maomao
普費斯
Buy a Kindle and download the entire works of Roald Dahl from the internet.this is just so people don't get spotted reading a kids book on the train and secretly mocked by everyone
Buy a Kindle and download the entire works of Roald Dahl from the internet.this is just so people don't get spotted reading a kids book on the train and secretly mocked by everyone
does it have to? As I said, covers often refer to wider issues that are only hinted at by the author or just inferred by the reader/designer/publisherShe wasn't heavily made up. And I don't remember her mother. I only watched it recently too!
It's obviously trying to be eye catching. It's quite a nice photo. It doesn't make me think of CATCF though.
I don't think it's a reference to Verucca Salt
It's only about 60% to be honest.Are all the adult women wearing pink bows in their hair and feather boas these days?
Has everyone forgotten Violet Beauregarde?
She was accompanied by her father too.Has everyone forgotten Violet Beauregarde?
Well it's definitely not solely referring to her. We are to infer other things. The designer knows exactly what they are doing.Well I very much think it is.
the girl in the cover photograph is not intended to be either Violet Beauregarde or Veruca Salt, the spoilt young girls who feature in Dahl’s tale, but a representation of the “twisted" parent-child relationships depicted throughout the book.
Well it's definitely not solely referring to her. We are to infer other things. The designer knows exactly what they are doing.
Well according to Penguin books:
Daddy, Don't Put Me In The Closet Again!if ypou made the font a pretend handwriting one it'd look like a misery porn bio cover
Yes! I knew it! Maybe the US critics were right in suggesting a reference to JonBenet RamsayWell according to Penguin books:
And much much more that that!A pampered, spoilt girl with a cold hard expression.
That is Verruca Salt.
Well according to Penguin books:
I think anyone who sees something sexual in that picture has been oversensitised to the idea that kids dressed up in any way is somehow inappropriate.
And it is clearly intended to be Veruca Salt
I think I'd rather stick with the original cover and be thought of as not very bright (as are most adults who read kids books)

Ok. I think one of the problems is the picture in different people's head of books. I see Verruca Salt (if it is indeed meant to be her) as a fat little girl dressed entirely in purple.
I find it very difficult to accept that there is not an intentional or unintentional Lolita reference in that book cover.
Also, for me the definitive Charlie and the Chocolate factory interpretation is the film with Gene Wilder. I'm not sure why you would stray from that LSD tinged interpretation.
I'd be concerned about anyone who got turned on looking at it. It's quite different to point at that the sexualisation of little girls seldom leads anywhere good.I would be very concerned about anyone who sees anything sexual in this book cover.
I'd be concerned about someone who didn't. *mildly*I would be very concerned about anyone who sees anything sexual in this book cover.
I'd be concerned about anyone who got turned on looking at it. It's quite different to point at that the sexualisation of little girls seldom leads anywhere good.
Come on. Dressing up isn't the same as being dolled up like a professional model at the insistence of what an adult wants.Where's the sexualisation? I'm led to believe that little girls and boys enjoy dressing up, there's no flesh on show and nothing provocative about the pose.