Noted Without Comment

Jane too plain for publishers:
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.

Comments

Dotan Dimet said…
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).
March 25, 2007 12:32 AM
Dotan Dimet said…
...Ok, the repetition AND the absurdity. The two, no three... never mind, I'll come in again.
March 25, 2007 12:41 AM
A.R.Yngve said…
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*)
March 26, 2007 12:14 PM
Abigail Nussbaum said…
Ah, but James Joyce was a man. It's only women who need to be good looking to be taken seriously.
March 26, 2007 1:44 PM
A.R.Yngve said…
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?)
;)
March 26, 2007 8:07 PM
Anonymous said…
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...
March 26, 2007 10:35 PM

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The 2023 Hugo Awards: Somehow, It Got Worse

The last month has been a busy one in Hugo and Worldcon fandom. After the shock of the much-belated 2023 nominating stats, and their revelation of serious irregularities in the compilation of the award's ballot, there was a great ferment of conversation and action. Mainstream publications have caught wind of the scandal and publicized it far and wide . Turnover in the few permanent committees that oversee the Hugo trademark and intellectual property has been high . The poor folks at the upcoming Glasgow Worldcon have been scrambling to respond to the evolving situation and to distance themselves from the previous committee—including, most recently, making a laconic announcement that they would refuse any of Chengdu's passalong funds, the budgetary surplus that is traditionally bequeathed from one Worldcon to the next. And stats nerds—of which this community is, unsurprisingly, blessed with a surfeit—have been furiously crunching the nominations numbers and EPH calculations...
Read more

The 2023 Hugo Awards: Now With an Asterisk

It's been a while since we've had one of these dramas. On Saturday, the nominating stats for the 2023 Hugo awards, which were announced in Chengdu, China in October 2023, were released to the public . There was a great deal of anticipation for these numbers, in no small part because of their much-delayed release. Though the WSFS constitution permits Hugo administrators to wait as long as 90 days before releasing the voting and nominating stats, most Hugo teams have them ready to go within minutes of the ceremony's conclusion. Chengdu, in contrast, waited the full allotted period, and even went a little bit over (the voting stats were released separately in December). Once the stats were released, it quickly became clear why the Chengdu Hugo team were hesitant to make them public. There are any number of irregularities and questionable choices in this document that suggest everything from erratic voter behavior, to incompetent collation and calculation of the nomination rank...
Read more

Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga

The first thing that must be said about this movie is that it should not work. It's a prequel to one of the most mind-blowing, groundbreaking, and just plain revolutionary action movies of the 21st century—and prequels are a bad idea in most cases, but all the more so when the character they revolve around has already given you their entire backstory in their original introduction, which is also the final, culminating act of their character arc. (To put it another way, if you had asked me, nine years ago, which character I thought offered more fertile ground for prequel storytelling, Imperator Furiosa or Han Solo, I would have picked Han without a moment's hesitation, and I don't even like Han that much.) And it's a follow-up to a movie whose chief virtue lies in its conciseness—in being a single, drawn-out, pulse-pounding, increasingly deranged car chase. Which means you can either try to repeat that accomplishment, which will inevitably feel a bit old hat; or you can ...
Read more