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

http://goodbookslately.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/girl-with-a-pearl-earring0452282152.jpg

because the painting is part of the story.

This is one of my favorite covers ever:

http://bioinfo.mbb.yale.edu/~mbg/dom/fun3/great-gatsby/im.jpg

Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_great_gatsby#Original_cover_art)


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! :eek2:

[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 (http://www.tolkiensociety.org/faq01.html#hobbits)

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."

http://sleevage.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/led-zeppelin-houses-of-the-holy-back.JPG

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.... :redface:

[Emil Miller]

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

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.

[blazeofglory]

The cover contains the title and the title at times say lots of things about the book itself and the artistic looks add flavor to it

[Red-Headed]

I think some cover-art can be superb, particularly with many sci-fi illustrators, but at the end of the day it is just an advertising gimmick.

;)

[kasie]

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've just bought my first two books for my Sony Reader - :banana: - and what a pantomime installing them was for the technologically challenged (ahem) 'older generation', as my grandson so delicately puts it, but in the end, success - and Page One is a reproduction of the book cover, so maybe cover art will not fade away just yet.

I think covers are important - there are a lot of books out there and the publisher and by extension the author want you the book buying customer to select their book in preference to any other. The covers are designed to catch your eye, give you a tantalising clue to the contents, draw you towards it. Perhaps it is of less importance for established titles which have received critical assessment, attracted learned dissertations and are generally known to the customer, but something needs to attract him/her to the new title/author.

I bought Sea of Poppies by Amitar Ghosh because the cover caught my eye sufficiently for me to pick it up, read the blurb, try the first few pages and decide this looked interesting enough to take home. (No doubt a technologically more able person could find an image and transfer it but I'm afraid that one is beyond me - e-books, yes, pictures, no, not at the moment. :))

[Hank Stamper]

i definitely agree with the movie cover thing - although i quite like my copy of one flew over the cuckoos nest with jack nicholson on the cover.. but that is an exception to the rule!

[Annamariah]

When randomly looking for new things to read in a library a nice cover is often the first thing to catch my eye, so in that sense a book's cover is an important thing. If I already know what I'm going to read, the cover isn't as important, but of course I prefer a pretty cover to an ugly one. If I'm going to buy a book and there are several different covers available, I might pay a bit more to get a copy with a better cover.

I don't mind movie covers, if the movie poster is a good one. If it's not, I'll rather have the original cover. My copy of "Perfume" doesn't have any cover picture (it might have once had a paper cover, but as I got it for free from a recycling center, the cover that might have existed was long gone), but I wouldn't mind this movie cover:

http://origin.syndetics.com/index.php?isbn=0307277763/MC.GIF&client=pricp&type=hw7

[Helga]

when I buy hardcover books I usually take the paper cover off so the books are just black or you know just one colour.. paperbacks I really don't care except if I find the book looking like some series I already have a few of... but the cover dosen't do much for me...

[Red-Headed]

when I buy hardcover books I usually take the paper cover off

Yeah, I regularly do that. I always find it easier to hold a large book without the dust-jacket sliding around. Especially with dictionaries & reference books.

[Emil Miller]

Interestingly, hardcover books in France are usually monochrome with just the title and author's name. The French eschew multicoloured dust jackets as a frivolous adjunct to serious writing although paperbacks normaly have a picture on the cover. I don't bother too much about the cover picture on a book although it's nice to have a uniform set of an author's work with similar cover design's from a single publisher.

[stlukesguild]

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.

Last I looked there was just as much effort undertaken in the visual presentation of CDs as there was for LPs... the only difference being that the LP offered a much larger format within which to work. I will build upon this thought and note that the last technological invention of the scale of the computer (and related digital media) must have been that of Gutenberg's movable type. Movable type led to an incredible change in how books were produced... for better and worse. As a result of the printing press we no longer had books that looked like this:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2595/4087498000_3fa56758ea_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2527/4087497710_1c53a83e98_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2621/4087497610_1782dcbd6d_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2549/4087497916_fd2e45f8f5_o.jpg

As a result of the printing press, letter forms or type were standardized in the West. With the innovation of the typewriter... and eventually the word-processor and computer... handwriting declined and calligraphy became a forgotten art in the West, where in the East and in the Middle-East it has long been recognized and still stands as the highest art form. It was understood that the visual aspects of calligraphy were a key element of the expressive capabilities of the written word. Most poets were commonly master painters and/or calligraphers... or worked in close partnership with such masters:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3151/4086740861_5e52797bf1_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2599/4086740555_ebaa5a9b5e_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2488/4086741029_8ee19ed1d0_o.jpg

In the West the appreciation of the visual aspects of the book (calligraphy or letter types, illumination, covers, etc...) was often limited to a few sophisticated connoisseurs and a few rare artists/writers such as William Blake, William Morris, Mallarme, and Apollinaire:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2641/4086740613_5d04066fbf_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2522/4086740945_069ed53802_o.jpg

With the development of the computer and attendant technologies such as the e-book I suspect an even greater standardization of text and loss of other elements of the book... this in spite of the fact that the possibilities for the e-book and computer are overwhelming in terms of a merger of text with image, video, sound, music, ad interactive elements that could push the experience of reading in unsuspected directions.

