Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Hazel

Book covers - how important?

Recommended Posts

Actually, I'm no fantasy fan but I read the Never-ending Story when it first came out since a friend of mine recommended it at the time. And I really liked it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recommend The Never-ending Story to anybody who will listen. We bought it for our youngest when he was eight - that's about twenty-three years ago. The whole family devoured it. The films they made of the book were dreadful, in my opinion. If memory serves, the book, in the hardback format had two colour print, one red, one green. One for the real world and one for the fantasy world - can't remember which and young son has it at his place.

 

I've also read The Book of Lost Things and the parallels are huge. Distressing home life, slipping into fantasy world, understanding self, coming of age. It's all there in both, but told in differing ways. Both great books in my opinion for children and adults alike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I recommend The Never-ending Story to anybody who will listen. We bought it for our youngest when he was eight - that's about twenty-three years ago. The whole family devoured it. The films they made of the book were dreadful, in my opinion. If memory serves, the book, in the hardback format had two colour print, one red, one green. One for the real world and one for the fantasy world - can't remember which and young son has it at his place.
That's exactly it, I liked that.

By the way, even Michael Ende, the author of the book found the movies horrible and retracted his name from the whole project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By the way, even Michael Ende, the author of the book found the movies horrible and retracted his name from the whole project.

I don't blame him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until about two weeks ago I'd always vaguely wanted to read Sarah Waters but never got quite round to it. Got to say the cover of The Night Watch clinched it. In fact, both the books I bought with it in Borders' 3 for 2 section (Rick Moody's The Diviners and Eleanor Lipman's My Latest Grievance) really seduced me with their jackets too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rescued Thread, page 5 (#61-75), there is a 6th page, as well, but I haven't found it, yet:

 

This is the 6th page

 

Hazel 7th November 2006 12:41 PM

 

Originally Posted by Momo

The trouble with the American/British editions being different is, you really have to watch not to buy the same book again, as often even the titles differ. How on earth would you know that The Murmur of Stones is The Cloud of Unknowing. I'm used to this kind of "translation" in the German film industry, but English books? Give me a break!

 

Wasn't Harry Potter and the Philospher's Stone renamed for the American audience? The funniest USA renaming was for The Madness of King George which was originally The Madness of King George VIII but the VIII was taken away after reports that the Americans would want to know where the other 7 were! This from a country that habitually calls their children Junior Junior and "the third".

woofwoof 7th November 2006 03:24 PM

My favourite example of a renaming is when "Lady Hamilton" starring Vivien Leigh and Laurence Olivier was released in America as "That Hamilton Woman"! If I remember rightly the story is told from Lady Hamilton's point of view i.e. sympathetic to her - but the American title, I presume, was to give the impression that it was disapproving of her role as a "scarlet woman". It was supposedly Winston Churchill's favourite film (watched it, allegedly, 83 times!)

 

HP1 - the philosopher's stone was renamed the sorcerer's stone in the US. Apparently the American publisher thought the word "sorcerer" would attract more buyers than the word "philosopher". They also Americanised the English. I'm sure that JK was in a much stronger position to veto this sort of thing when she released book 2 onwards.

 

Hazel 7th November 2006 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by Momo

How on earth would you know that The Murmur of Stones is The Cloud of Unknowing.

 

I was always under the illusion that the title of a book meant something, gave some indication to the contents, or was a taster for the contents - but to have completely different names baffles me! I think book titles are important - so it irks me that they can be changed willy nilly. Does anyone else think that the title is as important as the text?

 

Grammath 7th November 2006 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by Hazel

Wasn't Harry Potter and the Philospher's Stone renamed for the American audience?

 

It was. Our transatlantic cousins know it as "Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone". Guess they're not big on philosophy - hell, their President probably can't spell it even after his brush with existential literature (he's supposed to have read Camus' "L'Etranger" during the summer, possibly the picture book version).

katrina 7th November 2006 06:35 PM

The book cover I was talking about that made me feeel all Christmassy, was Maggie's Tree by Julie Walters.

