How important is a Book's Cover?

[Indian Boy]

I know, I know, you don't judge a book by its cover. I've heard the phrase a thousand times before and in some ways I agree with it. Clearly the quality of a book is found within the pages, the story, the characters, the prose, etc, which makes the book's cover, for all practical purposes, irrelevant. But in some ways I think a book's cover is critical to its success. Face it, when you're in the book store walking past the display tables certain book covers catch your eye. Maybe it's a picture of a place you've been or maybe it's just a very interesting picture, but suddenly you find yourself with the book in your hands, you turn it, and you read the back. Now if the book's cover had been plain you never would have even noticed it and never would have read the back.

The reason I ask this question is because recently I've realized I absolutely HATE any book cover if the book has been made into a movie and now the cover of the book is the 'movie picture'. Example, The Road by Cormac Mcarthy. The book cover has the actor who plays the father in the movie on the cover and I couldn't stand it. Same goes for my book "Into the Wild". The book's cover was the movie poster. In fact I hated these two book covers so much I went down to Borders and exchanged them for the same books but with non-movie covers. Now I am happy and I plan on doing the same for my books, No Country for Old Men, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, and Call of the Wild.

Now going back to book covers in general, I think I'd rather have a book with a plain cover and just the title, rather than an ugly picture on the cover. For example, I recently saw a few different book covers for On The Road. I believe it is Penguin that puts out a book cover with a corny picture of a guy (probably Sal Paradise) hitchhiking on the road. The picture is so goofy and corny that if that was in my library I'd throw it away. Instead I'd rather the other book cover that was plain black with the title On The Road in big letters.

So to sum up, I strongly feel that a book's cover is important to the overall enjoyment of the book itself. When you close the book at night and stare down at the cover don't you want to stare down at a picture you feel is a good one?

[Modest Proposal]

Honestly, I think a books cover is only critical to its success in the very mainstream arena. I put alot into deciding what I will read--reviews, researching historical significance--but since they are usually classics, its not really an impulse buy but one backed by 50-2000 years of cultural relevence.

That being said, I LIKE when a book has a nice cover. For a while I just bought any classic that was well priced--usually .25-4 dollars at libraries and used bookstores--, but finding myself with a HUGE shelf of books, I have since limited myself to buying classics I want that are in good editions. My favorite editions are Everyman and Modern Libraries. So essentially, the cover picture means nothing to me as I choose the books based on pretty researched decisions, but I do like nice/durable bindings.

[Evaril]

I don't usually care for book covers since I decide on the books to buy before visiting the bookstore (I don't browse the shelves). But if there are several versions of the same book and if I'm fine with the font and size and additional materials of both, I usually go for the one with the nicer cover, even if that means a dollar extra (but not more).

[dfloyd]

I find the total design and production is very important; however, this only applies to classics. They may be modern classics all the way from James Joyce to Ray Bradbury or they may be copies of the Iliad to the works of Charles Dickens. The point is that book making is an art form. While the text is the prime conderation since it wont become a classic without the skill of the writer, after it becomes recognized as a classic some publisher will produce it in an artistic fashion. That is, with the appropriate binding, typesetting, decorations, and printing. These types of publishers generally publish books in small quantities ( 500 to 1000 copies).

I have been collecting finely printed and bound books for more than forty years, and it is a fascinating hobby Those of you who love books could not find a more interesting hobby or avocation. To those of us who have become knowledgable in the art of book production, every aspect of book making is of utmost importance.

[Eryk]

I think that this cover is useful



because the painting is part of the story.

This is one of my favorite covers ever:



Wikipedia:

The cover of The Great Gatsby is among the most celebrated pieces of jacket art in American literature. A little-known artist named Francis Cugat was commissioned to illustrate the book while Fitzgerald was in the midst of writing it. The cover was completed before the novel, with Fitzgerald so enamored of it that he told his publisher he had "written it into" the novel.

[blazeofglory]

It is oftentimes said that a book should not be judged by its cover but in reality it does. A cover tells lots about the insides of the book. Of course a book with a good piece of art or picture can tell lots about the book and what is more children, and more often adults, are likely to buy books looking at the pictures on the cover.

[mal4mac]

Just read a Clive James essay: "No Way, Madame Bovary" where he criticizes a cover for showing a painting of young women in a different era from Madame Bovary. So covers like "Girl with a pearl earing" are useful *if* they are accurate! If not, they are worse than useless.

[Red-Headed]

Cover art is just advertising to entice you to buy the book. let's face it, it works!

[Eryk]

Just read a Clive James essay: "No Way, Madame Bovary" where he criticizes a cover for showing a painting of young women in a different era from Madame Bovary. So covers like "Girl with a pearl earing" are useful *if* they are accurate! If not, they are worse than useless.

True. For instance, Hobbits do not have big feet and Sam Gamgee was not fat.

The idea that Hobbits have big feet seems to have begun with the Brothers Hildebrant, who did numerous popular illustrations in the 1960s and 1970s.

It is a tradition among film-makers and some illustrators to make Sam Gamgee fat. In the story, Sam is never called fat, and as a young Hobbit (and a hard worker) is probably fitter than any of them. Pauline Baynes's illustration of the Fellowship, done while Tolkien was alive, shows all four hobbits of much the same build. In the movie The Two Towers, Gollum calls Sam "stupid fat hobbit" (which always gets a laugh). In the book, Gollum calls Sam cross, rude, nasty, suspicious, not nice and Nasssty. And silly (several times), along with "thinking him" stupid and slow (wrongly, as it happens). But never fat.

Why make Sam fat? It could be "Watsonisation". In Sherlock Holmes movies (not in the books), Dr. Watson is sometimes made into a stout, bumbling fool, apparently for a low-cost laugh.

The Tolkien Society

Also, the cover art for Eye of the World got the trollocks wrong.

[Paulclem]

I wonder if the book cover - with alternative media now available such as the kindle etc - will go the way of vinyl record covers? It is likely I think.

[Eryk]

I wonder if the book cover - with alternative media now available such as the kindle etc - will go the way of vinyl record covers? It is likely I think.

I read an interview with Jimmy Page where he described how much work went into the cover for Houses of the Holy, and then he said "It just a piece of paper in a CD box now."



I think that book covers will go the same way, in E editions. When you close a paper book, you've got a work of art laying there. When you turn off an e-reader you've got a gizmo with buttons.

[Emil Miller]

True.
Also, the cover art for Eye of the World got the trollocks wrong.

TROLLOCKS ??? Despite being sorely tempted I shall refrain from comment.

[Eryk]

TROLLOCKS ??? Despite being sorely tempted I shall refrain from comment.

oops, it's supposed to be trollocs....

[Emil Miller]

oops, it's supposed to be trollocs....

Thank God for that. I suppose it was a Freudian slip.

[Onikeflava]

I think a book's cover is important only if it adds something artistically to the overall package.