Do book covers influence your perception of a book?

[greyhorse]

Back in highschool, I remember telling one of our librarians that the school's copy of a certain book had a terrible cover. She then asked why that should matter, and wouldn't it be better if there were no cover at all? That way we could better imagine the story, presumably without negative outside influences.

Certainly there are very bad covers that I shudder to look at. William Gibson's 'Neuromancer' for example has been re-released around 4 times, maybe more, and each one seems to have a different cover. One in particular had a very comical feel that I'm sure would detract from the book's slick, stylish writing.

SF and Fantasy books in particular seem to feature full-cover pictures as opposed to simple large title print and maybe a small symbolic picture, but it this a good thing? When reading a book, I mostly find that the world I imagine is far different from that of the cover, but this doesn't necessarily detract from the book.

Any opinions? Should SF and Fantasy book covers have less emphasis on the pictures, or are they necessary to sell? What kind of covers do you find help a book? I personally like artsy covers more than detailed, realistic covers, but what do you like?

 

[ray gower]

An interesting question.

I confess, browsing the shelves in the bookshop I am attracted to the cover first.

So I guess a good cover is needed to at least attract the attention of the browser from amidst the mirade of books.

I just wish they had something to do with the contents of the book!

 

[Highlander II]

Too true.

Unfortunately, many times, the cover has more to do with marketing than with anything to do with the book.

At a con earlier this year, there were panels on books and sales and such - and they mentioned that frequently the cover art is commissioned to attract buyers, not to, necessarily, depict any part of the actual story contained between the covers.

Sad really.

I'd almost prefer a plain cover with just the title on the front.

 

[Dave]

I'm afraid to say that book covers have always attracted me to books. I had many posters of those Roger Dean book covers and 'Yes' albums on my wall as a student. And I do think they can be an art form in themselves.

I agree that book covers probably have more to do with the marketing than the book itself -- just look at the editions of 'Harry Potter' produced for kids and produced for adults -- they are exactly the same book.

Interestingly, I was just reading the acknowledgements in Larry Niven's 'Destiny's Road'. He took so long to write the book that the painting by Michael Whelan displayed at a Chicago Worldcon, became completely at odds with the story after five years, but he did use an element from the picture and incorporated into the story. So, that is a kind of symbiotic relationship!

 

[philoSCIFI]

Not as much as movie covers... I'm not a good judge of books by their covers. Movies are easy... it's my fortay(sp) persay...

One of the main reasons I wanted to read "The Song of the Earth" by Hugh Nissenson was because of the cool artwork on the cover. The Author is also the artist. It was definitely a first for me... a unique book.

 

[Spudnik]

sort of.

i try not to judge my books by their covers...

then again pickin up a book by terry pratchett just coz its BY terry pratchett isnt necessarily healthy either.

i mean, sure lots of books by one auther are well done, exemplary work in fact. but is that to say All is good?

nay i tell you, NAAY!!

take stephen king for EXAMPLE.

DT1-3 went downhill for me. was great, went to bad, got worse. DT4 was unreadable. DT5 picked up again and i have yet to read DT6.

so not all is good.

and particularly, i saw a book teh other day with a very questionable cover. does the term "misiformation" ring a bell?

nekkid chicks sell yes. but not necessarily do they reflect the content of law books

 

[bookbrow]

It seems that if the book is from a lesser known writer the cover may be done on the cheap, although this is not the case all the time. I personally read and cross reference reviews and plain ignore the cover art. Although I did pick up some Le Guin books that had beautiful covers ( lucky as I knew the stories were good). I have also read a few excellent books with plan horrid covers, jordan, bujold mcmaster to nmae a couple, Although the new fantasy series by Bujold mcmaster is very well done.

It is interesting to come across different covers for the same book.

In terms of typography, styles change and in my hunts in used bookstore haunts you find some pretty dated covers. It is a bonus when the books look good. And then they make nice collectables..

nuff said.
bb

 

[Highlander II]

Then, of course, there is the annoying bit where they start a series with one cover design, then, somewhere in the middle of the series, they CHANGE the design...

horribly frustrating if you're a collector - b/c then the covers don't match and the books look funny on the shelf.

*sigh*

My Jim Butcher books are like that. I mean, I'm ecstatic that his name is now at the top of the book, but they changed the letter layout and the font style and everything, so book 6 looks different from books 1-5. It's so annoying. I liked the books the way they were. But, I'm also glad that we're getting books 7 and 8, for sure and possibly more than that.


Oh - and geez, if they ever make a movie from a book. Then, the cover art immediately bears a screencap or, at least, a shot of the actor from the movie / tv show / whatever. Not always bad, but sometimes it just doesn't look right on the book.

Like have you seen all of the Bourne books? They *all* have Damon on the cover now - even though they've only movie'd the 1st two. *sigh*

 

[BAYLOR]

The publishers make the book appealing because like any product it, if something looks good people will buy it. I like covers but its not really a selling point with me.