 

Momo 8th November 2006 04:33 PM

 

Originally Posted by Grammath

... (he's supposed to have read Camus' "L'Etranger" during the summer, possibly the picture book version).

:lmao:

 

Originally Posted by Hazel

Does anyone else think that the title is as important as the text?

Oh, yes, I certainly do. This is one of my pet hates (peeves would be too nice a word). They translate titles incorrectly into other languages all the time - but a translation from one language into .... the same???

 

Hazel 8th November 2006 06:49 PM

 

Originally Posted by Grammath

Itheir President probably can't spell it even after his brush with existential literature (he's supposed to have read Camus' "L'Etranger" during the summer, possibly the picture book version).

 

There is NO WAY he read it. PR spin at its most ridiculous.

 

Flingo 8th November 2006 07:01 PM

 

Originally Posted by Hazel

The funniest USA renaming was for The Madness of King George which was originally The Madness of King George VIII but the VIII was taken away after reports that the Americans would want to know where the other 7 were!

 

Was it not that they wanted to know about the previous 7 films, rather than the previous 7 kings? "I can't go see that movie, I've not seen The Madness of King George 1"...

Hazel 8th November 2006 07:07 PM

 

Originally Posted by Flingo

Was it not that they wanted to know about the previous 7 films, rather than the previous 7 kings? "I can't go see that movie, I've not seen The Madness of King George 1"...

 

Yes that sounds about right!

 

David 8th November 2006 07:09 PM

Originally Posted by Flingo

Was it not that they wanted to know about the previous 7 films, rather than the previous 7 kings? "I can't go see that movie, I've not seen The Madness of King George 1"...

Pretty much. The play was The Madness of George III, which wouldn't even have given them the clue about it being a king - just sounds like your typical American teen comedy, I suppose. Y'know, George, a trendy high school dropout and, hey, he's a bit mad, dude! So obviously, since they hadn't seen The Madness of George or its sequel, they'd hardly go to see The Madness of George III.

 

Another of my favourites is the James Bond film Licence Revoked, which actually described the premise of the film. It was changed to Licence to Kill because the producers (American) felt Americans were too dumb to know what 'revoked' meant. Nothing like faith in your own countrymen, eh? (Or was the test screening for George W. 'Lame Duck' Bush?)

Momo 9th November 2006 04:41 PM

 

Originally Posted by David

Another of my favourites is the James Bond film Licence Revoked, which actually described the premise of the film. It was changed to Licence to Kill because the producers (American) felt Americans were too dumb to know what 'revoked' meant. Nothing like faith in your own countrymen, eh? (Or was the test screening for George W. 'Lame Duck' Bush?)

Yes, if you hear those producers, all Americans are really stupid. They won't go and watch a movie unless they have American movie stars in it, they won't understand the word "philosopher" etc. How stupid can a whole nation be?

(though, you're probably right, David, how was it again about a chain and its weakest link?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And working backwards here is Page 4

 

minxminnie 24th February 2006 08:32 PM

Originally Posted by Momo

Yes, leaving out any of her books seems really silly. I would have guessed "Northanger Abbey", as well. But "Mansfield Park"??? It really doesnt' make sense.

 

Because it's the boring one ...??

 

(Light blue touchpaper and retire!!)

 

On the general point, I'm a sucker for a good cover. I'd really like to start buying beautiful books like those lovely B&W classics - any recommended publishers?

 

Flingo 30th May 2006 06:41 PM

Bloomsbury have now decided that they want to join in with this fancy, bright, shiny new covers for classics craze. They are republishing 6 titles in "teenage friendly" packages.

 

Some of the titles are (with links to their new covers):

 

Pride and Prejudice (with foreword by Meg Cabot (of Princess Diary fame)

 

Wuthering Heights (foreword - Jennifer Donelley)

 

David Copperfield (foreword - Philip Reeve)

 

I'm not convinced by all this, you know!

 

elfstar 30th May 2006 07:04 PM

They are AWFUL. Hate them. But if they attract new readers,which I doubt, fair play. I like a bit of class on my bookshelves...

