Poor Jane, You’re Just Too Ugly
This is possibly the most offensive thing I have ever seen. I honestly thought it was a joke until I saw it from two reputable sources:
Jane too plain for publishers
Staff and agencies
Friday March 23, 2007
After being made over as a pin-up for the big screen, Jane Austen is has now being dolled up by a publisher. Becoming Jane, the recent quasi-biopic, saw her portrayed by the very glamorous Anne Hathaway. Now Wordsworth editions has decided the only fully authenticated image of Austen is “off-putting” and have Photoshopped her into something more appealing.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.
“I know you are not supposed to judge a book by its cover. Sadly people do. If you look more attractive, you just stand out more. Sadly, we do live in a very shallow world and people do judge by appearance.”
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.
Ms Trayler has also commissioned a new watercolour of the author, now the subject of the film Becoming Jane, to feature on the cover of a “deluxe” collection of Austen’s novels.
Janeites seem resigned to the new look. Patrick Stokes, of the Jane Austen Society, told The Times: “She’s not a goddess. She has no copyright. It’s just what happens when someone is so popular, and if it brings her to a different readership then that’s good news.”
What is wrong with the publishing industry? Does anyone there even care about words and books anymore? Let’s put aside the obvious problem of photoshopping a picture of a dead woman–Just the concept that Jane Austen’s looks should enter into whether a book about her would sell 190 years after her death is absurd. Austen’s books have not only survived all these years, they are avidly read today by a passionate following and are still being made into movies and plays, all with Jane Austen being “plain.” You know why? Because it doesn’t matter what Jane Austen looks like! It’s her words, the fruits of her mind, that interest people. No one wants to have sex with her (well, probably some people do, but you know…), they want to read her work!
How ridiculously offensive that publishers think they need to improve on Austen’s looks to sell books by and about her. It’s sexist and demeaning. If this were a male writer, no one would even be considering this option. Feminism has really failed if we live in an age where great women writers are actually being judged on their looks by book publishers 200 years after they have died.
Old, hideous, ugly, pimply, big-nosed, flat-chested original Jane
Jane after her sexy new make-over