Website Additions

[Rob Houghton]

Beautiful covers, Tony! MUCH better than the Eileen Soper originals!!

[Rob Houghton]

When did Harry Potter join the Famous Five??

I'm surprised that they haven't got one in glasses, one who is over weight, one who has a limb missing and one who is mixed race - just to show diversity.

The character wearing glasses seems totally out of place!

[Tony Summerfield]

I don't think that any of them look over weight, rather on the under nourished side!

[sixret]

Except Timmy, maybe!

[Rob Houghton]

I'm not really enamoured with these, as people know, lol - but one thing that really has struck me is that most of them don't illustrate the story contents in any way. Okay so Smuggler's Top and Run Away together are pretty good at summing up aspects of the story - but 'Adventuring Again'? In a wood? In the summer? I thought it was set at Christmas!?

[Anita Bensoussane]

True. The Five Go Adventuring Again cover doesn't suit the story at all.

I don't think that any of them look over weight, rather on the under nourished side!

Except for Timmy, who looks as if he'd only be capable of waddling!

They are colourful and brilliant but I am not buying them.

Yes, the colours are nice but I can't find much else to say about them.

[Moonraker]

Brilliant covers. They are not meant to refer to the story, they are meant to make children pick them up and look inside.

[John Pickup]

Really? I thought they were meant to induce vomiting in adults.

[Julie2owlsdene]

Nice bright coloured illustrations, not my cup of tea, but I'm sure they'll appeal to all the kids of today.

[Machupicchu14]

Very colourful covers, but given the choice, I don't think I would buy them!! Maybe children with no imagination might get a wrong image of the Famous Five!!

When did Harry Potter join the Famous Five??

In book number 22.

[Rob Houghton]

I love how people always suggest 'they appeal to children' - I'd love to see this in practice. As I've said before, if the publishers REALLY believed this, they wouldn't be selling these versions simultaneously with the 'classic' Eileen Soper editions - they would be relying on these new covers entirely.

I disagree that the pictures don't have to show anything connected to the story. A brightly coloured cover attracting children makes them sound like brainless morons who just pick things because the colours are bright - a bit insulting to the intelligence of most children, I think!

If I didn't know that 'Adventuring Again' was set in winter, and I wanted a winter-set story, then I wouldn't even consider 'Adventuring Again' because its quite clearly set in the summer.

If 'Good Work Secret Seven' didn't show a Guy Fawkes on the cover, and I wanted a Bonfire Night story, then I wouldn't buy it if I didn't already know the content. Covers should tell the prospective buyer a little about the story, in my opinion. If a cover showed The Five on a zip-wire, I'd expect a zip-wire to feature in the story.

To be honest, these covers aren't so bad as the covers of the last few years - but they aren't very exciting - which is a shame.

[Moonraker]

I love how people always suggest 'they appeal to children' - I'd love to see this in practice. As I've said before, if the publishers REALLY believed this, they wouldn't be selling these versions simultaneously with the 'classic' Eileen Soper editions - they would be relying on these new covers entirely.

I'm not so sure. The 'old' covers are for adults, who see them and remember them from their childhood. They pick them up and think, "I must buy that for my grandchild!" The new covers are picked up by children, and once picked up are bought!

The best of two marketing worlds.

[Rob Houghton]

That's kind of what I meant...as they would never just rely on the modern cover, and there's no hard and fast rule. Often people seem to be suggesting that all kids will brainlessly pick the modern covers - which I find a bit insulting to children - like with anything, some will prefer the older cover, while some adults will prefer the modern ones.

It's an interesting idea that children go for these new covers and not the Eileen Soper ones...as a child I don't actually recall ever choosing a book because of the cover. The cover didn't interest me. Now, as an adult, I often choose a book by the cover. As a child it was just the fact that it was by Enid Blyton and it was one I hadn't read. There could have been a dead goat in wellingtons on the front of the book and I still would have bought it!

[Tony Summerfield]

I'm going to agree with Nigel on this one, Rob. You only have to go into Waterstone's and you will see that all the current best-selling children's books have similar covers. I am quite certain that children would immediately opt for the new covers as it is what they are used to with the likes of David Walliams etc. The Eileen Soper covers are going to appeal to the nostalgic market, which will be adults buying for children (or themselves!), although as I am sure Pete would be quick to tell me, many current parents of younger children might well be more familiar with Betty Maxey than Eileen Soper.

Whatever anybody thinks of these new covers, I think you have to admit that Hodder (Hachette) really do know what they are doing to keep Enid Blyton books in print.

[Carlotta King]

I actually like the backgrounds of those covers, ie the scenery, I just don't like the kids!

The woodland in Adventuring Again is magical and the moonlit cove in Run Away is lovely. I know they're still a bit cartoonist and not realistic but they are attractive scenes.
Remove the kids and they're nice to look at!