 

Hazel 30th May 2006 07:26 PM

Zoe Williams in the Guardian mag this weekend had much to say about these new covers, (I think it was her at least), much along the lines that we have already discussed: dont like them, dumbing down of lit, - but she added that they are actually misrepresenting the books and misselling to the readers. She points out that the Austen books are difficult, or at least hard work to read, and repackaging them as chick lit, means that people who like chick lit pick them up and find that they are not easy, light hearted, "airport" reads, and this will turn people against the books and stop them from buying any more. I never looked at this issue from their point of view - just got my knickers in a twist about the dumbing down of literature.

 

David 30th May 2006 08:01 PM

Interesting point, Hazel. I'd agree with that.

 

I didn't think the last lot we looked at were too bad, but these are dire. For one thing, I really don't think a stylised pen and quill is going to draw in that many teenagers anyway!

 

They have the feel of a primary school class display. Only without so much care to detail.

 

Darkstar 31st May 2006 10:32 AM

I just looked at them. Eurrghh! Which is OK, because they're not aimed at me - and I already have copies anyway. I would have to agree with some of the points made though - unless (heaven forefend!) these are abridged, they are not a quick and easy read, and presenting them as if they might be, is misleading, and probably counterproductive in the long term. But then, while I may not buy a book because of its cover, I will not buy one because of it.

 

Momo 31st May 2006 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by Hazel

... they are actually misrepresenting the books and misselling to the readers. She points out that the Austen books are difficult, or at least hard work to read, and repackaging them as chick lit, means that people who like chick lit pick them up and find that they are not easy, light hearted, "airport" reads, and this will turn people against the books and stop them from buying any more. I never looked at this issue from their point of view - just got my knickers in a twist about the dumbing down of literature.

That's the first thought I had. I wouldn't buy them because I would think I wouldn't like that sort of literature and those who do would be disappointed. And those who know the titles and are not inclined to buy classics will not buy them - no matter how attractive they may find the cover.

 

Leese 31st May 2006 09:20 PM

You know, something else strikes me about these covers (apart from the fact they're hugely ugly, of course).

 

Your eye is more drawn to the name of the person writing the introduction than to the author. Almost as if they want to 'play down' the author's name for fear of putting off the buyers.

 

Odd, but I guess I can see the reasoning behind it...

 

megustaleer 31st May 2006 09:36 PM

Would a really hideous cover put you off buying a book you really wanted to read?

 

I have a copy of 'Animal Farm', bought years ago, with a cover illustration I found so unpleasant that I stuck a picture of two cute kittens over it!!

 

Momo 1st June 2006 04:26 PM

 

Originally Posted by Leese

You know, something else strikes me about these covers (apart from the fact they're hugely ugly, of course).

Your eye is more drawn to the name of the person writing the introduction than to the author. Almost as if they want to 'play down' the author's name for fear of putting off the buyers.

Odd, but I guess I can see the reasoning behind it...

You are right. The publisher is not really interested in getting the people to read those books, they just want to sell them. Of course, in the long run, that doesn't get them more readers but it's quick money.

 

Originally Posted by megustaleer

Would a really hideous cover put you off buying a book you really wanted to read?

No, but first I would have to know that this book is not as hideous as that cover. I must admit, I often don't look at books when they are too bright, too pink, have too many fancy illustrations on the cover. Or when they look like fantasy books or crime stories (usually black). You enter a book store and only have so much time, you like to look at the books you might want to read.

Of course, if someone tells me this is a good book, I don't care about the cover and get it anyway. But those are not the kind of buyers they look for with this.

 

megustaleer 2nd November 2006 11:10 AM

 

Originally Posted by Adrian, on the 'Black Dahlia' thread

the book snob in me likes to have the original cover rather than the film tie-in version.

 

I thought it was only me!

 

I get really irritated if I want to buy a book and find it has been re-issued with a scene from the latest TV/Film adaptation on the cover. It looks as though I'm only reading it because it's been made famous by 'celebrities'

:mad:

 

Hazel 2nd November 2006 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by megustaleer

I thought it was only me!

