Comments on: It's me, I'm Cathy, I've come home

It's me, I'm Cathy, I've come home

kirkaracha — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:09:37 -0800

Is this really the most depressing book cover of the year? Because I kinda thought this one was. [via AntiPixel]

By: jon_kill

jon_kill — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:15:37 -0800

My vote is for the latter.

By: squirrel

squirrel — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:16:16 -0800

No, I think this one beats them both.

By: xmutex

xmutex — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:18:34 -0800

C'mon, she's so effin' hot.

By: Juanito

Juanito — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:21:26 -0800

I'd have to go with East of Eden. I find it depressing that they put that kind of crap on the cover of one of Steinbeck's books.

By: crazy finger

crazy finger — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:23:49 -0800

I disagree kirkaracha, jon_kill. Nothing is worse for me than when a book is issued for the first time with original cover art and then a later edition comes out and suddenly the cover has been changed to feature characters from a movie or TV show based on the book (just like your first link). The second example is also annoying, but only because it is a classic that has more room on its cover devoted to Oprah than to Steinbeck. At least the book club gets otherwise-non-reading-people to read.

By: sudama

sudama — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:28:47 -0800

You're not better than people who watch Oprah.

By: dhoyt

dhoyt — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:29:29 -0800

I find this one quite depressing, ironically.

By: donfactor

donfactor — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:29:44 -0800

Now I am really depressed.

By: jon_kill

jon_kill — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:32:09 -0800

Oh, come on sudama, I'm sure I'm better than some of them.

By: matteo

matteo — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:32:19 -0800

I'm eager to read prof. Erika Christensen's introduction -- it's got to be, like, an interesting read

By: Down10

Down10 — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:35:37 -0800

Oh, get over it, you mopey bookworms. The naive teenagers/housewives of the nation need a reason to read too, vapid as it may be.

By: ferociouskitty

ferociouskitty — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:36:04 -0800

How dare pop culture infiltrate intellectual-approved literature! Pretty soon EVERYONE will be reading the classics! Oh no!

By: TedW

TedW — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:37:06 -0800

Come on guys, don't get so down. That constricting anus thing really does work-just try it. If nothing else, it takes your mind off of whatever is troubling you (especially if you have hemorrhoids).

By: FreezBoy

FreezBoy — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:38:02 -0800

To me, the question is - Is the cover supposed to be art equal to the text of the book? Or simply a type of marketing? The content is the exactly the same, but the packaging is different. Should I be concerned that the cover has anything but the title and author, which is what in 1847 the original cover probably looked like.

By: PenDevil

PenDevil — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:41:48 -0800

Should I be concerned that the cover has anything but the title and author, which is what in 1847 the original cover probably looked like. No, you shouldn't. Next question.

By: crazy finger

crazy finger — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:42:49 -0800

1847?

By: Blue Stone

Blue Stone — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:44:13 -0800

Isn't the Wuthering Heights cover entirely fraudulent? The MTV programme was a modern-day interpretation (judging by the photo) yet the original is a period piece. It hardly represents what's inside at all.

By: crazy finger

crazy finger — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:44:41 -0800

Oops, my bad. I thought you were talking about the Steinbeck.

By: jacquilynne

jacquilynne — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:45:49 -0800

I generally avoid movie covers on books, because I've found that even within the usual shoddy quality control constraints of paperback manufacturing, movie covers seem to be even more crap. I don't particularly object to them for other reasons, though. I mean, it's what's in the book that matters. The cover is just advertising copy. Putting Oprah on a book cover is akin to putting Michael Jordan on a box of Wheaties.

By: Armitage Shanks

Armitage Shanks — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:46:15 -0800

Pretty soon EVERYONE will be reading the classics! Why would I read it when I can watch on MTV? Also, math is hard.

By: Hildegarde

Hildegarde — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:47:43 -0800

Darn! There goes Oprah getting people to read again. When will she learn her lesson and let pseudo-intellectuals enjoy their mensa book club meetings in peace?

