I read Louisa May Alcott’s Little Women (1868) as a youth, but wanted a review of it before I posted my thoughts. So, I listened to it on CD during my drive to school. I will post my reaction to the content of the novel later this week, but I had to dedicate an entire post to just the cover art of the book on CD. Have you ever seen an uglier depiction of Meg, Jo, Beth, and Amy?
Who is responsible for this travesty? Who decided that this horror belonged on the cover of this CD edition?
I’m pretty sure that Alcott would NOT have approved. I don’t approve either. Yikes!
Have you ever seen an uglier book cover? I’m pretty sure this one takes the cake!
LOL! That gave me a great laugh when I saw it. How hilarious that such a horrible illustration was used. Maybe a passive aggressive cover designer who doesn’t like the book…
I like that theory Jeanne. Perhaps they were forced to read it in high school.
That takes the cake and any and all desserts! Wowzers.
Ha! No kidding.
I ponder regularly the idiocy of the publishing practice of not involving the author in the illustration decisions. This is surely causing LMA to turn over in her grave. The Simpsons meets The Alcotts/Marches.
I do hope you’ll comment on your Little Women reading, though, and link up to my blog. I’m just about ready to reactivate the LMA challenge for 2013.
Ooh, I’d love to link to your blog. I will. Thanks! I also like your description of the cover: the Simpsons meet the Marches. Very nice.
That is pretty horrible. It is like they were trying to bring some ethnicity into them while keeping them white at the same time. It looks very strange. And the book is so pretty and trite (trite in the best possible sense) that you expect delicate and pretty looking girls, like the movie version with Susan Sarandon and Winona Ryder and Kirsten Dunst.
Yes, exactly! The casting for the movie was much better thought out (obviously) than this cover!
Did you read “March” by Geraldine Brooks? It is quite interesting. It is about the father in “Little Women” and what he was doing during the war. It is a different kind of “sequel,’ that is for sure. I enjoyed it.
Yes, I love that one. I think it is the best work of Geraldine Brooks. Brilliant!
Wow! NO, as a matter of fact, I Haven’t!! I actually just posted a picture of my most favorite Christmas ladies on my blog today!!! How strange!
I laughed out loud and everything. Very cute post.
Yikes! I saw the picture before I read the title of the post and it startled me!
I agree with Caitlin; the March girls are always depicted as being so lovely and delicate. This is so jarring.
Jarring is a good word for it. I’m laughing imagining you startled (that is, imagining an imaginary you, since I don’t really “know” you). 🙂
I actually think Alcott would laugh at this cover and think it was amusing. (I hate this cover though! Because I treasure Little Women.) 😉
I hope she would laugh!
Such horrible illustrations shouldn’t be put as covers for such wonderful novels. It takes away a little of the fun!
Yes and yes. Very bad cover!
I am NOT savoring that cover. I wholeheartedly agree that Alcott would not have approved. I imagine her looking, bewildered, at this artist’s interpretation of her beautiful work saying to herself, “Obviously this person has not read my book.” I believe she would be more befuddled by that ghastly cover, than the technology inside.
I like that interpretation of what Alcott would think or feel. Very astute!
awful… can’t wait for your post… I hope it is full of wonderful transcendentalist quotes….
I hope so, too. I guess I’d better get on that.
Good Lord, it’s vile! How on earth did the publishers agree to that?! It would give me nightmares to look at that!
Yes, what were the publishers thinking?!?!
I am NOT savoring that cover, at all. However, I thank you for making me laugh. I could imagine Alcott finding herself more bewildered by the artists’ ghastly interpretation of her beautiful work than by the technology found inside that disastrously masked plastic case. Out of compassion for her, I hope she would see the humor in it’s ridiculousness and laugh her a** off!
I like your mention of technology. That would probably be less confusing to her!
OOH, I am loving all of the Alcott-tastic comments. Apparently I’m not the only person who channels Louisa. Happy reading!
Smart comments, for sure!
love the book hate the cover.
I don’t think you are alone on that one!
Ha, I blogged about ‘Little Women’ on mine. Alcott prob. would have approved of the cover as she wasn’t overly fond of the ‘Little Women’ series.
Ha! That is a different take. Did she not like the series as opposed to her “romance” novels? I would think those would be even less liked by her.
You are too funny! I’m having my morning cup of coffee and nearly spilled it when I saw the cover. They definitely went with a different approach- perhaps a failed attempt to modernize it to appeal to new young readers? Thanks for making me laugh anyway!
LOL! I like your interpretation. It gives the person or persons responsible the benefit of the doubt. How kind you are!
I’m thinking some serious nepotism occurred when that picture was given the okay for publication!
Now that seems like a plausible explanation! 🙂
wow what a horrible cover lol looks kind of like a quentin blake drawing of the twits
That is a perfect description. The Twits meet the Marches. Where are the monkeys?
Emily, I am here at the referral of our friend Hugh. I agree with your assessment. It reminds me of an advertisement for a bad TV show episode not a book classic. I love your bookshelf, especially “To Kill a Mockingbird.” Best regards, BTG
How wonderful of you to stop by! Isn’t Hugh fantastic? And yes, the book cover is as you describe, more cartoonish than sophisticated. I don’t think I’ve seen a worse one, and I feel like I hit the jackpot in finding it just so I could post it on my blog. Ha ha!
My pleasure. Hugh is great and his blog is one of my first stops. Take care, BTG
I have never read this book before but telling by the cover i probably would not read it myself. Even though you are not supposed to “Judge a book by its cover.” but looking at the cover for a while it is not the “ugliest book cover ever.” Quiet frankly that is very rude to say because there are way worse book covers out there but that’s only in my opinion. Also like i said before i have never read this book so i don’t know if this is a good type of cover for this book. That’s all i really have to say.
Hope you have a wonderful day!
Well, I if you read Little Women, I think you’d change your mind on my being “rude.” It really is the worst possible cover for this heart-warming, American classic. Alcott doesn’t deserve such little regard for one of her best-loved works.
Okay well im sorry if i came of rude.
Oh man, it’s so bad it’s good. Thanks for the laugh today.
You are right, that is the ugliest cover I’ve ever seen. I never imagined the sisters looking so ugly. Who chose that cover?
No idea. But it’s certainly strange!
It’s completely off the point,I think!
Modernizing doesn’t mean distorting…….
My dear, dear, Louisa M, Alcott !
So true. It seems that distortion was the goal here rather than modernization.
That cover is so funny
Yes, it really is!
This is a veritable Sistine Chapel compared to the ugliest book cover I have ever seen which was a sort of a Crumb cartoon version of the four sisiters.
Can’t find the image but frankly be glad you don’t have to see it Horrible.
LOL! I, too, am glad I don’t have to see it, given that description.