 

I get really irritated if I want to buy a book and find it has been re-issued with a scene from the latest TV/Film adaptation on the cover. It looks as though I'm only reading it because it's been made famous by 'celebrities'

 

I agree - I hate film tie-in issues and avoid them like the plague. 9 times out of 10 they look so cheap and hastily issued.

 

Mungus 2nd November 2006 11:40 AM

I agree too, it would take a special book to force me in to buying a film/TV tie-in cover. They look too much like 'novelizations' - where the book is written after the film.

Momo 2nd November 2006 02:30 PM

Totally agree. Though I must say, a lot of the newer ones look like that, especially when they have appeared all over the bookshelves. I prefer the old fashioned way. But I always thought that was just me having a "funny" attitude. I'm glad I'm not the only one.

 

Grammath 2nd November 2006 07:19 PM

I never go near film tie-ins either. It kind of smacks of "I'm only reading this because of the film", not that I might want to enjoy the book in its own right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Page 3

 

megustaleer 16th January 2006, 04:03 PM

I suppose that those who enjoyed the film/TV adaptations, but wouldn't look for the books in the 'classics' section (or even in a bookshop) might be tempted by a display of sugar-candy coloured books in the supermarket, or airport departure lounge.

 

Looking at the Telegraph article it seems that they are aiming at the holiday-reading trade

Quote:

The editions will be subtitled "A Classic Romance", and quotes by celebrities will adorn the jackets. They will be piled high in airports and supermarkets from May.

 

Momo 16th January 2006, 04:30 PM

 

Originally Posted by David

I'm in the 'good luck to them' camp. Though it has to be said, I wouldn't be seen dead reading a chick-lit.-styled book!

 

I totally agree with David. We once read a book in our book club that looked all pink and turquoise and I wouldn't have bought it in the shop if I had seen it like that. Usually, those books are soooooo dull.

When I first read this, I thought the Austen editions would be like that but when I saw the designs, they were actually not as bad as I thought.

But, yes, I believe people will pick up these books and buy them. I do like the old covers but then - I love classics and somehow these covers go with the books.

However, as I am getting older my eyesight gets a little worse and I would appreciate a larger print ... Not those really really large ones for almost blind people but just a normal print as you get with any modern book. And those £1.50 editions just don't do that.

 

megustaleer 16th January 2006, 04:52 PM

a bit of a tangent: Why would a boxed set of Jane Austen novels contain only 5 books? If you were marketing this, what would you leave out?

 

(Set of 'Penguin' editions bought about 4 years ago, by someone who thought at the time that it was the complete works)

 

Cathy 16th January 2006, 05:07 PM

Lol! I can't believe they really did that! That's just terrible! What did they miss out? I would think if it was an editorial decision rather than an error, it'd be Northanger Abbey that would be missed out, but it does seem to be a bit of a shame. They could bring out a set of 7, including a collection of her unfinished/unpublished works like Lady Susan and Sandition.

 

megustaleer 16th January 2006, 05:18 PM

No, Northanger Abbey is included.

 

David 16th January 2006, 05:19 PM

Mmmm. You're right, Cathy; it would have to be Northanger Abbey because it is quite different from the others. Nevertheless, it's a daft decision! Why on earth leave just one out?

 

Edit: posted this while Meg was posting, so didn't see how wrong I was! It looks like the actual omission is going to be an even more barking decision than the original one to leave a book out! Well, I'd go for either Persuasion, since the tone is a little different in that one, or Sense and Sensibility for seeming too like Pride and Prejudice!

 

Cathy 16th January 2006, 05:21 PM

Mansfield Park then?

 

David 16th January 2006, 05:24 PM

Of course, it could be Pride and Prejudice because that's so well known they might have thought you could leave it out!

 

Well, there you go, Meg. It's one of all those!

 

megustaleer 16th January 2006, 05:33 PM

 

It's actually Mansfield Park. ( and 'Lady Susan', of course)

 

I don't suppose a letter to Penguin would get an explanaton...it's inexplicable!

 

David 16th January 2006, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by megustaleer

It's actually Mansfield Park.

 

The only one I didn't guess!! I can see why I didn't go into marketing!

