Fantasy Aficionados discussion
Discussions about books
>
Does a Good Book Cover -Make you want to read it?
Scott wrote: "I can't stand looking at most of the new covers for kids' books of my youth. They're usually so ugly and boring. Kids aren't as dumb or as tasteless as you think.I mean, does anyone really thin..."
I think it's a vast improvement... ? >.> <.<
We always judge a book by it's cover, but good covers are hard to come by. Even my book, I like the cover, but for my next book, I want something awe-inspiring. Now all I need is some awe-inspiring money to do it.
KevinB mentioned that, not me. :D But for what it's worth, I like the first one more!
KevinB wrote: "I'm really not a fan of dated looking painted covers."What's "dated" about a cover that actually illustrates the book?
Tracey wrote: "Well, I'm on your side (though not necessarily with that example - I don't much like either of those )."I can't see those Jordan covers in detail, but from what I can see I definitely prefer the second. The first looks like it has Mickey Mouse on the cover.
I am another for whom a good cover can attract my attention, at least enough to read the blurb, which, if interesting, will make me pursue is further, whereas a bad cover can turn me off a book.I tend to avoid the "typical" fantasy covers - i.e. the old style ones with the knights and princesses and whatever.
I also tend to avoid dated pictures, unless being dated is part of the story (i.e. if it's a period-type book). A dated picture might be accurate, but it still feels dated, and since I have a bias against classics, feeling dated isn't good for my interesting level.
My pet peeve is when they have a cover I really like for the hardcover, and then they change the picture for the paperback. I'm not going to buy a hardcover just because I prefer the picture, though, I admit, I have been tempted.
The biggest example I can think of for that one is Gaiman's 'Fragile Things':
Hard cover:
Paperback:
(They do have better covers for paperback versions now, though, but it's still not as good as the original.)
I have been known to go out of my way or to pay a bit more for different covers. For instance, I prefer the UK versions of the Skulduggery Pleasant books to the much more boring US versions:
UK:
US:
And I would pick the British version for EotW over the US version.
Oh, another pet peeve is when they change cover designs mid-series. I'm not going to go back and re-buy the old ones, but it irks me when I see them all sitting on my shelves and they don't match.
I absolutely hate it when they change the cover designs midway through a series too. It really pisses me off. I want my books to match in my collection, and I know I'm not alone. But publishers don't give a damn about that.
Tracey wrote: "The first one is classier and more adult, I have to say, but I don't think it would make me pick it up. The original Darrell Sweet cover may be kitschy, but I have to say it very accurately told my much younger self that here was a book that hit every fantasy button I loved best. I love the second cover as a painting, but I don't remember any extended ocean voyage in EotW where Rand would be climbing masts ... It's been a while, but ... Hm.
The first one is the cover of the Brittish paperback (I think). That second one is the cover of the ebook. They released the whole series on ebook last year and took (tried out) a different cover artist for each book. There are some really great ones among those.
Take a look at the most recent book in the series:
US hardcover, UK harcover, ebook.
The first I hate, the third I think is great, but I still prefer the look of the middle one.
Scott wrote: "KevinB wrote: "I'm really not a fan of dated looking painted covers."What's "dated" about a cover that actually illustrates the book?"
Nothing. But that's not what I don't like about it. It's the whole art style, the layout, everything. 90% of the fantasy/sci-fi books from the 80s and 70s look pretty horrible imo.
Oh - as to people on the covers. I don't mind having characters portrayed on the covers, but I agree that I like them to at least have a passing resemblence to the person they're meant to be. Also, it really irritates me when they seem to use different models for different covers. At least have some consistency!
I think that the Mistborn series covers are beautifully done.
I also like that, even though Harry Dresden never actually wears a hat, the Dresden covers are all a consistent portrayal of the character, as Colleen mentioned.
I also enjoy the Patricia Briggs covers. She clearly states that Mercy only has one tattoo in the books, but the covers show her with different tattoos for each novel. At first I was put off by the inaccuracy, but if you look at the tattoos, they're almost a preview of the story itself. I like that kind of imagination in a cover.
I have purchased and read plenty of books based on their covers, with varying degrees of success. I have actually searched for, and acquired, books based on cover art I saw in art related books. I love atmospheric covers and covers that actually translate to what the book is about. Too often, however, I find that artists seemingly don't actually read the books...
Laurel wrote: "I also enjoy the Patricia Briggs covers. She clearly states that Mercy only has one tattoo in the books, but the covers show her with different tattoos for each novel. At first I was put off by t..."The tattoos are based on the story lines? I hadn't noticed that (I'm only on book 3) - I have all the books and I keep getting annoyed that the tattoos keep changing...
I'm the opposite of KevinB. I find the plainer covers boring. I love Fantasy covers. Even the semi-bad artwork is preferably to some glyph or image that could be copy/pasted out of a basic text program.
Laurel wrote: "I think that the Mistborn series covers are beautifully done."I really disliked the Mistborn: Final Empire cover when I first got the book. But it has grown on me and is now one of my favourite covers on my shelve. The other two are great too, especially The Hero of Ages.
