Not yet they aren't. But one of the most famous opening lines in modern English literature seems to me a good place to start writing about where to begin when reissuing an old book.
A friend of mine over at HarperCollins - in fact the wise chap that employed me here at Penguin a few years ago - had to hire a new copywriter a while back. He was looking for a good way to separate the wheat from the chaff and came up with the rather neat idea of inviting all applicants to supply the current blurb of a book they were fond of together with an entirely new blurb of their own devising. They then had to explain why theirs was better.
Improving on what has gone before in publishing is usually not so difficult since jackets tend to stay on books for many years and by the time publishers get around to reissuing them they look rather tired if not plain antediluvian. Here's an example, appropriately enough, from the Eighties:
The blurb on 1989's Nineteen Eighty-Four doesn't sound much like a novel at all:
Newspeak, Doublethink, Big Brother, the Thought Police – George Orwell's world-famous novel coined new and potent words of warning for us all. Alive with Swiftian wit and passion, it is one of the most brilliant satires on totalitarianism and the power-hungry ever written.
Maybe. But it sounds like a bit of a slog.
When it came to doing the reissue (out in July) it didn't take a lot of head scratching for me to decide that a) it was time I re-read one of my favourite books and b) the starting point for writing this blurb had to be the excellent opening line, which manages to be perfectly ordinary until its very last word - which rips the rug out from under your feet. Nice work, George.
By listing some of the words that Nineteen Eighty-Four had added to the English language, the old blurb was trying to get across the book's weight, its sheer importance. Unfortunately, as if with a lot of attempts to make things sound worthy, Nineteen Eighty-Four just comes across as dull. Something to be admired rather than liked.
I think we can do better than that.
‘It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen.’
Winston Smith works for the Ministry of Truth in London, chief city of Airstrip One. Big Brother stares out from every poster, the Thought Police uncover every act of betrayal. When Winston finds love with Julia, he discovers that life does not have to be dull and deadening, and awakens to new possibilities. Despite the police helicopters that hover and circle overhead, Winston and Julia begin to question the Party; they are drawn towards conspiracy. Yet Big Brother will not tolerate dissent – even in the mind. For those with original thoughts they invented Room 101 …
This edition is not the Penguin Modern Classics edition. This edition is the one we want to get into the hands of school kids, to grab their short attention spans. So yes, putting the key words - Big Brother, Thought Police, Room 101, Ministry of Truth - in there is important, but that is no reason to leave the story or the characters out. The great thing about Nineteen Eighty-Four is that it is so unsettling, it is so terrifying and bleak (and not much fun as satire, either). To get that across we need to know what's at stake - what Big Brother is opposed to. We need Winston and Julia, their hopes and love, their humanity. Without Winston and Julia there is no tension, no story.
A book might be a classic, big names may rate it, teachers might tell you it is an essential read. But that's no reason not to sell it as if it's brand new - to some people it will be - or not to try to seduce the sceptical reader into turning to the first page despite themselves.
At the same time as Nineteen Eighty-Four we're reissuing Animal Farm:
Both books feature stunning covers by Shepard Fairey - if you're going to grab people, get them by the short and curlies. But don't let either cover art or blurbs distract you from the words within.
Any lazy or awful blurbs on good books you'd like to share with us? And can you do any better?
Colin Brush
Senior Copywriter
Nineteen Eighty-Four (ISBN: 978-0-141-03614-4) and Animal Farm (ISBN 978-0-141-03613-7) are re-issued on July 3rd.
Buy the pair on Amazon here.
PS I'm offering a pair of these Orwells to the first comment that correctly points out the (ahem) deliberate mistake I made on one of the new covers.
..............................................................................
..............................................................................
Thanks for the wonderful post. Made me want to re-read the book!
As for cover blurb badness, the blurb for my very first novel included, alas, a protagonist who was not in my book.
Posted by: Carolyn Jewel | April 11, 2008 at 03:33 PM
I love the Shephard Fairey covers! I wish more classics were re-branded in this way. It would definitely make the high school required reading list look more enticing.
