Anne of Green Gables is now a Buxom Blonde

Growing up, I was a child who got lost in books. From Little House on the Prairie and Betsy and Tacy to Little Women and Strawberry Girl, I read and re-read my favorites over and over again.

Once I found an author I loved, I would scour library shelves for every book she had ever written. This may be why I’m one of the few thirty-somethings on the planet who can actually remember the plots of such lesser-known Louisa May Alcott classics as Rose in Bloom and An Old-Fashioned Girl.

In retrospect, I probably wasn’t your typical 8 year-old.

Through it all, there was one book that stood head and shoulders above the rest: L.M. Montgomery’s Anne of Green Gables. It was, and still remains, my all-time favorite, so much so that I once drug my husband and infant daughter halfway around the world to visit Prince Edward Island – only to discover that places which sound amazing in books are often beyond boring in real life. And also that Tim Horton’s coffee is not as good as Canadians believe it to be.

Some things really are better left to the imagination. Anne Shirley could have told me that.

I’m not alone in my love of all things Anne. The feisty, red-headed orphan has been a beloved literary character and “kindred spirit” to girls (and, yes, grown women too) since Anne of Green Gables was first published in 1908. Anne’s feisty nature and imaginative adventures – and her near legendary hatred of her red hair – have endeared her to generations of readers for over a century.

These days, though, die-hard Anne fans are more than a little upset – and with good reason. The homely redhead who once accidentally dyed her hair green in the hopes of turning it “a beautiful raven black,” has suddenly morphed into a buxom blonde.

In a recently released edition of Anne of Green Gables, a blonde bombshell – who looks nothing like Anne Shirley and a lot like someone you would expect to see wrapped around a pole – stares seductively from the book’s front cover. Amid some serious internet controversy, the image is now mysteriously missing from the book’s Amazon page, but you can still see it for yourself in this article on The Huffington Post. 

Loyal readers are, of course, outraged. Some are guessing that whoever chose this seriously misguided cover photo never took the time to actually read the book; others are convinced that this “sexier side of Anne” is meant to appeal to today’s more “worldly” teen audiences.    

Even Green Gables, it seems, is getting the Fifty Shades treatment. (By the way, that's the original Anne pictured to the right.)

Now, I’ve got a fancy, overpriced degree in English Literature, and I’ll be the first to support the idea that classic literary characters are always open to interpretation, and that the really wonderful thing about a book is the way every single reader can discover their own unique story within its pages.

Add to this the fact that this is just one of many editions of Anne of Green Gables still available, and the whole controversy seems a tad overblown.    

But on the other hand, have we really reached a point where it’s such a hard sell to encourage our children to read the classics?

Do we really need a “sexier” Anne to make Anne of Green Gables an appealing read? Or, for that matter, cover photos of pop star Selena Gomez to convince kids to take a chance on Beverly Cleary’s classic Ramona books?

What do you think? Do we really need to “update” children’s classics to make them relevant to today’s youth? And if so, what’s next? Laura Ingalls Wilder in a “little bikini on the prairie?”

By Alyssa Chirco, SmartMama blogger for SmartParenting

Alyssa Chirco is a St. Louis freelance writer, mother and margarita lover, not necessarily in that order. In addition to writing for St. Louis Kids, she is Contributing Editor for Parenting Squad, writes regularly about parenting and family for Lifetime Television's The Balancing Act, and firmly believes there are few problems in life that cannot be solved with a good margarita.

Anne of Green Gables is now a Buxom Blonde. Wait . . . What? ht.ly/hJNiE

— St. Louis Kids Mag (@stlkids) February 15, 2013