 

(Bl**dy daft decision, whichever one was chosen!)

megustaleer 16th January 2006, 05:42 PM

The only explanation I could come up with was that the boxes for boxed sets come in standard sizes, and that this was the combination of Austens that fitted best,

 

The problem is, how do you put them on the bookshelf? With the odd one in front, or after the box, on top of the box or underneath...or just do without Mansfield Park altogether?

 

Hazel 16th January 2006, 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by Cathy

Plus 'The covers will feature endorsements from actors who have played Austen roles, such as Colin Firth' excuse me?! Does Austen really need celebrity endorsements? I'm confused!

 

Won't that just confuse people who expect the Firth/Darcy lake scene when it isn't even in the book?!

 

Momo 17th January 2006, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by megustaleer

It's actually Mansfield Park. ( and 'Lady Susan', of course)

 

I don't suppose a letter to Penguin would get an explanaton...it's inexplicable!

 

Yes, leaving out any of her books seems really silly. I would have guessed "Northanger Abbey", as well. But "Mansfield Park"??? It really doesnt' make sense.

The explanation that it wouldn't fit in the bookcases otherwise seems to be a reason someone could have used to cut out a book, I don't think I will ever understand any of theses strategies but if someone explains it they will probably say I'm not an expert.

 

megustaleer 11th February 2006, 04:00 PM

This morning's trip to the nearby town, and its charity shops, has added Mansfield Park to my incomplete set. At least it's another Penguin edition, so won't look too out of place, perched on top of the box of five!

 

It is quite a substantial book, which seems to support my theory that the novels for the set were chosen to fit what is presumably a 'standard' box.

 

Momo 11th February 2006, 04:09 PM

 

Originally Posted by megustaleer

It is quite a substantial book, which seems to support my theory that the novels for the set were chosen to fit what is presumably a 'standard' box.

 

Yes, and that totally makes sense, because all the other books come in a standard size ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the original end of Page 2

 

megustaleer 16th January 2006, 08:06 AM

Apparently the publisher 'Headline' is about to issue the Jane Austen novels in new 'Chick Lit' style covers, in the hope of catching the eye of a new section of the book-buying public.

 

Austen fans would read the novels even if they were wrapped in old newspaper, but will the chick-lit fans be seduced away from their sex and shopping stories by Jane in disguise?

 

Hazel 16th January 2006, 09:07 AM

Yes, I read that the covers were going to be swirly and pastely...hmmm, and priced at £4.99 so that supermarkets would stock them. Dependent on the success of the venture they are planning to release more classics in the same vein. Does anyone really think that it would make people pick them up? Surely, if you aren't the type of person to read Austen, is the cover going to make a difference?

 

Claire 16th January 2006, 09:17 AM

I think the cover makes a difference to whether you pick something up or not, if you're just idly browsing, and normally classics do come with rather unappealing front covers based on old oil paintings, so I reckon this Jane Austen thing may well make some extra people pick up an Austen novel, just to have a look......And if they've picked it up in a shop, they're surely more likely to buy it, than if they never even touch it.

 

I reckon it may generate some sales to people who otherwise wouldn't have bothered, which has got to be a good thing. Even better if they actually get read!

 

Good luck to them - I approve!!

 

Cathy 16th January 2006, 11:08 AM

 

My initial reaction is Oh No! But then I'm a fan so am bound to be overprotective/cautious! I do think the boring cheap classic covers with some dusty painting on the cover don't do authors an favours though, so a debate about the covers could end up with some more interesting ideas being about. Hey, I've just talked myself around to it. The cover of 'War of the Worlds' is quite funky and modern (I can't imagine what painting they would find to put on the front of it anyway!) and definitely made it appeal more to me.

 

Hazel 16th January 2006, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by Cathy

My initial reaction is Oh No! But then I'm a fan so am bound to be overprotective/cautious!

 

Exactly the same reaction as me! I am still not really sold on the idea though I do see you and Claire's points. I just feel that that it is mocking the books, and patronising readers at the same time. Do they really think readers are that shallow?

 

And I kind of like the dusty old oil paintings!

 

David 16th January 2006, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by Hazel

Do they really think readers are that shallow?