Posted by: kris | April 12, 2008 at 05:13 AM
I "updated" 1984 many months ago, and today your blog turned up on my daily google search for "1984+Orwell" - I don't know if this is legal; I don't claim it is. I thought someone at Penguin might get some enjoyment out of it (especially considering the accuracy of Eric Arthur Blair's dystopian future).
Enjoy - Thanks!
••••••••
From the point of view of our present rulers, therefore, the only genuine dangers are the splitting-off of a new group of able, under-employed, power-hungry people, and the growth of Empiricism and skepticism in their own ranks. The problem, that is to say, is educational. It is a problem of continuously molding the consciousness both of the directing group and of the larger executive group that lies immediately below it. The false consciousness of the masses needs only to be influenced in a negative way. Given this background, one could infer, if one did not live in it already, the general structure of North Americana society. At the apex of the pyramid comes Big George. Big George is infallible and all-powerful. Every success, every achievement, every Sam’s Club, every scientific discovery, all knowledge, all wisdom, all happiness, all virtue, are held to issue directly from his leadership and inspiration. Nobody has ever seen Big George out of his character Big Pappy.
He is a face on the hoardings, a voice on the flatscreen. We may be reasonably sure that he will never die, and there is already considerable uncertainty as to when he was born. George is the guise in which Convolutism chooses to exhibit itself to the world. His function is to act as a focusing point for love, fear, and reverence, emotions which are more easily felt towards an individual than towards an organization. Below Big George comes the Convolutists. Its numbers limited to six millions, or something less than 2 per cent of the population of North Americana. Below the left and right Convolutarian divisions comes the Laboretarians, which, if the Convolutist is described as the brain of the neostate (left+right÷middle), may be justly likened to the hands of imperialism (left against right). Below that come the emaciated masses whom we habitually, stupifically refer to as ‘the sheeple’, numbering perhaps 85% of the population. In the terms of our earlier classification, the neolaborers are the low: for the slave population of the equatorial lands who pass constantly from conqueror to conqueror, are not a permanent or necessary part of the structure.
In principle, membership of these three groups is not hereditary. The child of Convolutist parents is in theory not born into Convolutism. Admission to either branch of Convolutism is by SAT examination, taken at the age of sixteen. Nor is there any racial discrimination, or any marked domination of one province by another. Jews, Negroes, South Americans of pure Indian blood are to be found in the highest ranks of Convolutism, and the administrators of any area are always drawn from the inhabitants of that area. In no part of North Americana do the inhabitants have the feeling that they are a colonial population ruled from a distant capital. North Americana has no capital, and its titular head is a corporate person whose whereabouts nobody knows. Except that Anglo-Nordic-Saxon English is its chief lingua franca and NewsWeek its official political language magazine, nothing is not centralized in any way.
Its rulers are not held together by blood-ties but by adherence to a common Doctrine Of Plausible Gullibility. It is true that our society is stratified, and very rigidly stratified, on what at first sight appear to be hereditary lines. There is far less to-and-fro movement between the different groups than happened under representative government (a.k.a. democratic republic) or even in the pre-industrial age. Between the two branches of Convolutism there is a certain amount of interchange, but only so much as will ensure that weaklings are excluded from the Convolutist and that ambitious members of the Laboretarians are made harmless by allowing them to rise.
Laboretarians, in practice, are not allowed to graduate into Convolutists. The most gifted among them, who might possibly become nuclei of discontent, are simply marked down for intentional embarrassment by the Fashion Police and eliminated by shameless ridicule. But this state of affairs is not necessarily permanent, nor is it a matter of principle. Convolutism is not a class in the old sense of the word. It does not aim at transmitting power to its own children, as such; and if there were no other way of keeping the ablest people at the top, it would be perfectly prepared to recruit an entire new generation from the ranks of the neolaboretariat. In the crucial years, the fact that Convolutism was not a hereditary body did a great deal to neutralize opposition. The older kind of Socialist, who had been trained to fight against something called ‘class privilege’ also assumed that what is not hereditary cannot be permanent. He did not see that the continuity of an oligarchy need not be physical, nor did he pause to reflect that hereditary aristocracies have always been shortlived, whereas adoptive organizations such as the Catholic Church have sometimes lasted for hundreds or thousands of years.