By: angry modem

angry modem — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:47:50 -0800

I win

By: crazy finger

crazy finger — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:48:09 -0800

Since my last contribution was a waste of space, I present the following: THE WUTHERING HEIGHTS ROLE-PLAYING GAME

By: squirrel

squirrel — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:48:42 -0800

*clench* *clench* *clench*

By: soyjoy

soyjoy — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:53:36 -0800

angry modem wins.

By: spartacusroosevelt

spartacusroosevelt — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:56:34 -0800

So no one has mentioned yet that at least two thirds of the people on the cover of Wuthering Heights are Scientologists. It is LRH's fault!!

By: headspace

headspace — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:57:36 -0800

Yeah, Down 10, 'cuz us housewives, we wouldn't read nothin' if Oprah didn't tell us to. Oh hell, I just went and realized Oprah never told me to read MetaFilter; reckon I ought to skedaddle and get to thinkin' about nail polish and bon bons again.

By: liam

liam — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 11:09:27 -0800

Wuthering Nights?

By: squirrel

squirrel — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 11:11:33 -0800

Now, now, headspace. All your fretting is going to give that pretty face worry lines. Why not just pop back in the kitchen and make us a cake, mmkay? Nothin' says lovin' like somethin' from the oven!

By: Bootcut

Bootcut — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 11:12:46 -0800

Uh, people reading good books in new covers is ok. In the 1930s, people made the same complaints about paperbacks. When Penguin started reprinting good books in paper, [many publishers] disapproved on the grounds that the (perceived) high status of the book would be undermined by such an innovation; Harold Raymond, for example, then Chairman of Chatto and Windus, wrote... that selling books in what he regarded as the rather vulgar Woolworths, would devalue and reduce the stature of the book in general. -- from The Cultural Impact of the Paperback Revolution "Ooooo, commercial, therefore bad" is a pretty simplistic way to look at it.

By: rcade

rcade — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 11:15:18 -0800

If constricting your anus was the way to beat depression, we'd be the happiest people on Earth.

By: keswick

keswick — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 11:19:42 -0800

Simplistic? On an Internet discussion board? Get out of the city!

By: quonsar

quonsar — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 11:22:08 -0800

You're not better than people who watch Oprah. better than, nope. smarter, better informed, less gullible, probably.

By: mr_roboto

mr_roboto — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 11:22:53 -0800

To me, the question is - Is the cover supposed to be art equal to the text of the book? Or simply a type of marketing? The content is the exactly the same, but the packaging is different. I wouldn't begin to argue that the cover should be "art equal to the text of the book", but shouldn't we prize quality design in bookmaking? The design of the book affects the reading experience; there's pleasure to be derived from a well-designed cover. There's also something to be said for avoiding the embarrassment that a god-awful cover can bring to the experience of reading in public.

By: orange swan

orange swan — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 11:23:39 -0800

I'm torn. Artistically speaking, the MTV cover gives me hives. But pragmatically speaking, I can't help thinking that if it gets even a few hundred teenagers reading it's worth it. As someone said above, the content doesn't change. And that's what's important, no? I actually haven't had a problem with movie tie-in covers as long as they're a reasonably historically accurate representation of what's inside the book. I always quite liked my "Martin Scorsese" copy of The Age of Innocence, even if it does look like Daniel Day-Lewis is smooving Lucille Ball.

By: mr_roboto

mr_roboto — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 11:23:46 -0800

It effects the reading experience, even.

By: mr_roboto

mr_roboto — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 11:25:01 -0800

No it doesn't. Damn. Today is apparently Stupid Day for me.

By: orange swan

orange swan — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 11:26:40 -0800

Very true, mr_roboto, but there are loads of other editions of Wuthering Heights out there. No one need read the MTV covered book if they don't wish too. It's niche marketing of a book.

