Charlie and the Chocolate Factory has undergone numerous editions and been illustrated by numerous artists.[79]
Books
- 1964, OCLC 9318922 (hardcover, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., original, first US edition, illustrated by Joseph Schindelman)
- 1967, ISBN 9783125737600 (hardcover, George Allen & Unwin, original, first UK edition, illustrated by Faith Jaques)
- 1973, ISBN 0-394-81011-2 (hardcover, revised Oompa Loompa edition)
- 1976, ISBN 0-87129-220-3 (paperback)
- 1980, ISBN 0-553-15097-9 (paperback, illustrated by Joseph Schindelman)
- 1984, ISBN 0-1403-0599-8 (UK paperback, illustrated by Faith Jaques)
- 1985, ISBN 0-14-031824-0 (paperback, illustrated by Michael Foreman)
- 1987, ISBN 1-85089-902-9 (hardcover)
- 1988, ISBN 0-606-04032-3 (prebound)
- 1992, ISBN 0-89966-904-2 (library binding, reprint)
- 1995 (illustrated by Quentin Blake)
- 1998, ISBN 0-14-130115-5 (paperback)
- 2001, ISBN 0-375-81526-0 (hardcover)
- 2001, ISBN 0-14-131130-4 (illustrated by Quentin Blake)
- 2002, ISBN 0-060-51065-X (audio CD read by Eric Idle)
- 2003, ISBN 0-375-91526-5 (library binding)
- 2004, ISBN 0-14-240108-0 (paperback)
- ISBN 0-8488-2241-2 (hardcover)
- 2011, ISBN 978-0-14-310633-3 (paperback), Penguin Classics Deluxe Edition, cover by Ivan Brunetti
- 2014, (hardcover, Penguin UK/Modern Classics, 50th anniversary edition)
- 2014, (hardcover, Penguin UK/Puffin celebratory golden edition, illustrated by Sir Quentin Blake)[80]
- 2014, (double-cover paperback)[80]
50th anniversary cover controversy
The cover photo of the 50th anniversary edition, published by Penguin Modern Classics for sale in the UK and aimed at the adult market, received widespread commentary and criticism.[81] The cover is a photo of a heavily made up young girl seated on her mother's knee and wearing a doll-like expression, taken by the photographers Sofia Sanchez and Mauro Mongiello as part of a photo shoot for a 2008 fashion article in a French magazine, for a fashion article titled "Mommie Dearest."[80][82] In addition to writing that "the image seemingly has little to do with the beloved children's classic",[83] reviewers and commentators in social media (such as posters on the publisher's Facebook page) have said the art evokes Lolita, Valley of the Dolls, and JonBenet Ramsey; looks like a scene from Toddlers & Tiaras; and is "misleading," "creepy," "sexualised," "grotesque," "misjudged on every level," "distasteful and disrespectful to a gifted author and his work," "pretentious," "trashy", "outright inappropriate," "terrifying," "really obnoxious," and "weird & kind of paedophilic."[80][84][85]
The publisher explained its objective in a blog post accompanying the announcement about the jacket art: "This new image . . . looks at the children at the center of the story, and highlights the way Roald Dahl’s writing manages to embrace both the light and the dark aspects of life."[86] Additionally, Penguin Press's Helen Conford told the Bookseller: "We wanted something that spoke about the other qualities in the book. It's a children's story that also steps outside children's and people aren't used to seeing Dahl in that way." She continued: "[There is] a lot of ill feeling about it, I think because it's such a treasured book and a book which isn't really a 'crossover book'" As she acknowledged: "People want it to remain as a children's book."
The New Yorker describes what it calls this "strangely but tellingly misbegotten" cover design thusly: "The image is a photograph, taken from a French fashion shoot, of a glassy-eyed, heavily made-up little girl. Behind her sits, a mother figure, stiff and coiffed, casting an ominous shadow. The girl, with her long, perfectly waved platinum-blond hair and her pink feather boa, looks like a pretty and inert doll—" The article continues: "And if the Stepford daughter on the cover is meant to remind us of Veruca Salt or Violet Beauregarde, she doesn't: those badly behaved squirts are bubbling over with rude life." Moreover, writes Talbot, "The Modern Classics cover has not a whiff of this validation of childish imagination; instead, it seems to imply a deviant adult audience."[81]