The essence of oligarchical rule is not father-to-son inheritance, but the persistence of a certain world-view and a certain way of life, imposed by the dead upon the living. A ruling group is a ruling group so long as it can nominate its successors. Convolutism is not concerned with perpetuating its blood but with (pathologically and narcissistically) perfecting and perpetuating Convolutism. Who wields power is not important, provided that the hierarchical convolutional structure remains always the same. All the beliefs, habits, tastes, emotions, and mental attitudes that characterize our time are really designed to sustain the mystique of Convolutism and prevent the true lies of present-day false-consciousness society from being recognized.
Physical rebellion, or any preliminary move towards physicality in general, is at present not possible in private. From the Laboretarians, nothing is to be feared, anyway. Left to themselves, they will continue from generation to generation and from century to century, working, breeding, and dying, not only without any impulse to rebel, but without grasping that the world could be other than it is, or the sacrificial hierarchy of servitude they live in it. They could only become dangerous if the advance of commerce and industry made it necessary to educate them more, not less; but, since military and commercial rivalry are no longer a matter of true security, the level of education demanded by the public is actually declining.
What opinions the masses do hold, or do not hold, is a matter of no consequence; indifference. They have been granted intellectual liberty because they have no individual sovereignty. In a Convolutist, on the other hand, not even the smallest deviation of individual opinion on the most unimportant subject can be tolerated. A Convolutist lives from birth to death under the psychological, self-censored, split alter-ego eye of the National Fashion Police. Even alone he can never be free; constant, disconnected anxiety; a constantly worried, guilty consciousness. Wherever he may be, asleep or awake, working or resting, in his bath or in bed, he can be abandoned without warning and without knowing it is that he is being inspected.
Nothing that he does is indiscriminate. His friendships, his relaxations, his behaviour towards his wife and children, the expression of his face when he is alone, the words he mutters in sleep, even the characteristic movements of his body, are all meticulously scrutinized, analyzed and preposterousized. Not only any actual misdemeanour, but any eccentricity, however small, any change of habits, any nervous mannerism that could possibly be the symptom of an inner struggle, is certain to be detected.
He has no freedom of choice but is free in any direction whatever. On the other hand, his actions are not regulated by law, but by a clearly formulated, statutory code of behaviour legislation. In North Americana, there is no law except contract law. Thoughts and actions which, when detected, mean certain death, are not formally forbidden, and the endless purges, arrests, tortures, imprisonments, and vaporizations are not inflicted as punishment for crimes which have actually been committed, but are merely the wiping-out of persons who might perhaps commit a crime at some time in the future.
A Convolutist is required to have not only the right opinions, but the right instincts. Many of the beliefs and attitudes demanded of him are never plainly stated, and could not be stated without laying bare the contradictions inherent in the Convolutist. If he is a naturally orthodox Convolutist (i.e. "fundamentalist"), he will in all circumstances know, without taking thought, what is the true belief or the desirable emotion. But in any case an elaborate mental training, undergone in childhood and grouping itself around the ambiguous phrases Nope, Not I, & never again!, makes him unwilling and unable to think too deeply on any subject whatever.
A Convolutist is expected to have no private emotions and no respites from enthusiasm for the War on Terror. He is supposed to live in a continuous frenzy of hatred of terrorists, foreign enemies and domestic traitors, triumph over victories, and self-abasement before the power to control wisdom directed by the Convolutists.The discontents produced by his bare, unsatisfying life are deliberately turned towards and dissipated by such devices as the "Hate Hannity & Colmes" on FOX television, and the speculations which might possibly induce a sceptical or rebellious attitude are killed in advance by his early acquired inner self-deception discipline.