 

There's a very short and simple answer to that!

 

'Classic' Austen readers would - naturally - be more discerning, however, there are a lot of people out there who are swayed by that sort of thing. People are prepared to ditch expensive but perfectly good mobile phones just so they have something that looks up-to-the-moment. I think the same might apply to books for a proportion of potential readers. They wouldn't be seen dead reading a book that looked 'dusty and old-fashioned'. I'm sure that's the market being enticed by this marketing strategy.

 

I'm in the 'good luck to them' camp. Though it has to be said, I wouldn't be seen dead reading a chick-lit.-styled book!

 

Claire 16th January 2006, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by Hazel

Do they really think readers are that shallow?

 

I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but I'm definitely that shallow - at least at times!

 

If I'm browsing in a book shop or a library and I'm not looking for anything in particular, I can be massively swayed towards a book with an eyecatching front cover, or a title that somehow intrigues me. Of course I'd look at it a bit more closely, and read the first page or so and the blurb, before parting with any cash, or committing myself to carrying it all the way home, but the look can have a huge influence on attracting my attention in the first place.

 

Like David, the chicklit look doesn't really do it for me at all, but I'm a bit mixed about the oil paintings too. I do really like some of the portrait ones, like the one on the front of my copy of Emma, but the general purpose landscapes don't attract my eye at all.

 

I'm interested to see how this works out. Are they due in the shops any time soon?

 

Hazel 16th January 2006, 02:33 PM

Originally Posted by Claire

I'm interested to see how this works out. Are they due in the shops any time soon?

 

I think they are being rolled out at the end of the month. I agree that a good cover can grab your attention in a bookshop, but with this case I just see loads of people picking up these chick-lit looking Austens, reading the title and author and putting it back down again. I just can't bring myself to see people who wouldn't normally read Austen saying "okay I'll give it a go" once they realise that it isn't the latest Lisa Jewell, Kathy Lettes, Sophie Kinsella.

 

I am beginning to fear that I am being a little over protective...

Flingo 16th January 2006, 02:58 PM

There is a sneak-preview of the covers available in this article from The Telegraph.

 

They certainly look sugary!

 

However, the Reading Group sections may appeal to some readers.

 

David 16th January 2006, 03:04 PM

Actually, that's not as bad as it might have been. I'm interested by the typefaces: a flowing, angled, free-spirited 'Jane' atop a sterner 'Austen', to suggest this is serious but at the same time light-hearted and accessible.

 

I might allow myself to be seen only at death's door reading that...

 

Well, it's a concession!

 

Cathy 16th January 2006, 03:25 PM

 

Ooo-er, I'm not so sure about the cheesy 'Jane' thing, looks like some celebrity perfume promotion or something. Plus 'The covers will feature endorsements from actors who have played Austen roles, such as Colin Firth' excuse me?! Does Austen really need celebrity endorsements? I'm confused! (Yes, I know he's my avater!). I wonder what they mean by it, will it just say 'My Darcy as played by Colin Firth, you know, the one who did that lake scene'? or 'Colin Firth thought this was brill'?

 

I didn't mean to say its all good, just that if they try one new cover, the publishers might be prepared to try something else new. I don't know what though. More dresses perhaps!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep looking at the Book of Lost Things because of the cover, there were a few books that looked similar to this last year like The Goddess Guide. I'm also really tempted by The Glass Books of the Dream Eaters, The Book Theif and The Book With No Name (the title is also intriguing). Unfortunately these are staying on my wishlist till I either find some extra money or finish my TBR pile.

I purchased The Peacock Throne recently because of the gorgeous cover (I can't make it copy to here?) :confused:

Personally I can't remember being disappointed shopping this way, plus it makes the shelves look pretty :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Book With No Name

 

I have been wrestling with myself for ages about this book. It sounds totally intriguing but is it just a gimmick? If anyone has read it, please post a review!

 

The Book Thief has 2 different covers out - a C&YA one and an adult version which is parchment coloured with a dancing grim reaper - that's the one I went for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've just bought a gorgeous set of Jane Austen novels ...
They really do look very nice, minxminnie. Even though I have all the Austen novels already, I would be quite tempted to get that set ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even though I have all the Austen novels already, I would be quite tempted to get that set ...