[Paulclem]

I've just bought my first two books for my Sony Reader - :banana: - and what a pantomime installing them was for the technologically challenged (ahem) 'older generation', as my grandson so delicately puts it, but in the end, success - and Page One is a reproduction of the book cover, so maybe cover art will not fade away just yet.

I think covers are important - there are a lot of books out there and the publisher and by extension the author want you the book buying customer to select their book in preference to any other. The covers are designed to catch your eye, give you a tantalising clue to the contents, draw you towards it. Perhaps it is of less importance for established titles which have received critical assessment, attracted learned dissertations and are generally known to the customer, but something needs to attract him/her to the new title/author.

I bought Sea of Poppies by Amitar Ghosh because the cover caught my eye sufficiently for me to pick it up, read the blurb, try the first few pages and decide this looked interesting enough to take home. (No doubt a technologically more able person could find an image and transfer it but I'm afraid that one is beyond me - e-books, yes, pictures, no, not at the moment. :))

I didn't realise that, not having used an e-reader. I'm pleased - I like book covers. They do attract me.

With the development of the computer and attendant technologies such as the e-book I suspect an even greater standardization of text and loss of other elements of the book... this in spite of the fact that the possibilities for the e-book and computer are overwhelming in terms of a merger of text with image, video, sound, music, ad interactive elements that could push the experience of reading in unsuspected directions.
STLukes


I think the e-book could offer a lot of interactivity. I cetainly hope the art aspect doesn't go. Who knows, it might even expand if e-readers become console like in the future and offer the aspects you suggest like music and games.

[mortalterror]

I will build upon this thought and note that the last technological invention of the scale of the computer (and related digital media) must have been that of Gutenberg's movable type. Movable type led to an incredible change in how books were produced... for better and worse. As a result of the printing press we no longer had books that looked like this:

As a result of the printing press, letter forms or type were standardized in the West. With the innovation of the typewriter... and eventually the word-processor and computer... handwriting declined and calligraphy became a forgotten art in the West, where in the East and in the Middle-East it has long been recognized and still stands as the highest art form. It was understood that the visual aspects of calligraphy were a key element of the expressive capabilities of the written word. Most poets were commonly master painters and/or calligraphers... or worked in close partnership with such masters:

In the West the appreciation of the visual aspects of the book (calligraphy or letter types, illumination, covers, etc...) was often limited to a few sophisticated connoisseurs and a few rare artists/writers such as William Blake, William Morris, Mallarme, and Apollinaire:

With the development of the computer and attendant technologies such as the e-book I suspect an even greater standardization of text and loss of other elements of the book... this in spite of the fact that the possibilities for the e-book and computer are overwhelming in terms of a merger of text with image, video, sound, music, ad interactive elements that could push the experience of reading in unsuspected directions.

Don't be so dramatic. We'd all like to turn the clock back to the good old days, when children worked in factories, but the fact remains that book arts exist on roughly the same scale they ever have. What you are really complaining about is that mass production of that kind of work isn't cheap. Even the Kelmscott Chaucer was never printed in very large numbers. I've seen lots of finely bound gilded book covers with elaborate designs, they are just too expensive for anyone to afford. And I've even seen pictures of people imitating the medieval book art style online. My point is, they are scarce, but they exist.

Illuminated manuscripts! That's the phrase I was searching for. They thrive in the genres of Manga, Comic books, and children's literature. Then again, I've seen a number of Dante's, Milton's, and Cervante's works interspersed with the paintings of great artists who took the fictions for their theme. Doré and Picasso are often inserted into such texts. If those don't count to your mind then would you be more explicit as to what you consider proper book arts?

Another thing, would you consider books like House of Leaves, where the author messes around a lot with the font visually artistic? It seems as innovative and experimental as Mallarmé and his Un Coup de Dés Jamais N'Abolira Le Hasard, which you've already used as an example.