The first and simplest stage in the discipline, which must be taught to very young children, is called, Self-Denial. Self-Denial means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Convolutism, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction.
Self-Denial, in short, means protective stupidity. But stupidity is not enough. On the contrary, orthodoxy in the full sense demands a control over one’s own mental processes as complete as that of a contortionist over his body. North Americana society rests ultimately on the belief that neocorporatism is omnipotent and that Convolutism is infallible. But since in fact, neocorporatism is not omnipotent and Convolutism is not infallible, there is need for an unwearying, moment-to-moment flexibility in the treatment of facts.
The keyword here is Think. Like so many words, this word has two mutually contradictory duality of meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Convolutist, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when neoconvolutionary discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to BELIEVE that black is white, and more, to KNOW that black is white, and to FORGET that one has ever believed the CONTRARY.
This demands a continuous convolution of consciousness, made possible by the system of convoluted thought which really embraces all reason, and which is known as Convolutism. The alteration of the past that is necessary for one of which is subsidiary and, so to speak, pre-emptionary Convolutism. The subsidiary reason is that the Convolutists, like the Laboretarians, tolerate present-day conditions only because they have no valid standards of truth for comparison. He must be cut off from the past, just as he must be cut off from foreign countries, because it is necessary for him to believe that he is better off than his ancestors and that the average level of material comfort is constantly rising.
But by far the more important reason for the readjustment of the past is the need to safeguard the infallibility of Convolutism. It is not merely that speeches, statistics, and records of every kind must be constantly brought up to date in order to show that the predictions of Convolutism were in all cases right. It is also that no change in doctrine or in political alignment can ever be admitted. For to change one’s mind, or even one’s policy, is a confession of weakness.
If, for example, Chinasia or Middle Eastasia (whichever it may be) is the enemy today, then that country must always have been the enemy. And if the facts say otherwise then the facts must be altered. Thus history is continuously rewritten. This day-to-day falsification of the past, carried out by the Department of Commercial Convolution, is as necessary to the stability of the Empire as the work of repression and espionage carried out by the (CIA) Convoluted Intelligence Agency.
The mutability of the past is the central tenet of Convolutism. Past events, it is argued, have no objective existence, but survive only in written records and in human memories. The past is whatever the records and the memories agree upon. And since Convolutism is in full control of all records and in equally full control of the minds of its members, it follows that the past is whatever the Convolutists chooses to make it. It also follows that though the past is alterable, it has never been altered in any specific instance.
For when it has been recreated in whatever shape is needed at the moment, then this new version IS the past, and no different past can ever have existed. This holds good even when, as often happens, the same event has to be altered out of re-cognition several times in the course of a year. At all times Convolutism is in possession of absolute truth, and clearly the absolute truth can never have been different from what is now absolutely true.
It will be seen that the control of the past depends above all on the training of memory. To make sure that all written records agree with the orthodoxy of the moment is merely a mechanical act. But it is also necessary to remember that events happened in the desired manner. And if it is necessary to rearrange one’s memories or to tamper with written records, then it is necessary to forget that one has done so. The trick of doing this can be learned like any other mental technique. It is learned by the majority of Convolutists, and certainly by all who are intelligent as well as orthodox.
It is called Art of Self-Deceit, though the Science of Self-Deception comprises the true principles of Self-Deceit. Self-Deceit means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them as truth. Convolutist intellect knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with himself; but by the self deceptive exercise of Self Deceit he also satisfies himself that his sense of integrity - his virtue of self - is reassured.
The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision; it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity, and hence, of guilt. Self-Deceit lies at the very heart of kakistocracy, since the essential act of Convolutism is to use convoluted unconscious deception while Self-Deception is retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty of scientific convolution.
To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any (convoluted) fact that has become inconvenient (truth), and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to self-deny the existence of self-contradiction, and all the while to take account of the contradictory, self-convoluted, which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the phrase Self-Deceit it is necessary to exercise Self-Deception. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with self; by a fresh act of Self-Deceit one erases this knowledge of Self-Deception; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.