The paperbacks aren't as good imo.
☠The Dread Pirate Grant☠ wrote: "I'm the opposite of KevinB. I find the plainer covers boring. I love Fantasy covers. Even the semi-bad artwork is preferably to some glyph or image that could be copy/pasted out of a basic text pr..."That's what I hate most about the Blume cover I posted earlier. How long did it take someone to design (ha!) and draw that cover? Two seconds? It's an insult to real artists.
Speaking of Mistborn: The Final Empire, I finally got around to picking it up... and it was its UK cover that did the trick:
I thought I wasn't easily won over by covers, but this? I had to have it. HAD to. -drools-
I love both types of covers, the plain and the detailed pictured ones. The pictured ones can be so much more fun to look at, though. I agree with Laurel. I love those Mistborn covers!
KevinB wrote: "Laurel wrote: "I think that the Mistborn series covers are beautifully done...."Well Lauren what about these covers for all the books that you mentioned:
the first paperback of cover of Mistborn
Then the first six original Harry Dresden cover, which I love because there is no character:
or the SFBC covers:
I just loved the SFBC exclusive covers of books.
Overall now, Mistborn and Dresden have the same cover artist.
Don't forget the SFBC cover with the dinosaur!
I am definitely more likely to give a book with an attractive cover a chance. I like where covers seem to be headed recently, simple but with harsh colors (i.e. black and red or dark blue and white).
I really like this cover, although the book was, meh, at best.
This is an amazing book, with a very simple cover. One of my favorites in both aspects.
This cover looks very dated to me, and if I didn't know the book was good I would never pick it up.Oh well, I guess it's good that everybody has different tastes.
I also like this cover a lot ;)
Laurel wrote: "Don't forget the SFBC cover with the dinosaur!"I forgot all about it, thanks, Lauren. I think Sue, the zombie dinosaur is one of most people's favorites.
How can you go wrong with zombie dinosaur?! lol
Valerie wrote: "Speaking of Mistborn: The Final Empire, I finally got around to picking it up... and it was its UK cover that did the trick:I thought ..."
Yea, those covers are great. I would definitely get them if I didn't already have the US hardcovers. :p
The Uk version of the way of kings is in the same style as those, but I really don't like that one. Something about the pose of the figure looks awkward to me.
In this case I think the originalUS version is far superior. (Imo a good example of a classic painted fantasy cover that doesn't look like some horrible artifact of 30 years ago.)
The painting continues on the back cover and looks a lot more impressive in person. :p
I agree that the UK version of Way of Kings is a bit odd looking, but it would draw my eye at least enough to look at the back cover. (Partially because it vaguely reminds me of the Night Angel covers.)The US version, though, is the sort of "typical" fantasy cover that makes me gloss right over it more often than not.
Of course, this just goes to show that cover artists and marketers can't really win either way, since every design they choose will work for some and not for others.
Of course, one reason I'm not drawn to the "typical" fantasy covers is because I don't generally like the kind of stories contained within. If you are someone who likes those stories you might be drawn to them more, and since you're more the target audience than I am, I guess it's a win for the marketers. Heh.
Michele wrote: "Scott, Judy Blume is exactly who I was thinking of when I mentioned the cover changes. Apparently, 10-year-olds think the new cover is better than the old one. :) Judy Blume was totally stagnant on my shelf until I ordered the new covers."I suspect that the reason kids are suddenly picking up the new books is simply because they are new.
Not only are the new covers awful, they will also ensure that no boys read them. How is that good?
Covers can certainly be fascinating, but I doubt a cover actually made me buy a book. The DJ notes certainly have in the past, but since GR and older sites, book discussions and recommendations are the main force behind my buying today. I also have a tendency to read authors I like in their entirety. I love Janny Wurt's Wars of Light and Shadow and find the covers of the hardcovers fascinating and worth essays in themselves. The 2-page DJ images, IMO, are a lot more interesting than the covers on the new paperback series of the series.
Scott wrote: "Not only are the new covers awful, they will also ensure that no boys read them. How is that good? "Why would you say that? I think boys nowadays would rather pick up a modern looking cover than one with 3 girls on the cover. Girls are icky you know. I know which one my kid brother would pick anyway. :p
KevinB wrote: "Why would you say that? I think boys nowadays would rather pick up a modern looking cover than one with 3 girls on the cover. Girls are icky you know. I know which one my kid brother would pick anyway.."Because the new covers are cutesy. Why wouldn't a boy pick up a book with girls on it? I've never understood the reasoning that boys only want to read books about boys.
Scott wrote: "Because the new covers are cutesy. Why wouldn't a boy pick up a book with girls on it? I've never understood the reasoning that boys only want to read books about boys. "Heh, well it's just the way it is. :p Yes, of course that's a generalisation. But I'm fairly certain a majority of boys wouldn't be all that atracted to a cover depicting 3 girls in school. I know I wouldn't have picked it up at that age.
Personally I find that old cover a lot more 'cutesy' than the more neutral modern one.
The new one looks like something a young girl would scribble in her notebook, perhaps surrounded by little hearts and flowers. And a unicorn.I picked up the old one...I remember thinking the girl on the right was very pretty. :D I wasn't really interested in books about sports or high adventure (though I did like dog stories.)
