Nov 24
Click for full UNCENSORED image
Simon Comments: Not only does the illustration not match the fairy-tale quality of the title (not to mention the story), it does not look like the kind of thing you’d find at a library booksale, where I saw it, and where I was urged by my sister to buy it on the grounds that you can never have too many copies of this book, especially one as bizarre as this.
Published 1974
I give this two Ronnies!
Many thanks to Simon.
(Rating: 8.95 out of 10)
Loading ...
November 24th, 2010 at 8:57 am
Simon comments further:
I have examined this closely, but I can’t figure out how it’s supposed to relate to the book. I’m guessing it’s some kind of dark-arts interpretation of the Zoo of Death. It’s hard to see from the photo, but along with several tiny faces, some larger upside-down faces, a few skulls, a castle, and the naked lady, there are a number of snakes — those snakes are my sole evidence for the Zoo of Death theory. And also that unmissable bird on the naked lady’s head. Oh, and in case you missed him, the single identifiable character, of all the characters in the book, is the guy on the right with the rosary beads. That’s got to be the “mawwaige” fellow. Strangely, he is also mirrored in less detail on the left. Why him? Why not Noreena-with-no-hair or the stepmother, or for that matter the actual main characters? If you’re going to ask that, you might as well also ask, why all the boobs? And that is a question no one can ever answer to anyone else’s satisfaction.
November 24th, 2010 at 9:10 am
Well… thats my childhood ruined…
Though the publishing date could be wrong, found this looking for info:
“Despite the above date [July 74], this first paperback of a 1973 hardcover was actually published in April 75 due to production problems.” http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?PRNCSBRD1974
Wonder… if the cover was giving them issues
“Come on man.. there’s simply not enough boobs on here!”
November 24th, 2010 at 9:10 am
I haven’t read the book, only seen the movie. I used to like the movie, but now I know Hollywood has taken out all the nudity I’m a bit annoyed…
As for “why all the boobs”…Come on, it’s boobs!
Seriously, this looks like a rejected Conan cover.
November 24th, 2010 at 11:50 am
This looks like an attempt at a magical incantation made visible. “Font of a romance novel, hips of snakes, washes everywhere, the skull’s parietal suture erupts.”
Good show, sir!
November 24th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
That must be the HBO version of The Princess Bride, then.
November 24th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Ha! One instance where the censorship of the smaller image entirely confused me! I thought, at first, that the two modern faces were part of the original image, and that they were people meant to be part of the much more involved modern day frame story of the novel (as opposed to that of the movie), and I was all ready to get on my high horse and go, “blah blah blah, the novel is totally different from the movie because nyah nyah etc.”
Phew, that sure would’ve made me look stupid.
November 24th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
I don’t remember Princess Buttercup being The Whore of Babylon in The Princess Bride. Maybe I need to read it again?
November 24th, 2010 at 3:52 pm
I just don’t want to know who thought this was OK. Seems like the artist can’t even have known the TITLE of the book, let alone the content or tone, or he (I’m arrogantly presuming “he”) must have realised this wasn’t apt.
November 24th, 2010 at 4:16 pm
Topical book covers, very clever!
Butter-C-cup?
Or just “What???????”
November 24th, 2010 at 10:19 pm
I imagine this was a cover for some other fantasy novel the publisher had lying around and they just slapped it on this novel. Like Weirdmage said it looks like something from a Conan or some other sword and sorcery novel.
November 25th, 2010 at 12:10 am
The Princess Bride… of Cthulu. What ARE those tentacles doing? Erm…
It’s like the artist made a Rorschach blot and then started filling it in with all the perverted stuff rolling around in his head. “Let’s see… naked woman, check. Rotting corpses, check, rosaries, hmmm, needs more breasts. Oh, and tentacles.”
Anyone else notice her head is actually detached a bit from her body? She’s decapitated.
November 25th, 2010 at 5:11 am
I have read this book aloud, cover to cover, over 30 times–and I can tell you the artist who created this cover could not have read it even once.
Voodoo Priestess Bride, maybe, but The Princess Bride?
Nope.
November 25th, 2010 at 6:48 am
oh you laugh now, but wait until The Princess Bride director’s cut is released…
November 26th, 2010 at 5:50 am
To the cover artist: I do not think this title means what you think it means.
November 26th, 2010 at 1:51 pm
This really is awful, very close to the peak on some scale of inappropriateness v. quality of book
November 29th, 2010 at 5:01 pm
Art Director: Really, what we need to lure in readers is something completely unrelated to the story but festooned with naughty bits!
Unfortunate Artist: As you wiiiiiiiiiiish!
November 29th, 2010 at 11:08 pm
If you can ignore the horrible cover, this edition has one neat feature. All the “editorial” asides (talking about removing boring material, etc.) are printed in red. All other editions I have seen has them printed in italics, which isn’t nearly as cool.
December 14th, 2010 at 12:22 am
Yes this is weird. Can anyone direct me to the artist’s name? It’s very reminiscent of Frazetta. Yay for boobs.
December 14th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
+1 to DeadParrot for the red asides!
September 28th, 2011 at 8:40 pm
Worst “Princess Bride” cover art ever. It’s … jaw-droppingly brilliant in its own way. Read it on the train and you look weird and perverse instead of a fairy-tale-loving romantic.
September 29th, 2011 at 6:24 pm
Anyone know who the artist is? It looks awfully familiar, and I’m sure he/she did a lot of covers during the sixties and seventies.
September 30th, 2011 at 7:02 pm
Those modesty-Ronnies look like they belong alongside Ray on this cover:
http://www.goodshowsir.co.uk/2011/09/well-always-have-paris/