Ultimately it is by means of Self-Deception that Convolutism has been able—and may, for all we know, continue to be able for thousands of years — to arrest the destiny of history. All past kakistocracies have fallen from power either because they ossified or because they grew soft; either they became stupid and arrogant, failed to adjust themselves to changing circumstances, and were overthrown; or they became liberal and cowardly, made concessions when they should have used force, and once again, were overthrown.
They fell, that is to say, either through consciousness or unconsciousness. It is the achievement of Convolutism to have produced a system of thought in which both conditions can exist simultaneously. And upon no other intellectual basis could the dominion of convolution be made permanent. If one is to rule by power to control, and to continue control of ruling power, one must be able to dislocate the sense of Self from self-awareness. For the secret of rulership is to combine a belief in one's own infallibility with belief in the right to rule by power to control, desire to eliminate being attached by ego, identified with outcome.
Fortunately, with Self-Deceit, the belief is to deserve to enjoy the difference. It need hardly be said that the subtlest practitioners of Self-Deceit are those who invented Self-Deceit and who know that it is a vast system of deliberate confusion and convoluted collaboration. In our society, those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In Convolutism, the greater the understanding, the greater the delusion; the more intelligent, the less sane.
One clear illustration of this is the fact that War on Terror hysteria increases in intensity as one rises in the social scale. Those whose attitude towards the War on Terror is most nearly rational are the Middle Easternists' of the disputed territories. To these people the War on Terror is simply a continuous calamity which sweeps back and forth over their land like a tidal wave. Which side is winning is a matter of complete indifference to them after thousands of years.
They are aware a change of overlordship means simply that they will be doing the same work as before for new masters who treat them in the same manner as the old ones. The slightly more favored we call ‘the Saudi's’ are only intermittently conscious of the War on Terror. When it is necessary they can be prodded into frenzies of fear and hatred, but when left to themselves they are capable of forgetting for long periods that the War on Terror is happening. If the power to control is by rules created for convoluted division, Convolutism is constant convoluted division; and above all, above neoconvolution, is the true enthusiasm, for constant re-convolution of military, industrial, congressional, commercial & municipal convoluted division.
World-conquest is totally believed most of all by those who also know it to be impossible. This peculiar linking together of opposites — knowledge with ignorance, cynicism with fascism — is one of the chief distinguishing marks of North Americana Society. The official ideology abounds with contradictions even when there is no practical reason for them. Thus, Convolutism rejects and vilifies every principle for which the Socialist movement originally stood, and it chooses to do this in the name of Capitalism.
It preaches a contempt for the working class unexampled for centuries past, and it dresses its members in a uniform which was at one time peculiar to manual workers and was adopted for that reason. It systematically calls its leader by a name which is a direct appeal to the sentiment of family loyalty. Even the names of the four Departments by which we are governed exhibit a sort of impudence in their deliberate reversal of the facts.
The Department of Commerce concerns itself with trade deficits, the Department of Justice with plausible history, the Department of Homeland Security with War on Terror and the Department of Treasury with devaluation of fiat currency and starvation of raw materials; for industry to produce and consume as careless and wasteful obscene inefficiency; to use capacity and generate shortages to the inputs.
These contradictions are not accidental, nor do they result from ordinary hypocrisy; they are deliberate exercises in Self-Deceit and Self-Deception. For it is only by reconciling contradictions that power can be retained indefinitely. In no other way could the ancient cycle be broken. If human equality is to be forever averted—if the High, as we have called them, are to keep their places permanently—then the prevailing mental condition must be controlled insanity. But there is one question which until this moment we have almost ignored. It is: why should human equality be averted?
Supposing that the mechanics of the process have been rightly described, what is the motive for this huge, accurately planned effort to freeze history at a particular moment of time? Here we reach the central secret: as we have seen the mystique of Convolutism, and above all, the elites over the Convolutists, depends upon Self-Deceit, but deeper than this lies the original motive, the never questioned instinct that first led to the seizure of power and brought Self-Deceit, Fashion Police, War on Terror, soon to be created Homeland Securities, LLC and all the other necessary paraphernalia into existence afterwards. This motive really consists...
