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

[nemophilist.livejournal.com]

Totally agree. I also still have a pet peeve about movie-covers-as-book-covers.

[eowyn.livejournal.com]

I had never considered this before. You're absolutely right. I knew there was a reason why I preferred original covers and secondhand book shopping.

[haebin.livejournal.com]

I totally agree with you. I was (and still am) a huge lover of books and books cover and I worked for a while in the Industry. I remember how the covers looked in those times and how they look now. And like you wrote, it is a sad, sad thing.
Everything should be so cheap as possible, not paying the right amount of money for artists/writers ... and at the end you get a mediocore Instagram/Influencer-looking cover.

I don't wanna be influenced. I am my own person, with my liked and dislikes and I value different kinds of art. Don't try to get me with stupid Stock-Images.
:(

[rogueslayer452.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I'm the same. The only exception is if it's a gorgeous poster that's used, but otherwise I don't like movie/television covers on the books that they're adapted from. Like, I get it from a marketing standpoint, but chances of me buying those copies are very slim.

[impala-chick.livejournal.com]

Interesting, I haven't really thought about this issue. But looking at the books I have, there's a lot with just text on the cover and no images. Then I have the Shadowhunters series, which has a lot of artwork and all the books' spines sync up.

[rogueslayer452.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I mean if you were to show me two different versions of the same book, an older cover and a newer reprinted cover, I most likely will choose the older one because revamped versions often aren't that exciting or tell me anything about the book at all. It's often just big text with some photoshop graphics or using real people images taking up most of the cover itself (a trend I really hate, tbh, especially since most times they are so expressionless and have absolutely no resemblance to the characters in the book itself).

[rogueslayer452.livejournal.com]

I don't wanna be influenced. I am my own person, with my liked and dislikes and I value different kinds of art. Don't try to get me with stupid Stock-Images.

Exactly. And I can't help but think this is in part of the influence due to social media culture like Instragram or things you'd find on Pinterest, it's all pristine and simple and bland, and thus publishers think that in order to get the younger generation to read books have to appeal to them as social media does, with these boring expressionless Instragram-looking models and simple, minimalist looking text on covers and nothing else. It adds no variety, no individuality to the books or genres themselves. It's just the same mediocrity, which is unfair to the books themselves if the story is anything but, y'know?

[rogueslayer452.livejournal.com]

Yeah, a lot of books I've noticed have either just text (title and author) with no actual imagery or just something very plainly photoshopped (a large picture of a person's face with no expression) that tells you absolutely nothing about what the book is about. Obviously, this is very subjective as not all books are like this, many have pretty designs and artwork, but it's more common than not that many books, newer or revamped covers, are of this particular style.

On a marketing level I can understand the mentality, you want to go with what's trending so things can sell, but oftentimes this means really stripping away the identity of the book or the genre that its in to appeal to the larger masses. And that can be really disappointing.

[silverusagi]

There also seem to be cover trends. Something will sell really well (see: Twilight) and then every other book cover after that in the genre is vaguely the same, and when old books are reissued they 'update' the covers as well, with whatever the trend is.

[rogueslayer452.livejournal.com]

Yeah, and IMHO it's somewhat bothersome when you're looking for, say, a horror or science fiction book and the cover design is something akin to Twilight. It doesn't match, and it makes me less likely to actually pick up the book, regardless whether I know what the book is or not.

[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.

[haebin.livejournal.com]

I think, it is for the younger generation, yes. All Influencer-Instagram/Pinterest-Pictures looking the same and they hop on the bandwagon with the intention to sell more. But young people are not the only ones buying books.

[effervescent.livejournal.com]

I was just thinking about this when I clicked on this post! I really dislike the tendency to have movie characters or posters as book covers. I get why they do it but I don't have to like it, dammit. Like a lot of sci-fi/fantasy covers are much more fascinating before the book is ever made into a movie.

[nemophilist.livejournal.com]

Saaame.

[nemophilist.livejournal.com]

Yep, totally agree. I've fallen in love with Tor book covers lately. They're insanely good. The funky art is part of the fun of a book. I ordered The Pillars of the Earth years ago (and I ADORE the miniseries), but having it on the book cover was so ehhhhhhhhhhh. And that's one of my favourite books of all time. I'm not opposed to buying two copies when that happens, haha. One author that I love seems to only get those kinds of covers and it makes my eye twitch. GIVE ME ART!

Good lord, I'm a book drama queen ... ;)