Strange new book jacket featuring Anastasia

[helenazar]

Guess what, I just went to Amazon to see this book, and here is the cover I saw there:

[Laura Mabee]

Jacket Confusion!!
At Barnes & Noble they have Anastasia on the cover too
(Here's the link!)

[helenazar]

Jacket Confusion!!
At Barnes & Noble they have Anastasia on the cover too
(Here's the link!)

LOL. Things are getting curiouser and curiouser!

[Annie]

Guess what, I just went to Amazon to see this book, and here is the cover I saw there:

This is not a girl from the 1860's, hair and dress style very wrong. Square lace  neckline and shoulders, blouson bodice, tight, narrow skirt, all styles that came much later in the century.  An 1860's dress should be very tight and defined around the waist and upper body with a bell shaped hoop skirt. Necklines were either low and scooped or high and buttoned. 1860's hair was parted in the middle harshly, very flat (like Queen Victoria) then either swooped down over the ears and up in back, or pulled to the side of the head in tight curls that hung down. This girl is just as out of date for the time as Anastasia. I place her in the late 1880's, at least, maybe later.

(oh dear and just when I told MG I didn't care about flowing dresses..)

Here's our Juliet!



or better yet



Who'll notice the difference, right?

[halen]

But I wouldn't worry about "poor unsuspecting" customers... If someone actually buys a book based on the cover photo, then they deserve to get an unplesant surprise! ;-)

Helen, so true...this still cracks me up. Not in an upsetting way, but in a...what the sam hill will they do next to sell books?  Life is just goofy.

Sorry, Helen. I goofed on quoting you...

Louise

[helenazar]

This is not a girl from the 1860's, hair and dress style very wrong.

Oh yes, I know, I think she is Edwardian... They didn't have photography in the mid-19th century yet ;-)

[Sarushka]

Sarushka, are you playing a practical joke on us? ;-)

No joke. I'd be puzzled too, except I saw an actual hard copy in the store -- Anastasia is definitely the final image. The online retailers must not have updated their information yet.

[halen]

Ya have to wonder what went through the minds of the collective dimwits when they decided on those pictures...Oh well...

Louise

[Annie]

Here's our Juliet!



or better yet



Who'll notice the difference, right?

[StevenL]

About Tatiana on the cover of Rasputin's daughter, that's wrong too since the picture is obviously supposed to represent the main character. I don't know why they did such a thing. It only confuses people who don't know any better.

...or just the opposite -- it confuses the handful of us who do know better.
I suspect 99% of the likely readers of the book would not recognize Tatiana.

[Annie]

About Tatiana on the cover of Rasputin's daughter, that's wrong too since the picture is obviously supposed to represent the main character. I don't know why they did such a thing. It only confuses people who don't know any better.

...or just the opposite -- it confuses the handful of us who do know better.
I suspect 99% of the likely readers of the book would not recognize Tatiana.

That's exactly what I mean- anyone reading the book would already be interested in the Romanovs, or learning about them. Having a picture of the actual GD Tatiana representing Maria Rasputin is wrong and misleading to those trying to learn.

[Sarushka]

Weird.... But I wouldn't worry about "poor unsuspecting" customers... If someone actually buys a book based on the cover photo, then they deserve to get an unplesant surprise! ;-)

Bingo. The world at large will have no idea who the girl on the cover is. That doesn't excuse the historical mishap, but IMO, choosing an image from the wrong era entirely is more bothersome than the fact that they happened to pick Anastasia.

I agree that the cover of Rasputin's Daughter is misleading as well as unsettling, but only to the few of us who recognize Tatiana. Juliet's Moon, however, is not -- it's just plain inaccurate. Aside from the costuming issues, who exactly is this going to mislead, and how? Those who don't recognize Anastasia won't get the "joke" at all. Anyone who actually does realize it's Anastasia is only going to scoff at the incongruence between a Russian grand duchess and a Confederate flag.


Bottom line: I'm 100% in favor of historically accurate cover art, but anyone who's seriously trying to learn history through historical fiction ought to be redirected.

[helenazar]

Well, maybe they figured that if Showtime's The Tudors can dress their characters in Elizabethan collars and still get a nomination for Golden Globe Awards, then why not a book cover with a Civil War era woman dressed as an Edwardian (or Anastasia for that matter)? Obviously no one will know the difference...  (present company excluded, of course ;-))

Henry VIII

[Annie]

You're right, there are a lot of anachronisms in the fashion of shows, as well as other things. When "The Wonder Years" first came out, I was amazed at  how accurate the clothes and props were to 1968, but as it went on for years, they dropped their accuracy and what was supposed to be 1973 looked was all wrong and too early 90s (when it was made)  Sometimes you see cars on movie sets that are newer than the time the story was set in, songs that play in a show set in 1974 that weren't recorded until 1979, and on "That 70's Show" I liked to pick apart the slang they used that wasn't around in the 70's (like 'skank') It may be true that most people wouldn't notice, but it's a shame people don't take the opportunity to educate people by getting things in the right time frame.

[Sarushka]

Movies in the 60's are notorious for that kind of thing. Have a look at the opening of Hush Hush Sweet Charlotte. It's set in the 1920's, but the costuming is straight out of the 60's.