[stlukesguild]

Unfortunately the traditional visual art forms... including the livre d'artiste... have long been a very costly commodity. This is true whether we are speaking of the Lindesfarne Gospels, the editions produced by Aldus, the books of William Blake, Morris' Kelmscott Chaucer, or even something more recent like the Raphael Alberti/Robert Motherwell collaboration on El Negro:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2786/4087539069_7f2d0de41a_o.jpg

On the other hand, modern lithographic, photographic, and digital technologies have made it more than possible to mass produce high quality books in which the text and visual elements co-exist beautifully. Certainly the examples of Picasso's books or more commonly seen, those of Dore are prime examples. Unfortunately, these remain quite rare. Yes I would count The House of Leaves among such books... along with a number of other books. What I find unfortunate, however, is that the merger of text and image is most commonly to be found among two bodies of literature that are quite often not taken seriously: the graphic novel (comic books!:eek:) and children's books. Outside of these two sub-genre the book which merges text and visuals (or even other aspects such as concern for the quality of paper, use of inserts, etc...) is most found among high end livre d'artiste... which are commonly seen as a sub-genre of the visual arts... a field known as "book arts". This field includes not only expensive, limited edition hand made books which include actual artists prints:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2459/4087585201_20c92d2afa_o.jpg

... but also works of art made from books:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2454/4087596751_cc62ac965c_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2613/4088354192_6360885043_o.jpg

Personally, I'd like to see the e-book evolve into something more than merely a more efficient and less expensive means of transmitting and storing texts. Accessibility and aesthetics have not exactly gone hand-in-hand.

[blazeofglory]

The beauty within should be mirrored by the beauty without in point of fact.

[Red-Headed]

...it's still an advertising gimmick no matter which way you look at it. It is saying "BUY ME!"

:nod:

[mal4mac]

Here's a useful page on the inadequacy of the latest Kindle for (even) simple textbooks and newspapers. Don't expect print quality versions of Blake any time soon!

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/kindle-dx-comments.html

[Sarai]

I rarely care about a book cover I always end up prefering those simples ones like the Penguin Classics, which have a traditional image although these two covers really caught my eye

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51kiaO%2Bd5ML.jpg
It reminds me so much of Botticelli's work that I fell in love with it but it costed 20€ (already translated)

And another one
http://livroslivres.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/perfume.jpg

It's so simple and elegant I also spent 3 months "dating" this book until someone gave me as a gift! :)

[skib]

Well, the cover does keep the insides inside. :D
I would consider it pretty important.
Lame intentional misconstruations (yes, it is a word) aside, I unfortunately do judge a book by the cover. Boring covers don't hold my attention long enough to make me want to read them.

[Modest Proposal]

I rarely care about a book cover I always end up prefering those simples ones like the Penguin Classics, which have a traditional image although these two covers really caught my eye

It's so simple and elegant I also spent 3 months "dating" this book until someone gave me as a gift! :)

I agree about liking the Penguin's simple black. What, though, is dating a book?

[blazeofglory]

I oftentimes get swayed by the cover and explore the insides of it only after going through them. At first glance it is the cover that draws the attention first.

[Red-Headed]

I oftentimes get swayed by the cover and explore the insides of it only after going through them. At first glance it is the cover that draws the attention first.

Advertising works!

[Sarai]

I agree about liking the Penguin's simple black. What, though, is dating a book?


Opps another word occured to me but in German ^^ erm I usually use the expression "date a book" when I usually spend a lot of time staring at it and then can't resist and buy it! Like flirting! I prefer spending just 7€ on a book rather than 17€ with a nice cover.:nod:

[blazeofglory]

Most children and some adults too are tempted by what they see on the book cover

[Homers_child]

When I'm just browsing the shelves in a bookstore, yes the cover is a big seller in making me choose to pick up the book. It's more than just a 'trick' to make you pick up the book, it usually visually illustrates what the book is about that influences your decision about whether or not the book could possibly attract to your tastes. If it has a Victorian woman on the front, I'll assume that it takes place in that time period. If there's two hands holding an apple out, I'll assume it's about temptation. (Regardless of whether the book is good or not, it tells something about the story. ;) )

Another thing... sometimes, the cover is not what you first see, but rather the title. Most shelves in the book store are tightly packed in, with only the titles showing on the side. So technically, the title has to draw you in for you to pick it out.

[Three Sparrows]

I often tend to pick up books that have nice paintings on the front. One instance I particularly remember of judging a books cover was when I picked up Lady Chatterley's Lover, saw a painting of a naked woman on the front, and immediately put it back. Obviously, I did not want to read something like that, classic or no. Anyway, I usually gravitate towards Penguin or Barnes and Noble Classics.