By: mikeh

mikeh — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 11:26:55 -0800

I thought that movie tie-in book reprintings were all lame until I encountered my dad's childhood copy of Fahrenheit 451 with the movie cast on the cover. I wasn't even aware that there was a movie, yet here were these 1960s-retro characters staring back at me. Imagine, in thirty years some kid will find this old paperback and not know what the hell is going on.

By: serafinapekkala

serafinapekkala — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 11:28:13 -0800

i find the trend of putting chopped-off legs on the covers of crappy chick-lit books both annoying and comical. with a classic, you can always find a non-Fox-ified version somewhere....uhhhh...

By: gottabefunky

gottabefunky — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 11:35:26 -0800

Great - now whenever I think of Heathcliff I'm going to picture Malcolm in the Middle's older brother.

By: Ufez Jones

Ufez Jones — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 11:36:42 -0800

I saw a very unassuming soccer-mom type woman reading the East of Eden book on the train the other day, and while I was aware that she was probably doing it because the great Oprah told her to, I thought it was pretty cool. I'm a huge Steinbeck fan and anything that will get his amazing works more widely read is fine by me. Besides, the red part comes off, IIRC. Better E of E than the most recent Danielle Steele novel or something, no?

By: Keyser Soze

Keyser Soze — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 11:37:43 -0800

Its the book that brought the Oprah book club back. Now that's depressing.

By: Pollomacho

Pollomacho — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 11:38:00 -0800

I'm with Orange Swan, if the covers can encourage even a handful of kids to read something other than Maxim and Seventeen or nothing, or a couple of soccer moms reading Steinbeck rather than nothing, then I'm all for it. What does irk me though is that MTV continues to refer to their program as an "original" production, even as far as right on the book cover. The last time MTV had anything original on it Steinbeck was still writing.

By: gottabefunky

gottabefunky — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 11:38:38 -0800

And yeah - what's with the chopped-off-legs thing? Weird.

By: Mayor Curley

Mayor Curley — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 11:43:53 -0800

I don't why you all are so irritated.So they made a movie based on a book based on a Kate Bush song. MTV's core audience doesn't remember the 80's very well, you know.

By: jfuller

jfuller — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 11:51:13 -0800

I have no idea who those people on the Bronte cover are, but none of them are Heathcliff or Kathy.

By: dejah420

dejah420 — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 12:02:25 -0800

The Bronte sisters are spinning in their collective graves... On the upside, maybe more people will read it, who knows? It's a fabulous book and I didn't even know that MTV had made an adaptive movie. Then again, I'm totally out of MTV's demographic range, so I wouldn't know if it was being hosted by giant blue aliens...

By: GhostintheMachine

GhostintheMachine — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 12:19:47 -0800

By: Eekacat

Eekacat — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 12:20:04 -0800

I know there is an anti-Cleese contingent here on MeFi, but I particularly liked Semaphore version of Wuthering Heights done on Monty Python's Flying Circus. Now THERE's a book cover that would crack me up.

By: zpousman

zpousman — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 12:27:21 -0800

Liam: Wuthering Nights? Alas, not.

By: archimago

archimago — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 12:33:58 -0800

I think it's pretty cool that MTV did their version. I haven't seen it, and I won't, but I think it's cool. Art is supposed to be interpreted. Only bad art is stagnant. It's a classic story that people of any age and from any age can relate to. Now, given that it is MTV, it's probably terrible, but I give them props for the effort. There's nothing new under the sun.

By: archimago

archimago — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 12:35:30 -0800

And it's no worse than Kenneth Brannagh filming Frankenstein and then using "Mary Shelly's Frankenstein" as the title when that movie strayed pretty damn far from the book at points.

By: carfilhiot

carfilhiot — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 12:36:56 -0800

I don't think anybody is trying to encourage youngsters to read literature with this. It's just a cheap attempt to sell books and make a buck. And as for oprahs book club. It is fucked up. People must learn for themselves, not be force fed. obc is giving people fish not teaching them how to fish.

