpoint is correct, but we'll allow it for the moment. However, what is certain is that publishers have oftentimes given these great tales drab, brown, homogenous covers which has apparently pushed people away from these books. When I say oftentimes, it should be said that some editions actually look quite well, such as the edition of Catch-22, left. In remarketing the books, they have been republished with sexy, colourful and, importantly, individual covers. I'd question the wisdom of this move.
Firstly, I think it's important that we identify what a classic novel is. The Times' piece describes broadly defines the classic as a book that lasts the test of time; that is a book that still works long after its initial hype has faded, that still says something to those who read it long after it was written. As a mere writer of semi-topical blog posts, I can't even imagine how difficult it must be to discover an immortal jewel of a message, which is almost undoubtedly necessary if the book is to resonate years on. Nevertheless, some clack away at their respective scrolls, paper, typewriters or computers until they eventually manage to pen such everlasting tales. Then they die, and soon Penguin is publishing their book(s) with a beautifully banal brown covers. The novels are then officially classic novels, part of an exclusive club of books which all bare almost exactly the same exterior, are placed at the back of the bookshop and are available at cut - or veritably chopped - prices. I'm all for this, it's something of a hall of fame thing - they have earned their place there. I am of course aware that Catch-22 is a more recent 'classic' and as such, it's difficult to determine if it will, in fact, last the test of time. However, I couldn't find an image of the various other classics which have been given sassy new covers.
Prospective readers in search of a book similarly brilliant to that of the Dostoyevsky they just finished know exactly where to look; with these new publications, and the prospect of more, the classic novel is deemed no better than modern day fiction which is often a dodgy affair. The argument goes that these new covers will bring an air of modernity to the classics, reaching out to a younger audience. I disagree; placed amongst new fiction, it's unlikely such apathetic youngsters will be tricked into being a classic, not because they are to clever, but because there is such a range of fiction, that there eyes will probably glance passed Bronte in favour of Brown. At least when the classics are amongst themselves, somebody ignorant - but in search of some culture - knows where to go, and can afford an almost unlimited amount of these books at just 2 euro each. This, sadly, is not the case for the snazzy new editions; I picked one up on Saturday and saw a 16 euro price tag.
It's a sad reflection on our times when we have to hike-up prices and sex-up covers (which are not meant to be the deciding factor, people!) in order to get people to read the good books. It's a sadder reflection when we don't distinguish the really great writers throughout history from the debatable work of today. I know the introduction of these new publications will not see the end of the plain old editions and I know that Penguin have mainly good intentions at heart. Still, I certainly doubt how effective their approach will prove. Ah well sure, being the capitalist that I am, we'll just let the market decide.
Classic novels have long been seen as the porridge of the fiction world - very good for you, of course, but not particularly enjoyable. This idea has, in the past, been reinforced by the publishers.
Firstly, I'm uncertain as to whether the porridge viewpoint is correct, but we'll allow it for the moment. However, what is certain is that publishers have oftentimes given these great tales drab, brown, homogenous covers which has apparently pushed people away from these books. When I say oftentimes, it should be said that some editions actually look quite well, such as the edition of Catch-22, left. In remarketing the books, they have been republished with sexy, colourful and, importantly, individual covers. I'd question the wisdom of this move.Firstly, I think it's important that we identify what a classic novel is. The Times' piece describes broadly defines the classic as a book that lasts the test of time; that is a book that still works long after its initial hype has faded, that still says something to those who read it long after it was written. As a mere writer of semi-topical blog posts, I can't even imagine how difficult it must be to discover an immortal jewel of a message, which is almost undoubtedly necessary if the book is to resonate years on. Nevertheless, some clack away at their respective scrolls, paper, typewriters or computers until they eventually manage to pen such everlasting tales. Then they die, and soon Penguin is publishing their book(s) with a beautifully banal brown covers. The novels are then officially classic novels, part of an exclusive club of books which all bare almost exactly the same exterior, are placed at the back of the bookshop and are available at cut - or veritably chopped - prices. I'm all for this, it's something of a hall of fame thing - they have earned their place there. I am of course aware that Catch-22 is a more recent 'classic' and as such, it's difficult to determine if it will, in fact, last the test of time. However, I couldn't find an image of the various other classics which have been given sassy new covers.Prospective readers in search of a book similarly brilliant to that of the Dostoyevsky they just finished know exactly where to look; with these new publications, and the prospect of more, the classic novel is deemed no better than modern day fiction which is often a dodgy affair. The argument goes that these new covers will bring an air of modernity to the classics, reaching out to a younger audience. I disagree; placed amongst new fiction, it's unlikely such apathetic youngsters will be tricked into being a classic, not because they are to clever, but because there is such a range of fiction, that there eyes will probably glance passed Bronte in favour of Brown. At least when the classics are amongst themselves, somebody ignorant - but in search of some culture - knows where to go, and can afford an almost unlimited amount of these books at just 2 euro each. This, sadly, is not the case for the snazzy new editions; I picked one up on Saturday and saw a 16 euro price tag.
It's a sad reflection on our times when we have to hike-up prices and sex-up covers (which are not meant to be the deciding factor, people!) in order to get people to read the good books. It's a sadder reflection when we don't distinguish the really great writers throughout history from the debatable work of today. I know the introduction of these new publications will not see the end of the plain old editions and I know that Penguin have mainly good intentions at heart. Still, I certainly doubt how effective their approach will prove. Ah well sure, being the capitalist that I am, we'll just let the market decide.
Top reviews:
DVD player
Digital Camera
Portable MP3 player
Travel
Product search: |
E-mail Kevin: blast_portmarnockREMOVE@yahoo.com
Email Michael: mickonline2REMOVE@yahoo.com
Previous posts
Archives
Latest Comments
Irish Blogs
-
Analogue
An Unrepentant Communist
Blue Birds Are So Natural
Cedar Lounge Revolution
Ciaran O'Kelly
Crabling Otter
Damien Mulley
Eoin Purcell
Fustar
Lord Byron's Pistol Club
Midnight Court
Most Sincerely Folks
Poetbloggs
Robert Donohoe
Shock
Twenty Major
A special place in my heart
'Proper' Journalism etc.
The Wireless
BBC Radio
4RTE Radio 1