Now I want the UK Mistborn series. I never liked their covers... I will chose a book from it's cover. But I also think there's a li'l bit of female intuition involved too.
While traveling, I cam across
by cover alone, and proceeded to immensely enjoy the entire trilogy.I pulled out
, (yes, based on THIS bookcover) from the library shelf not knowing anything about it.Recently I was immediately intrigued by
at the bookstore. In the past I would have bought it, but I actually checked on goodreads first... and now I definitely want to buy it. BAD covers are the worst though. I don't mind being fooled by a bright shinny cover, but to miss a great story because of bad cover art or even OUTDATED cover art is very unfortunate. EotW is a great example of outdated, and I would have missed a great story.
Something I've read recently, that got a nice face lift to save it from being overlooked, is
... UPDATED to 
. It makes a big difference. Cover's are the lure.
Oh, also bought
based on cover, and have enjoyed every Bartimaeus book since.
Yeah, the Sabriel cover is beautiful. The Dillons are great.
I'd also picked up Sabriel based on the cover. Ended up being a great series.
KevinB wrote: But I'm fairly certain a majority of boys wouldn't be all that atracted to a cover depicting 3 girls in school. I know I wouldn't have picked it up at that age. In my library, most boys avoid books with all girls on the cover or if the book is entirely pink. Mostly because they don't want to be caught dead with it. Cute drawings are not in general a problem. If it is a book with a movie tie-in, they almost always want the movie tie-in edition. With kids, I think that yes, they are attracted to new covers, things that look like it is something aimed at them. I'm not really sure we adults are all that different. There is a lot of "recycled" children's lit because adults want to share what they loved with their children. If we look at the covers of books which are still in print but were first published many decades ago (let's say in the first half of the 20th century), very few of them have the same cover art today. Sometimes an anniversary edition will use the original art. I'm pretty sure the new art is not always better or worse. I wonder how much if any marketing thought goes into the cover design?
Kara wrote: "Oh, also bought The Amulet of Samarkand (Bartimaeus Trilogy, #1) based on cover, and have enjoyed every Bartimaeus book since."Lol! I picked up the Bartimaeus books for the covers too! My brother had them, and I noticed
this cover. I liked the blue tones, and the quiet city asleep sort of look, and the stars in the night sky... simple but pretty. Read it, loved it, had to get the series for myself :)
Kit★ wrote: "Read it, loved it, had to get the series for myself. :) "You should also check out The Ring of Solomon then (if you haven't already). It was a nice addition, and enjoyable to hang out with Bartimaeus again.
(I saw the cover you are talking about later, and like it too).
Kara wrote: "Now I want the UK Mistborn series. I never liked their covers... "Feel I should specify: In my mind I'm seeing these,
.
Kara wrote: "Kit★ wrote: "Read it, loved it, had to get the series for myself. :) "You should also check out The Ring of Solomon..."
It's on my wishlist. I didn't even know he wrote another one! Now I'm excited :)
The cover does play a part when looking for new books, but it's not a major decision point whether I will buy the book or not. Especially when browsing in shops with used books you can find books from the 60:ies and 70:ies with quite horrible covers but when you start reading the text on the back cover you will find that the book is much more interesting than the front cover. I still remember that I almost didn't borrow Anne McCaffrey's "Dragonflight" because of its cover back in the mid-70:ies, it was a nude woman on a golden dragon, something similar to this http://www.goodreads.com/book/photo/1... The text on the backcover was interesting enought to convince me to borrow the book and I have to say that I loved the book (and the other books about Pern) after getting over the aversion of that first impression the cover gave me.
She has said that Whelan was the first artist to get her dragons right.
I'm a sucker for book covers definitely which has led me to books like
,
! But this only happens when I'm at a bookshop though, my eyes are so attracted by the lovely artwork. If I'm online on goodreads or on amazon, I don't care much about book covers, I tend to therefore think more rationally.
I love good book covers, but I love being able to read samples even more. Pyr books have some awesome covers.
Sadly, yes - or the cover at least attracts me enough to pick it up. I did buy The Child Thief – Brom simply because I loved the artwork, but the book is not that good - don't think I ever finished ti.
I have to agree with Roshio and Judy. The cover can draw me, as a matter of fact I just put Roshio's The Left Hand Of God in my TBR pile. Oh whoa is me!
Judy wrote: "Sadly, yes - or the cover at least attracts me enough to pick it up. I did buy The Child Thief – Brom simply because I loved the artwork, but the book is not that good - don't think I ever finishe..."Good to know. I can take it of my may-read list. :>
Fantasy Aficionados
Books mentioned in this topic
The Sword-Edged Blonde (other topics)Magic Bites (other topics)
The Lions of Al-Rassan (other topics)
Iron Kissed (other topics)
Dead Witch Walking (other topics)
More...
is better than this?
"
Yes, definitely.
I'm really not a fan of dated looking painted covers.
For example, I vastly prefer the neatly stylized Brittish WoT covers over the US covers aswell.