Judging a book by its cover.

[rogueslayer452]

I recently came across a video discussing how horror books have lost their identity through the constant republished cover art changes and publishers wanting to follow current trends.

And I knew others felt the same sentiment, but the video honestly really placed into words precisely my issue with the constant cover changes and trying to "fit in" with every other book on a bookshelf. Especially when it comes to genres like horror which, as explained in the video, has always had a very distinctive style. And not just book covers, but just about anything. I remember walking in a video rental store and browsing the horror section and being mesmerized by the insane VHS covers of some of the horror movies. Same with the artwork with book covers, even if I wasn't going to buy it there was something intriguing and eye-catching about it which would give me pause and pick it up to examine the art design. Whether it's pulp fiction or kid horror or just straight up horror, the fun was always the cover art and how it reflected the story within. You knew what you were getting into when you picked up the book. Nowadays though, that appreciation of the artwork and cover design has been lost, and almost every book seems to go for the minimalist appeal that is indistinguishable from everything else.

Take V.C. Andrews books, for example. I love V.C. Andrews books, and the artwork featured for the covers (and the stepback covers for earlier editions) have always captured the Gothic feel of the text inside, haunting and creepy and just mesmerizing, the drawings for the facial expressions of the characters can be unnerving or make you curious about what's going to happen. The covers always had something to do with the story inside. They had a specific and distinctive style that was undeniable. Whenever you saw a cover, you knew it was a VCA book. It was part of their identity. However, when you look at the recent reprinting of the older books, they are barely recognizable. It's now been replaced with an Instagram-looking model placed on a cheaply done photoshopped background. It hardly represents what the story is like. Perhaps it's because I hold these books dear to my heart, but it honestly makes me very upset seeing that.

I know that there's definitely more issues behind the curtain in the publishing industry, that it's probably much cheaper to copy & paste stock images onto covers than it would be to pay artists for doing a creative commissioned piece for a book, and that's incredibly sad. Still, publishers need to understand that not every book has to look exactly the same.

Comments

[impala-chick.livejournal.com]

Why aren't books better at advertising what they are about? I wish authors would start using tags somewhere on the book, it would make it so much easier for me to choose what to read.

[rogueslayer452.livejournal.com]

I don't know how much control authors have when it comes to the covers of their books, a lot of it goes through the publishers and they usually get the final say about what the covers have. Though that is a really case-by-case kind of thing, not all authors have a say, while some do, etc.

But like, there are so many things I wished books featured, like an actual summary on the back instead of quotes from other authors or useless magazines about how good it is, or those flimsy cut-off front covers that just has a "NYT Best Seller" on the side (something that really annoys me), as if those are indicators on why I should buy the book. It makes the book less attractive to me, personally. I don't care about what someone else says about the book, I don't think anyone does. We just want information about the story inside. Not what some popular author kinda sorta thinks of it in a vague one-sentence praise.

[impala-chick.livejournal.com]

Oh, good point. Publishers have so much power. But an actual summary!! That's always a huge plus.

I have to wonder if anyone ever buys a book based on the sole fact that it's on the NYT Best Seller list. They have such a crazy assortment on the list that it sort of doesn't mean anything. If I wanted to know the best sellers, I could just look up the list anyway.

[rogueslayer452.livejournal.com]

Being on NYT Best Sellers list doesn't really mean much, since it's not really a good indicator whether a book is actually good or worthy of being there at all (as evident with the scandals and such). I don't pay attention to those little blurbs though, what I pay attention to is the synopsis and whether the story sounds good enough that it piques my interest. I don't care about whatever list it appeared in, or how many awards it won, etc. I find that rather meaningless when it comes to personal taste.