"Adult" covers for children's books

The new cover of Roald Dahl's classic kid's book, Charlie and Chocolate Factory, recently caused an awful lot of controversy and you can see why.

Many thought it creepy and some even found it overtly sexual in a rather inappropriate way for a kids book. I can see why they would think this. If you try to read too much into the image you could certainly find it a little sinister.

My own view is that it's simply not a very good cover, not representative of the author, the characters or the story. Penguin admitted as much themselves, saying "the cover image was not intended to represent either of female children featured in the story", which makes the choice of picture baffling. Choosing a cover that has nothing at all to do with the story, especially for a kids book, is a little strange, but it's even more so when you think that someone must have sat down and thought "This is the one for us! This is the entirely unrelated image that we want to use!"

Penguin defended the cover saying it stressed "the light and the dark aspects" of Dahl's work. I would never deny that the darker elements of Roald Dahl's work were part of the joy of reading the books as a kid. And dark they were; James's parents were killed by a Rhino before he ended up travelling on the Giant Peach, whilst the giants in the BFG were fond of eating anyone they could. Certainly there is a touch of the macabre about elements of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory itself, but how this cover stresses those dark themes is beyond me.

Penguin continued their defence by affirming that this cover is not meant for children but rather is "intended for an adult audience". Glossing over the question about why an adult willing to enjoy a classic children's book would need a more mature cover in order to do so, lets look at the fact that Penguin seem entirely comfortable to use the word "Adult" in conjunction with this particular picture. Literature for Adults and "Adult Literature" are two very different things and they know that. This picture can been seen in a number of ways depending on the context and they knew that too. Basically it's a cover designed to provoke a reaction, which I suppose it has done. But has nothing at all to do with the story it is supposed to portray and would probably alienate the actual intended audience of the book.

It just seems a rather pointless and cynical act. If all they want is to provoke a reaction to their classic back catalogue, expect to see this cover soon: