|
Post by Dante on Sept 29, 2015 15:12:02 GMT -5
As implied in the subject line, I have discovered that the list of questions on the back cover of ?4 is different between the United States edition published by Little, Brown & Co. and the United Kingdom edition published by Egmont. This is the first time this has ever happened, although the LB hardback and paperback editions also use different questions (but neither of the questions in question are the paperback versions as the paperback questions are always multiple-choice). Both texts read plausibly as written by the same individual, and indeed share commonalities in direction despite being written very differently. Could one of them only be a draft version? This seems possible, considering that the title page of the LB edition apparently reuses Lemony's ?3 silhouette rather than his ?4 one. View the covers in the spoilers below. I have spoiler-tagged them as I regard these particular back covers as best seen upon first acquiring the book. (I particularly recommend viewing the LB edition for those who presently possess the Egmont edition, by the way, as we got conned.) Little, Brown & Co. (U.S.)Egmont (U.K.)What is the meaning of this discrepancy? Which do you prefer? Please discuss these and other such questions.
|
|
|
Post by bandit on Sept 29, 2015 23:44:57 GMT -5
How do you have the candid snapshot if you don't seem to have the LB edition, Dante? :/
Also, the word "aboard" is misspelled on the Egmont blurb.
|
|
|
Post by Poe's Coats Host Toast on Sept 29, 2015 23:51:50 GMT -5
This is why I stuck to the original publisher's editions. With ASoUE, Egmont had its own alternative cover art, so I was happy with those, but with ATWQ, they're kind of a step down for me.
|
|
|
Post by Isadora Is a Door on Sept 30, 2015 1:11:40 GMT -5
I like the pictures on the back of the US Cover
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Sept 30, 2015 2:38:38 GMT -5
Also, the word "aboard" is misspelled on the Egmont blurb. Oh wow, I didn't even notice that. Really, Egmont. Why must you do this to us. Maybe I'll point this out to them on Twitter, although the fact is that at present Egmont's social media presence has completely ignored ?4. This is why I stuck to the original publisher's editions. With ASoUE, Egmont had its own alternative cover art, so I was happy with those, but with ATWQ, they're kind of a step down for me. I'm fortunately in the position of always taking steps to obtain multiple editions, so I don't really have to choose in this way. But it's true that the Egmont covers this series, front and back, have been a major step down from the original American covers. Although, with that said, I actually think the covers have been poorly-handled all-round, with no good covers coming from anyone. Edit: I like the pictures on the back of the US Cover We simply lost out. The American cover is absolutely better (whole-book spoilers below): The Armstrong Feint panel, for instance, is really cleverly handled, coloured only in monochrome to indicate that it's a photograph, and a panel of a photograph feels metapictorial as well. Then there's the structuring of the whole bottom panel to include the Bombinating Beast's eyes lurking beneath the railway bridge, but also in the same position on the back cover as all the previous eye panels (which in turn have been inconsistently handled on the Egmont editions, and here not included at all). The American back cover is art. I've never liked the overall ATWQ cover structure, but the way they've worked within it on ?4 has been excellent. The Egmont version is a cobbled-together mess (and their Australian Hardie Grant Egmont subdivision has its own critical problems). I'm genuinely not certain how much Egmont cares about the series any more. Edit Again: I mistakenly stated in my spoiler that the traditional "eye panel" from the lower-right corner of each back cover wasn't included on the Egmont edition, but I was wrong. Here it is! To be clear, the entire bottom panel from the LB edition has been crammed into a tiny corner in the bottom-right of the Egmont edition back cover, with a good half of it wrapping around to the inside back cover, where it is upside-down and pasted over with the endpapers. What day-one intern did they have doing the cover design for this series?!
|
|
|
Post by Isadora Is a Door on Sept 30, 2015 3:39:49 GMT -5
Dante, its infuriating that you have a spoilered reply darn you. I'll have to come back and look at this later. But a question - is ?4 bigger than ?3? (HA, ?3?). Sorry if this has been said before and I don't remember.
Also, total number of illustrations on both front and back cover (US editions) ?1 - 12 ?2 - 11 ?3 - 10 ?4 - 10.... darn i thought I was on to something there, ah well.
But also, The US edition tends to have a nifty set of three questions / illustrations on the interior flap of the dust jacket - what are there for ?4? (im really enjoying ?number? typing)
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Sept 30, 2015 4:57:36 GMT -5
?4 is nearer to ?2 in length than to ?3; having read it, I'm okay with this. Regarding the total number of cover illustrations, I think that the framing of the back cover, while intended to suggest that there are only five (perhaps even six) illustrations, actually comprises only four, meaning that we have indeed dropped a panel per book - one more thing that I correctly predicted years ago.
I'll request that somebody with a copy of the LB edition post a photograph or scan of the inside front dustjacket flap; I've seen one, but it's not my image, so I won't post it. I find it frustrating that the Egmont editions don't include these, since the LB paperbacks manage to (they put them in one of the front pages).
|
|
|
Post by Tryina Denouement on Sept 30, 2015 7:56:40 GMT -5
My ATWQ books have always been the hardcover American editions, so I'll try to acquire the fourth book. I can prolly show you the inside front dustjacket flap.
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Sept 30, 2015 8:49:32 GMT -5
Don't worry about it, Tryina; I've been given permission to post an image:
|
|
|
Post by B. on Sept 30, 2015 9:29:56 GMT -5
Was this the 'interesting thing' you spoke mysteriously about in the other thread?
I like the US back cover much more- their blurb reads far better than ours. Although the black and white photo seems out of place, which bothers me slightly.
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Sept 30, 2015 10:06:07 GMT -5
Was this the 'interesting thing' you spoke mysteriously about in the other thread? I like the US back cover much more- their blurb reads far better than ours. Although the black and white photo seems out of place, which bothers me slightly. No (the other thing is actually late on its promised arrival, which is precisely why I didn't go into detail), and: But the photo being monochrome and standing out is the point; it's how you know it's a representation of the photo rather than just a portrait of Armstrong Feint.
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Sept 30, 2015 14:14:58 GMT -5
Something similar happened with Adverbs .
|
|
|
Post by Isadora Is a Door on Sept 30, 2015 16:30:07 GMT -5
Ah, dante, I actually meant in terms of height
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Oct 1, 2015 10:10:19 GMT -5
Ah, dante, I actually meant in terms of height Oops. Well, not many people ask about this... is a thing I'd like to say, but at least one person has asked before you. Looks identical to ?3 by my eye (with both being an immaterial fraction taller than ?2).
|
|
|
Post by gliquey on Oct 3, 2015 11:40:10 GMT -5
I'm fairly sure this post could go without a spoiler tag but better safe than sorry. If you've read the blurbs of both editions, it's safe to read. I dislike the questions on both of the back covers in roughly equal amounts.
For the first 'question', I think I prefer the UK edition... it's two questions rather than one, which is something I've never been fond of them messing about with, but it marginally beats the US question. I think both of these questions are the highlights of their blurb, which doesn't say anything good about the rest of the questions.
The second question of the US version is better. The UK one would be okay, but the "abord" typo is an abysmal mistake to make (although I didn't actually notice it until now - well spotted, bandit).
Only the UK edition has a question numbered 3, so it wins there. I said above I don't like it when they twist things and include more or less than one question in the blurbs (honestly, it's not like they've even got to stick to the 4 question format if they really want to add a fifth), and "Murder!" is terrible. It's not funny and it doesn't make sense.
The fourth questions are both terrible. The UK version sounds like someone was just trying to shoehorn in a bad pun ("derailed"), while the US version is a poor attempt at following on from its 'third' question.
I really don't like this because the blurb is both easy and important to get right. I've always loved Snicket's blurbs, with their standard but interesting formats, and it keeps in-universe rather than blandly summarising the basic plot of the book. But it does look like someone messed up here and neither versions are great anyway.
|
|