Helen Trayler, the publisher's managing director, said: "She was not much of a looker. Very, very plain. Jane Austen wasn't very good looking. She's the most inspiring, readable author, but to put her on the cover wouldn't be very inspiring at all. It's just a bit off-putting.
...
Publishers have traditionally used a portrait of Austen by her sister Cassandra, which hangs in the National Portrait Gallery. This portrait has been now been digitally adjusted to remove her nightcap, give her make-up and hair extensions for a new edition of a memoir by Austen's nephew.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Noted Without Comment
Jane too plain for publishers:
6 comments:
The quote you use makes it sound like an item from the Onion (it's the repetition; Onion articles often just reiterate and rephrase the statement in the title for their entire length).
...Ok, the repetition AND the absurdity. The two, no three... never mind, I'll come in again.
Publishing Executive #1: "We can't put James Joyce's photo on the cover of this Dubliners reprint... he's too damn ugly."
Publishing Executive #2: "We could, y'know... sex up the photo. Y'know... shirtless, buff... like in those underwear ads. We'll make a few mock-ups and test'em with a sample demographic."
P.E.#1: "And a slogan to go with the ad campaign. I'm thinking: 'Joyce: 'Don't Hate Me Because I'm Irish."
(*SATIRE*)
Ah, but James Joyce was a man. It's only women who need to be good looking to be taken seriously.
But look at the bright side: breast implants will practically guarantee any female writer more attention from the publisher's marketing department!
(Just kidding... or am I?)
;)
Sometimes I wonder if part of the reason The Historian sold so well is because the author is so photogenic (I've been trying to figure out WHY it sold so well). Poor Jane. This made me sad for any number of reasons...
Post a Comment