Posted by: Drew Terry | April 12, 2008 at 02:36 PM
Drew,
I didn't read it. The sheer size completely killed it for me. Hint: post it on a separate blog and provide a link, if you must.
This blog isn't your mouthpiece, don't swamp it.
Posted by: elissaF | April 14, 2008 at 06:06 AM
Could you put the publication dates and ISBNs for these in the post?
Posted by: Cory Doctorow | April 14, 2008 at 07:14 AM
What a cool idea. Will definitely be buying this. Any chance of getting it signed by Shepard?
Jonathan
Posted by: Jonathan | April 14, 2008 at 11:18 AM
I love 1984. All of my friends just fawned over "V for Vendetta" but, for me, the whole time I just felt it lacked the power of 1984.
As for the intentional errors..
Could it be that they're free? ha ha.
Actually, should 1984 have a thumbnail of Animal Farm on the back cover (and vice versa)?
Posted by: Blaine | April 14, 2008 at 12:56 PM
woawoawwooaaww
can we order them online? when and where?
I definitely want both =)
Posted by: Alex de Querzen | April 14, 2008 at 01:39 PM
Kind of odd he was allowed to sneak his Obey logo onto the covers, no?
Posted by: Doug | April 14, 2008 at 01:53 PM
is the error on the Animal Farm cover where you say the farm is "reorganized to benefit all who walk on four legs"? In the story, the farm is reorganized to benefit all non-humans, both bipedal and quadrupedal, but then as the pigs consolidate power, the dominant ideology becomes "Four legs good, two legs bad," marginalizing the bipedes to political fringes. I guess this isn't an error as such, but it's out of the temporal order of your blurb.
Posted by: McChris | April 14, 2008 at 01:54 PM
Hmm, I seem to recall Animal Farm also being organized for the benefit of those with wings, though it has been quite some time since I read the book. Time for a re-read, methinks.
Posted by: Steph | April 14, 2008 at 01:56 PM
I beleive the error is that the price is free. Do I win?
Posted by: Brian Kacos | April 14, 2008 at 02:21 PM
I believe that the mistake is that the title should read "Nineteen Eighty-Four" not "1984".
Those covers look excellent!
Posted by: Mick Law | April 14, 2008 at 02:54 PM
The poster looks great, but I'm concerned where Shepard Fairey got these images. He seems to have a long history of using others work un-cited, direct plagiarism. See link.
Posted by: Concerned | April 14, 2008 at 02:59 PM
Does anyone else see the irony in Shepard Fairey (a g uy with fairly obvious socialist leanings) doing the cover art for Animal Farm (a classic criticism of socialism)?
Posted by: Dan | April 14, 2008 at 03:35 PM
On the back cover, the thumbnail there depicts the other book. Is that the "mistake"?
Posted by: dsq | April 14, 2008 at 03:53 PM
Beautiful covers. Want them. Is the mistake that the spine of 1984 has the date written out in letters, rather than numerically?
Posted by: Lou | April 14, 2008 at 05:39 PM
I'm guessing the mistake isn't the thumbnails or the prices, after all they appear the same on both and you say the error is on one of the covers...
Could it be your pig names on the Animal Farm cover? Wasn't it Snowball and Napoleon that led the revolution?
Posted by: John Miles | April 14, 2008 at 05:41 PM
Of course! You're right, John. Nice one. Now I feel like a doofus. Guess it's been too long since I read it!
Posted by: Lou | April 14, 2008 at 05:53 PM
The replacement of Snowball with Wellington is correct, not a mistake. Also, we have always been at war with Eurasia.
Posted by: Jeff | April 14, 2008 at 05:54 PM
I do love the newspaper articles behind the title on Animal Farm. Hard to make all of it out, but it's a nice touch. Also, the hidden text on 1984 is great.