By: carter

carter — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 12:42:16 -0800

I checked out the reviews for How to Goodbye Depression (thanks for the link, dhoyt). Apparently people who bought this also bought Walter the Farting Dog, by William Kotzwinkle et al. I didn't even check out the latter but thanks to Amazon's algorithms Walter the Farting Dog now appears on my Amazon front page as 'recommended.'

By: xmutex

xmutex — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 12:47:14 -0800

I wish you hadn't posted that Scientology link. There are a couple of people I like on that page and now I cannot like them any more because they are insane. Oh well.

By: XQUZYPHYR

XQUZYPHYR — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 12:48:30 -0800

Next week: Apple Records announces their re-release of The White Album: the inspiration for the kidnapping and murder of numerous people by a homicidal drug-addled cult.

By: dayvin

dayvin — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 12:52:51 -0800

This version of East of Eden is actually a nice-looking book with the Oprah banner removed (more here). Despite your opinion of the banner, it is one of the more attention-getting items at your local bookstore.

By: matteo

matteo — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 12:53:01 -0800

How dare pop culture infiltrate intellectual-approved literature! Pretty soon EVERYONE will be reading the classics! Oh no! yeah, and I'm also sure that this X-rated version of Hamlet (link NSFW, careful, NOT SAFE FOR WORK) did miracles for the universal knowldedge of Shakespeare, right? interesting bit for those who can't open the page: Hamlet once again begs Ophelia for sex. She succumbs, and allows him fuck her at last, proving she really is the princess of porno. By this time Hamlet is an experienced lover and Ophelia is impassioned by his sexual skills.

By: aacheson

aacheson — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 12:54:17 -0800

I don't like it when books put pictures of the characters on the cover, because then that's all I can imagine the characters looking like! I can't create their image in my mind from scratch. However, I do agree that if it gets some teenagers to read, then great. Let's do it to all the books! As much as everyone likes to bag on Oprah, there have been some GREAT books that she's recommended. Stones from the River is an amazing book, East of Eden, of course. Yes, a lot of them are schmaltzy easy reads, but none are the utter, useless, Reader's Digest, trash that most Americans read. AT LEAST THEY ARE READING! I'm really glad she has a book club. It think it's awesome. And I'm most impressed that she does get into the Classics too.

By: George_Spiggott

George_Spiggott — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 13:07:25 -0800

The Oprah endorsement cuts both ways, certainly; perhaps attracting some buyers but surely repelling others; or at least causing them to rummage for different edition lacking this marque. It's funny the way bookstore employees look at you, and sometimes speak to you, when you buy books -- they seem to carry around a raft of stereotypes. Without going into the various reactions I've observed for different kinds of books I'll just mention that when I bought a book that happened to have an Oprah book club endorsment on the cover, the look of the girl at the counter was puzzlement struggling with disdain, as in "funny, you don't look like a housebound half-wit."

By: xmutex

xmutex — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 13:07:39 -0800

The Corrections was the best ever book Oprah recommended. Too bad Franzen had to be an ass, because that is brilliant writing for anyone to consume.

By: soyjoy

soyjoy — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 13:10:44 -0800

On that chopped-off legs thing... at least it leads to interesting promotional images like this one.

By: teg

teg — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 13:10:45 -0800

Fortunately, the Oprah banner is removable.

By: runtina

runtina — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 13:19:29 -0800

No, this is the most depressing cover of the year. Look at all those potatoes.

By: sarajflemming

sarajflemming — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 13:23:31 -0800

I didn't want to, but I watched (most of) MTV's "Wuthering Heights." Never read the book, so I don't have a basis for comparison in terms of how much they "interpreted," but the movie? It's well... it wasn't painful, but it's not something I'd watch over and over (or again) either. Modern interpretations of "classics," if you will, aren't in and of themselves bad. (e.g. I very much like Baz Luhrmann's "Romeo + Juliet" and "Scotland, PA" ... I even liked Almereyda's "Hamlet" a little bit [Bill Murray as Polonius? Love it.]) But, as has already been said, if it gets some young'uns reading? Yay! Baby steps.