 

Me too - some of my copies are quite cheap and tatty, and with teaching notes. I just thought they would be lovely to have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chip Kidd picks his favourite covers from 2000 on. I quite like them all apart from the Eggers' one. I wish we had had that Haddon one though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I buy most of my books from charity shops so I tend to browse and if I see a book with a nice cover I tend to be drawn to it, pick it up and have a nosy, likewise if I see a book with a picture of a first world war soldier, swastika or Adolf Hitler on the front I will make a beeline for it as more often than not that will be about my favourite subject of WW1/WW2!

 

But when I buy new books is a book I want anyway and the cover is irrelevant. Having said that though when I bought the first three Harry Potter books I had the brightly coloured "childrens" edition as that was all there was at the time, but as the books increased in popularity the adult covers were introduced but I kept to the brightly coloured childrens version as I wanted all my books to match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I think bookcovers are important but it's never the only reason I buy a book. Indeed I've been known to buy books that have an awful cover - these Penguin Popular Classics that have bright green covers for instance. I do like to hold the new Penguin books that are covered in fabric, though. They are very tactile but I've never bought one. I think that the bookcover, on a new book from an unfamiliar author, will prompt me to pick it up to see what it's about but not necessarily buy it. In charity shops the bookcover is irrelevant.

 

It's one of the reasons I'm only mildly interested in the new ebook readers. Since the covers don't change in accordance with the book I'm reading how will I remember what book I'm reading?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I am trying to find something different to read, the cover is very important as I often dont really know anything about the author etc, so the cover will definitely have an impact in terms of actually picking the book up. I have been drawn towards a million little pieces by james frey for this reason also but havnt actually bought it yet. Two books I have pretty much selected on this basis, the book of lost things by John Connelly, which i loved and also the book i am reading now, the end of mr y by scarlett thomas. I picked this one up due to the cover then the woman in waterstones gave it a really good review so i bought it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do like to hold the new Penguin books that are covered in fabric, though. They are very tactile but I've never bought one.
I have a Folio Society collection of Thomas Hardy bound in a cotton weave that feels wonderful. I like to stroke them. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some beautiful editions out there aren't there?

 

I love the Everyman editions of the Wodehouse books. The covers are so evocative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I keep looking at the Book of Lost Things because of the cover, there were a few books that looked similar to this last year like The Goddess Guide. I'm also really tempted by The Glass Books of the Dream Eaters, The Book Theif and The Book With No Name (the title is also intriguing). Unfortunately these are staying on my wishlist till I either find some extra money or finish my TBR pile.

I purchased The Peacock Throne recently because of the gorgeous cover (I can't make it copy to here?) :confused:

Personally I can't remember being disappointed shopping this way, plus it makes the shelves look pretty :P

 

 

Can i recommend that the book of lost things be the top of your list when you find some extra money or finish your pile. The cover tempted me to buy it and I loved it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to sometimes go for books whose cover looks nice. I think it's because if the cover appeals to you then you become interested in the author and the story because you feel that they might prove to be just as attractive. It's a stupid thing to do. I read the synopsis under the cover though and if I know I'm not going to like it I won't buy it so that's my backup. Otherwise I would have about ten thousand books that look gorgeous but haven't read. I suppose i could use books as wallpaper.............no that would be wierd. I wonder if anyones ever done that. I read about a guy once, a musician, who walled up his entire room with corks from wine bottles, to make it soundproof. Then he got fed through a little trap door. That must have took AGES !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I tend to sometimes go for books whose cover looks nice. I think it's because if the cover appeals to you then you become interested in the author and the story because you feel that they might prove to be just as attractive. It's a stupid thing to do.
I don't know. Something must attract you to pick up a book out of the thousands you can find in most book shops. Sometimes it's the colour of a book, the next time it might be an illustration. If you don't know the autor and the title, that's all you can go by to start with. For example, I usually don't go for the pink books because they are mostly chick lit. Mostly, that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...