Cover
Left: Dorothy Baker, Cassandra at the Wedding. New York Review Books edition.
Right: Dorothy Baker, Cassandra at the Wedding. Virago Modern Classics edition.
Dorothy Baker's 1962 novel was dedicated to the painter David Park, one of whose paintings appropriately graces the cover of the NYRB edition. Virago Modern Classics, on the other hand, has decided to give Baker's novel a chick-lit make-over. Which cover do you find more appealing? Are women more likely to pick up a book—even a neglected classic like Cassandra at the Wedding—if it has a chick-lit cover?
Comments
I do like the painting better than the cartoon, but that could be my snobbery showing itself again.
As an impressionable youth, I talked my parents into getting me a TCU football jersey for no other reason than that I liked the colors.
That said, the green background on the classic cover really is appealing and does catch my eye and says "classic book" to me.
The chick-lit cover suggests fun summer reading and would probably trick me into reading this neglected classic.
The cover is much classier than most chick-lit covers so gives me the feeling that the book will be worth reading more so than, say, The View from Castle Rock - the headless woman thing does nothing for me (I can't imagine my head on that skinny of a body and wouldn't want to!) and this cover just looks, well, sort of like the book is going to be fluffy and shallow.
Based on covers alone, of the three chick-lit covers you've posted, I'd read Runaway.
Just one woman's opinion....