By: squirrel

squirrel — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 13:30:19 -0800

*clench *clench* *clench* aaaand *CLINCH* Whew! 100! You know, I DO feel a little, uh... Hey, where's my cushion?

By: UncleFes

UncleFes — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 13:45:36 -0800

Look at all those potatoes. Real Siberians WISH they had all those potatoes! Is there no limit to the depth that the liberal media will sink in their effort to portray the Soviet Union as potato-filled and full of grandmotherly goodness??

By: jokeefe

jokeefe — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 14:01:49 -0800

*clench *clench* *clench* aaaand *CLINCH* Whew! 100! You know, I DO feel a little, uh... Hey, where's my cushion? squirrel wins. I don't know what, but something. A new cushion, perhaps.

By: mimi

mimi — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 14:36:22 -0800

D'oh! I thought the blond kid was Doogie. I should watch more tv.

By: moonbiter

moonbiter — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 15:12:06 -0800

I should watch more tv. No you shouldn't.

By: jokeefe

jokeefe — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 15:33:38 -0800

The Bronte sisters were, however, down with the popular culture of the time, and had a fine appreciation for the dynamics of what we would now call soap opera... and Charlotte longed for fame, though it eventually disappointed her. So all in all, I'm not sure they really would be spinning in their graves at the thought that their books are still being read, albeit aimed at the kind of readership (fashionable young women, is my guess) that they loathed in their day. Emily might be spinning, but I bet you Anne and Charlotte are laughing.

By: jaded

jaded — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 16:19:15 -0800

Look at all those potatoes. In Russia - the potatoes look at you! sorry

By: dg

dg — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 16:42:37 -0800

Even though I suspect it is stupid and pointless to do so, I hate to see classic books treated in this way. I am sure that it will get a new generation to read the book and that is good, but I still hate that cover. I had no idea that MTV had made a movie based on this book and shudder at the thought, although I loved the modern interpretation of Romeo and Juliet (I know, I should be cringing at myself). You're not better than people who watch Oprah. Maybe not better than all of them, but I feel safe in saying that I am better than the target demographic.

By: Wet Spot

Wet Spot — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 18:07:53 -0800

This one gets my vote.

By: clavdivs

clavdivs — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 18:53:05 -0800

Hey, shes stealing his pocket watch

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 19:29:02 -0800

If constricting your anus was the way to beat depression, we'd be the happiest people on Earth. Now that's a tagline.

By: britain

britain — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 19:55:25 -0800

Gottabefunky and serafinapekkala: gotta add my favorite to your collection.

By: drezdn

drezdn — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 22:28:07 -0800

Well, at least it's the original novel. What bothers me more are the "based on the movie" adaptations of movies that were books originally (book to movie to book), such as the remake of "Planet of the Apes"*. I've wanted to take this to its conclusion and make a movie based on a book based on a movie based on a book. A minor cover annoyance for me is "Gun, With Occassional Music" by John Letham, the original Trade paperback was considered sci-fi (which it is) and had a crazy pulpish cover featuring characters from the book. The new "lit" cover has a guy running, as if to appeal to people who won't buy sci-fi books.

By: George_Spiggott

George_Spiggott — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 23:06:03 -0800

You're not better than people who watch Oprah. You're not better than people who think they're better than people who watch Oprah.

By: GaelFC

GaelFC — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 23:19:06 -0800

More chopped-off legs.