Posted by: Shannon Adamson | April 14, 2008 at 05:57 PM
@Jeff: Really? I can't find any reference to a character called 'Wellington' on t'interweb. I think John nailed it.
PS. Colin, how about asking Ralph Steadman if you can change his quote to "sixty years ago", since the original publication date was 1945? Or does that make it sound too 'old'?
Posted by: Lou | April 14, 2008 at 06:10 PM
Wellington Beauty is the "show name" of Old Major in the book.
Posted by: JR Knight | April 14, 2008 at 06:27 PM
John Miles is correct - Napoleon and Snowball do indeed lead the revolution.
Posted by: Colin | April 14, 2008 at 07:02 PM
It is great to know that Shepard Fairey has added no originality, or market value to this book. The cover looks just as mundane as everything else he creates. Nice job issuing this bomb Penguin! I am glad that I own a classic nicely typeset version of this book, I will never buy any piece of trash that Shepard Fairey has laid his uninventive hands on.
Posted by: Ryan Doggendorf | April 14, 2008 at 07:05 PM
Wow...Two classic books have just been tarnished by the elite artist himself..Why can't this guy slow down and give others a chance? He is the P Diddy of the art world and produces art from other artists work..makes millions in doing so and laughs all the way to the bank. Little George Bush all the way....
Posted by: Kevin Sutton | April 14, 2008 at 08:50 PM
Wonderful covers for great books. It's not often that i look forward to updating piece in my library. Well done S.F. & Penguin.
Posted by: joshua | April 14, 2008 at 09:23 PM
Is the error in the quote on the back of Animal Farm? I believe the quote is one sentence, and you have it as two.
It should read, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
Posted by: Andy | April 14, 2008 at 09:30 PM
Why did you let this twit put his corporate logo on the cover of your book?
Posted by: srsly | April 14, 2008 at 10:25 PM
I don't believe Mr. Fairey will have actually laid his hands on any of the books bound for the bookstore or Amazon, etc. Thanks.
Posted by: Rintoul | April 14, 2008 at 11:38 PM
I wish you could have a blurb that didn't give away so much of the plot. Most people who haven't read the book don't know the plot, they only know the iconic ideas about state power (if they know anything about it at all). So the blurb will spoil the delicious and terrifying unfolding of the story (should he pursue the girl or will she turn him in? etc).
Why not have a blurb that vividly describes his isolation and fear at the beginning? It could be perfectly compelling without giving away major plot points.
"Winston took the first step when he bought some black-market paper and a pen. Crammed in a corner just beyond the range of the cameras in his apartment, he is writing the first page of a private diary. If they see him, he's a dead man." or something.
Posted by: Anna | April 15, 2008 at 03:42 AM
Yeah, it has to do with "Nineteen Eighty-Four" (on the back cover) versus "1984" (on the front cover).
"Nineteen Eighty-Four" is how it was originally published (apparently "Nineteen Eighty-Four. A novel.").
Posted by: Richard | April 15, 2008 at 04:35 AM
Actually, Animal Farm is a criticism of Stalinism, not socialism. After all, Orwell WAS a socialist, and fought in the Spanish Civil War as such. I'm tired of people waving around Animal Farm as some parable on communism; it was written to criticize a very specific form. When right wing zealots use it as a basis for their criticisms they of course, betray their own ignorance of the author and his works, but also their inability to see anyone else as anything but a monolith, overwhelmingly evil left.
And for the record, Fairey is a tool, and his "Socialist" leanings are as strong as his design skills are weak.
Posted by: Sean S. | April 15, 2008 at 07:41 AM
Wow. Shepard Fairey sure does rile the pompous asses of the world, doesn't he? Good work, guy.
Posted by: Lou | April 15, 2008 at 08:00 AM
If by "pompous" you mean people who appreciate art-work thats NOT stolen, well then yes. Simply google Fairey's name with the word plagiarism and you will see what I mean.
Posted by: Sean S. | April 15, 2008 at 08:06 AM
Think Orwell was pretty insistent that Nineteen Eighty-Four was _never_ to be written '1984' as on your cover..
