Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ismnotwasm

(41,996 posts)
Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:42 PM Feb 2013

Friday fun with feminism, Faber and Faber and a f-f-f-f-ucking hell

The London Review of Books blog has taken note of the forthcoming anniversary reissue of The Bell Jar, by Sylvia Plath. In particular, they have noticed the cover – which appears to have been designed by the team responsible for Sophie Kinsella’s Sex & Shopping oeuvre. It really couldn’t be more inappropriate, disrespectful or, sorry but I have to say it, bloody hilarious. here it is alongside its more famous predecessor.


Once I’d stopped chuckling, I set to wondering whether it might be possible to design a book cover for a vintage feminist classic that would be even more crass, tasteless and wrong?

Well it turned out I couldn’t. But I gave it a good go. Can you do any better?



http://hetpat.wordpress.com/2013/02/01/friday-fun-with-feminism-faber-and-faber-and-a-f-f-f-f-ucking-hell/

(I especially like the "Intercourse"cover parody)


Thought I should add some context here

'An insult to women everywhere' - Sylvia Plath’s The Bell Jar gets a 'chick lit' makeover


The Bell Jar is a searing semi-autobiographical look at Sylvia Plath’s struggle with mental illness. But its publishers Faber seem to want to attract a new readership for the troubled poet who died with her head in an oven in 1963. The 50th anniversary edition of her cult first novel, published shortly before her death, has been repackaged as “chick lit” according to a host of appalled readers.

The anniversary edition is a far cry from Shirley Tucker’s 1966 design for Faber in cream and green concentric circles, or the later paperback version of a woman resembling Plath but with her hair and skin unnaturally colourful, the edges of which bleach out and bleed into one another distorting the portrait.

Today's cover is a bright bubblegum pinky red (above), contrasting with a 1950s photo of a young woman patting powder from a compact onto her face, her ruby lips reflected in its mirror. For its stylised, and "Vintage", attractiveness - recalling the glamour of the 1950s and 60s so in Vogue thanks to Mad Men and Call The Midwife - , the cover has provoked a huge backlash, with many calling it an insensitive choice for a book ground-breaking for detailing the suffocating power of gender stereotyping.


http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/an-insult-to-women-everywhere--sylvia-plaths-the-bell-jar-gets-a-chick-lit-makeover-8477220.html
7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Friday fun with feminism, Faber and Faber and a f-f-f-f-ucking hell (Original Post) ismnotwasm Feb 2013 OP
Those parody covers are hilarious. MadrasT Feb 2013 #1
No shit ismnotwasm Feb 2013 #2
for what it is worth, and with superbowl commercials i watched last night, seabeyond Feb 2013 #6
Hahaha... fucking hell indeed! redqueen Feb 2013 #3
That's why I linked to the second article ismnotwasm Feb 2013 #4
Yes... the usual variations on that age old theme: redqueen Feb 2013 #5
backlash. it is all about the backlash, lets remember. seabeyond Feb 2013 #7

MadrasT

(7,237 posts)
1. Those parody covers are hilarious.
Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:55 PM
Feb 2013

I'm especially amused by "The Second Sex" one... "A hilarious must-read for Sex in the City fans"...

The real new "Bell Jar" cover, not so much.

Fuck it, it's over, we are officially back in the 1960's.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
6. for what it is worth, and with superbowl commercials i watched last night,
Fri Feb 1, 2013, 04:53 PM
Feb 2013

Last edited Fri Feb 1, 2013, 05:41 PM - Edit history (1)

i think we are worse than the 60's. then there was a respect in a way as they made the rules for behavior.

today, .... it is all about being mens porn. and no, it does not give us ownership of sex.

reading that stupid ass study about men getting more sex if they do not do the womens work and the many posts talking about men getting it, i wondered if we were on a progressive board and in 2012 where women claim the have sexual ownership.

sounded more like men were doing the depriving and the women were not getting the sex. but, it was all about men, and their all important sex. women were totally dismissed in the subject unless referred to as "allocating" the interaction.

just. so. odd.

redqueen

(115,103 posts)
3. Hahaha... fucking hell indeed!
Fri Feb 1, 2013, 03:08 PM
Feb 2013

The parodies are hilarious, but fuck me, what does this say about the state of feminism today?

Lord, lord... we have backslid all the way to the 50's... except for sex. Porn is mainstream.

Wonderful combination. Awesome state of affairs.

ismnotwasm

(41,996 posts)
4. That's why I linked to the second article
Fri Feb 1, 2013, 03:16 PM
Feb 2013

At least the 'The Independent' is pissed.

Of course you know what's coming----ahem---- 'lighten up'. 'it doesn't change the contents'. '

'This will allow a release of an important book to reach a wider audience, isn't that more important than a cover?'


*sigh*


redqueen

(115,103 posts)
5. Yes... the usual variations on that age old theme:
Fri Feb 1, 2013, 03:19 PM
Feb 2013

'Shut up, feminists. The patriarchy is here to stay, you might as well find ways to like it.'

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
7. backlash. it is all about the backlash, lets remember.
Fri Feb 1, 2013, 04:57 PM
Feb 2013

as i was saying above, i think it is worse. i do not think there was hate in the 50's. i think there is real hate today.

what i found interesting in another thread talking about your use of the term that you later found out came from the porn industry on what they call the women in porn. the outrage. yet, it is how they refer to women in the industry. and this is the industry that is so protected in such a manner demanding, crying, insisting it is not disrespectful to women.

so much disconnect going on.

Latest Discussions»Alliance Forums»History of Feminism»Friday fun with feminism,...