By: 111

111 — Tue, 23 Sep 2003 01:31:05 -0800

I say it's great. Whatever gets the MTV mob to read one of the best novels of all time -- certainly the very best novel ever written by a woman-- is welcome. Plus Wuthering Heights, with all the sexual tension and the love-hate drama, actually feels like a story whose plot can be easily adapted to modern times. Another stolid, victorian cover would be pointless. I also think that Jonathan Franzen misogynistic snobs who go "eew, an Oprah sticker" assume that TV-watchers are forever condemned to a life of mindless trash. Even if most of them are, some will no doubt profit from being exposed to the Oprah Club and perhaps discover a different world. Like crazyfinger said, it gets people to read, and that counts. Is that the chick from Traffic? Good actress I must say. BTW, don't judge a book by the cover. Ever.

By: dprs75

dprs75 — Tue, 23 Sep 2003 02:46:45 -0800

Just supposed this cover started selling better than the original - the book punter would then have to decide whether he could stand to be seen in public with it. He could wrap it in a Asian chicks I suppose. O i forgot - clench - mmmmmmm

By: matteo

matteo — Tue, 23 Sep 2003 03:55:38 -0800

As much as everyone likes to bag on Oprah, there have been some GREAT books that she's recommended "You're another corporate fucking shill. You're another whore at the capitalist gang bang. And if you do a commercial, there's a price on your head. Everything you say is suspect, and every word that comes out of your mouth is now like a turd falling into my drink." (Bill Hicks, Relentless)

By: wendellseviltwin

wendellseviltwin — Tue, 23 Sep 2003 04:51:10 -0800

I thought 111 was just a right-wing troll until I saw his defense of Oprah's Book Club above. Now, I know: he's a well-rounded troll. As for the most depressing book cover? NO CONTEST. OK, unclench...

By: meech

meech — Tue, 23 Sep 2003 05:26:59 -0800

Some of you sound like you already have an earlier edition of Wuthering Heights so what's the problem? Or do you not have a copy and can only find the MTV version? Doubt it. Stop being snobbish - it's very unbecoming.

By: CunningLinguist

CunningLinguist — Tue, 23 Sep 2003 05:27:32 -0800

Malcolm's brother has to be Edgar, not Heathcliff, right? I can't believe I even just had that thought. Kill me now.

By: ciderwoman

ciderwoman — Tue, 23 Sep 2003 05:50:42 -0800

It's pretty much the same as having an adult Harry Potter cover surely. You don't feel such a kid reading a book with this cover on the tube in the morning in the same way a kid in school feels happier reading WH with some cool looking kids on the cover. Whatever gets people to read a bit more can only be good, although for me there will always be exceptions. Easy shot I know, but the cover still scares me.

By: 111

111 — Tue, 23 Sep 2003 07:24:54 -0800

wendellseviltwin, I never read your name before, but consider this as an example of the kind of counterattack I will selectively perform on losers that try to derail a thread using my name: you're an imbecile. Nobody even knows who you are and where you stand. You offered no opinion about the thread. Go back to your cave.

By: soyjoy

soyjoy — Tue, 23 Sep 2003 07:33:55 -0800

BTW, don't judge a book by the cover. Ever. It may be a platitude, but at least 111 and I agree on something. This book is better than Wuthering Heights. Sorry, couldn't find an image of the actual (1981 edition) book - but its cover is exactly the same as this.

By: TedW

TedW — Tue, 23 Sep 2003 09:14:20 -0800

More worst covers.

By: taz

taz — Tue, 23 Sep 2003 11:35:09 -0800

Hey! I just had a look over at Readerville, and guess what their featured "book of the moment" has on the cover... What a puzzling trend.

By: Summer

Summer — Wed, 24 Sep 2003 04:13:54 -0800

All this talk of snobbery is missing the point. The reason it's depressing is because the cover deliberately mis-sells the contents and shows a horrible lack of faith in its target market. From that cover you'd expect a light, bland, teenage romance. What you'd be getting is a dark, gothic work of genius dealing with death and obsession. Now which is the more entertaining?

By: Melinika

Melinika — Wed, 24 Sep 2003 10:34:20 -0800

Recap of MTV's Wuthering Heights [via TWoP]