My previous posts were written in October and November 2024. This post was just written. I wrote it soon after I posted the new cover art on Facebook in February 2024.
A few people made lukewarm comments on my post. Others no doubt felt the same but held back because of my position. Look, I get it. This is not the cover art of our youth. We will never like new cover art as much as the original art. That's just a given.
That's why we collect the old books. We recapture the magic of our childhoods by surrounding ourselves with things that we loved back then. Nobody can take that away from us. The new cover art isn't a threat to that. The books can live on with new art while we continue to enjoy the old art.
I will purchase the books because I want to see them firsthand. I don't know if I will keep them, just because I've decided in recent years that I don't need everything and don't want to keep most modern variants of series books.
Here's a comment I made on Facebook on February 8.
Series books are well on the way out and well on the way to being completely forgotten by the general public. Library editions are no longer being made of the original Nancy Drew and Hardy Boys hardcovers. Fewer and fewer children read them.
Nancy Drew and the Hardy Boys are still in print by a major publisher, but their longevity is now in jeopardy. Trixie Belden is going back in print with these four titles by Random House, another major publisher. No other major publishers have any series books in print. Some series books (Happy Hollisters, Judy Bolton, Three Investigators) are in print by heirs. Series books are just a whisper from the past. That's why I find new cover art exciting.
I really try to keep any less-than-positive comments about series book art out of any online statements that I make. People are very sensitive about the cover art of their favorite childhood books.
I made another comment on Facebook, and the first paragraph is something that I don't think I had ever admitted before due to the extreme sensitivity of many Trixie Belden fans. I'm treading on thin ice even by making the admission.
I usually keep pretty quiet about this, since I have long felt like the only one who feels this way. The original Trixie Belden cover art doesn't do much for me. It's fine, but it doesn't appeal to me.
My favorite Trixie Belden covers are what everyone quite unfortunately calls the "uglies," a term that used to deeply offend and upset me. It didn't help when someone taunted me when I admitted that it bothered me. I'm now old enough that I don't care what they call those covers. I just won't join them in using that term, but it no longer has any impact on me. I will quietly continue to admire them as the beloved books I read when young.
Since I'm not invested in a deep love of the original Trixie Belden cover art, I can view these covers more objectively than the most diehard Trixie Belden fans. It's a lot harder for them to appreciate new takes on the old books. I'm all about wanting series books to continue to be viable for a few more years.
Most of the Trixie Belden artwork is nice, but I like the Grosset & Dunlap series artwork style much better. That's just me. I don't mean it to be a derogatory statement; it's just how I feel.
I especially dislike the square paperback Trixie Belden artwork. It's puzzling to me that my beloved books are "ugly" while to me, the square paperbacks are ugly. But you see, that's why a word like "ugly" never should have been used as a format title. Different people have different interpretations of which covers are ugly. That is my point.
The day I posted about the new covers, my post was mentioned in a new post in the Trixie Belden group. This resulted in more complaints. As before, the comments were overwhelmingly negative. The comments made were by people saying that the artwork is bad, that it's like a cartoon, that it doesn't represent the books, that Trixie looks too young, and on and on. I want to mention one notable comment.
One person said that they didn't have a problem with it. They stated that they don't think they would even know about Trixie Belden if the books hadn't been reprinted 15 years ago by Random House.
That is precisely why the rerelease is so important. I looked at this person's Facebook profile. I'm not great with determining age, but this person is a youthful adult, probably in her twenties. Something like that. Someone her age would only be a fan if introduced through new reprints or by an older relative. Most people don't have older relatives who are Trixie Belden fans, and besides, children tend to be resistant when a parent encourages them to try certain things. Children prefer to be allowed to discover what they like.
With the books going back into print this summer, they might show up in Barnes & Noble stores. A child might see the book, like it, and have their parent purchase it. The child might become a big Trixie Belden fan, and the parent might buy some of the old books for them—ones not back in print. Some 15 years from now, that child after becoming an adult, might decide to join an online Trixie Belden group and become part of the collecting community.
Why would that be bad? Why be critical of reprints?
There were comments saying that our books should be left alone and simply shouldn't be reprinted with new cover art for children. 20 years ago when Random House began reprinting the Trixie Belden books, one fan said that they didn't want them to go past #16, since they didn't like the paperback titles. I guess they got their wish, but I don't understand that viewpoint.
I doubt that Trixie Belden fans truly want their fandom to die out, but this resistance to reprints sure makes it seem like they feel that way. Some Nancy Drew and Hardy Boys fans give off that same attitude. Some collectors have stated that they'd rather the Nancy Drew franchise end than continue in a changed form. They'll soon get their wish if Simon & Schuster continues on its current path.
I understand that most Trixie Belden fans are just making a knee-jerk reaction with little thought as to how much cumulative negative energy is generated by dozens of fans complaining about something that truly doesn't really matter one way or the other. As I already stated, they still have the old books. Nobody is taking them away. The new books aren't a threat to the old books.
Other comments made were that people don't think the covers would appeal to children and that children wouldn't be enticed by them. Actually, there's no way that we can know that. We aren't children. Each of us once was a child, but I doubt that most of us have any memories where we can truly pinpoint how we saw something as compared to how we see it now.
I do have one memory where I know for sure how my young mind interpreted a television show.
When I was around five to seven years old, I watched reruns of the sitcom Get Smart on Saturday mornings along with The Jetsons and Lost in Space.
I particularly loved Get Smart. I remember clearly what kind of show it was. Get Smart was a serious detective show. Yes! The show was dead serious with Maxwell Smart performing important investigations. I loved it so much.
When I was in my late teens, the show was rerun on Nick at Nite. I watched it one night to see what it was like. I remembered what a serious detective show it was. I couldn't believe it. I found that the show was slapstick comedy and so extremely silly—too silly for my taste. I was amazed that young me had missed all the humor in the show and had thought that the show was a serious detective show.
The lesson to be learned is that we can't predict by our refined adult tastes what children might like. If the new Trixie Belden covers seem bad to you, they might be just fine for the target audience. We can't know how a child will feel about the books. All we can hope is that Random House has found the perfect packaging for today's child.