Posted by: Marc | April 15, 2008 at 12:04 PM
Is the mistake on the 1984 cover? Is it that you have stated that "Winston and Julia begin to question the Party..." Whereas it should actually be 'The Party'?
Great covers by the way. My favourite artist designs my favourite book cover! Heaven!
Do you know if Shepard is selling prints of the artwork?
Posted by: Simon Marshall | April 15, 2008 at 12:59 PM
There shouldn't be a period between "All animals are equal" and "but some animals are more equal than others".
At least, that's not how it's written on the wall.
Posted by: liz | April 15, 2008 at 03:02 PM
@Sean S: I googled Fairey's name with the word "plagiarism" and was presented with a lot of not very sophisticated, badly-argued rants all written by the same guy, a seemingly less successful artist whose ire appears to have been provoked by Fairey's successful career. The detractor doesn't seem to understand modern art (obv it's ok not to LIKE it, but I'm talking about not knowing the basic history of it). I mean, did Andy Warhol plagiarise the artist who designed the Campbell's soup can label?
Sorry, but to the people calling plagiarism - y'all is crazy.
Posted by: Lou | April 16, 2008 at 04:56 AM
3 mistakes:
-The title is definitely Nineteen eighty-four not 1984. Orwell specified this - so, correct on the spine but not the cover
- Wellington / Snowball
- They never actually managed to build the windmill ...
Sorry to be picky ... lovely, lovely covers though.
Posted by: keith sands | April 16, 2008 at 10:29 AM
I was the biggest supporter of Shepard.Then I met the guy and asked him a "real" question and his true personality came out. He is like George Bush. You kind of trusted the guy in the beginning just to be let down in the end. He is so filthy rich that he does not care nor feel any emotion about us poor people who just love to read....
Posted by: Kevin Sutton | April 17, 2008 at 07:58 PM
I am fascinated by the way book covers are updated and the way they represent the fashions of the era. I also know (to my chagrin) how important an appealing book cover can be, especially to an unknown author who is fishing for readers. Receiving the first design from the art department at Macmillan was always a thrill for me; an artistic representation of my story. Now I look back at some of them and think how dark and threatening they look for novels that were intrinsically light-hearted satire.
Posted by: Simon Temprell | April 18, 2008 at 09:31 PM
Again, is it Penguin policy to allow artists to advertise their own corporate brand on Penguin's book covers?
Posted by: srsly | April 21, 2008 at 03:35 PM
I thought the cover was fantastic until I saw the superfluous Andre the Giant star at the bottom of the design, There was no need for it!
Posted by: Mark.S. | April 26, 2008 at 08:32 PM
Fantastic covers and an inspired choice in Shepard Fairey to design them. Kudos to Penguin-- I love everything about them!
Posted by: Mack | April 29, 2008 at 08:41 PM
I love the aforementioned late '80s edition. Christopher Corr's illustrations are brilliant.
Posted by: T.Ross | May 04, 2008 at 03:50 PM
It would definitely make the high school required reading list look more enticing.
.................
Madeline
Wow, check out this site called http://www.fluc.com
Free SMS and free mobile ads!! Its fantastic
Posted by: MadelineLevytmeu | May 05, 2008 at 07:10 AM
Hmmm, very nice covers, but I wonder if the "mistake" was using a very serious quote from a comedian, Jo Brand. Or maybe being an American, I don't appreciate the fine literary stance that English comedians have.
Or could it be the missing period after Mr"." Jones in the opening sentence?
Or could it be that the pig's tail curls down?
Or that the chickens seem to be vomiting the top border, much as they would be feeding chicks?
Posted by: Robert Berry | June 03, 2008 at 06:10 PM
Is it "favourite" instead of "favorite" in the quote by Margaret Atwood? She's Canadian, so I believe she would use the American spelling.
Posted by: David | June 26, 2008 at 06:58 PM
So, where can I get the books? They're not on Amazon yet - or on the Penguin website.
Posted by: lp | July 03, 2008 at 03:24 PM