/lit/ - Literature

>>19606149
Anything remotely anime/manga.

>>19606372
>ITT: ugly editions of books
>mentions anime
Fucking idiot

>>19606380
Goblin Slayer is a light novel, a book, and that is the cover. You also don't know how to greentext.

>>19606381
not as bad as no fear shakespeare

someone post the crime and punishment one with the bewildered rodya on the cover

>>19606395
Literally any Penguin classic or book with a cookie cutter template design

>>19606422
I dont even get this one though? It seems intentionally static for a book based on movement. At least with that sun also rises cover, the blurriness implies movement of the bulls. This is just smudged. Its ugly and drab for a book that isn't

>>19606149

>>19606149
98% of all youth Bibles

>>19606472
what are the 2% of good looking youth bibles like

>>19606562

>>19606149
this is probably my favorite cover of BM though, better than that one with the sunlight in the field or the one with the tiny picture of a horizon inset on the cover for some reason

>>19606388
Any wordsworth cover really

>>19606149
Not literary but the Stephen King early 2000s paperbacks were really bad (pic related).

>>19606736
I like that one because of its simplicity actually but you're right it's kinda reminds me of a haruki murakami cover for some reason

>>19606785

>>19606149
the worst part is the font is fucking terrible in that book, I binned it and bought the hardback

>>19606802
>>19606802

>>19606385
>f
>>a
>>>g
>>g
>o
t

Facebook-tier

>>19606785
>>19606802
Covers fit for the writing they contain within.

>>19606808
this is one of the greatest punk album covers of all time

>>19606401
looks like a powerpoint slide template

>>19606736
any cover that has quotes from literally whos on the cover is shit, but having it take half the cover is retarded, ugly and should be destroyed. Kill yourself if you think OP's cover looks good because of muh edgy font.

>>19606774
Did he listen to Huey Lewis and the News?

The Hobbit with Ricky Gervais

>>19606385
>light novel, a book
No

>>19607483
A book with a picture of nicer looking books on it

>>19606395
LMAO WHAT IS THIS

>>19606395
"Car drive on road - good cover"

>>19606401
>>19607367
Came in here to post and say the same exact thing, have no idea how even one person thought that was acceptable
Apparently that edition is full of errors too

>>19606802
AW MAN I FUCKING HATE VAMPIRES!!!

>>19606149
"What I've gone for here is a muted, minimal cover that evokes a kind of internal white noise, a mental state so bad that all we can focus on is this one distressing theme."
"Oh brilliant, genius. I love it."
...
"But we should let people know he won the Booker."

>>19606774
WOW

>>19606801
This one's great

>>19607483
Great cover minus the ugly review

>>19608080
Forgot the pic didn't I

>>19608080

>>19606149
it unironically be a 10/10 cover if that quote wasn't there and the title was at the bottom

>>19606149
I got this edition and I hate it, Good thing the text itself is kino and I can pass it off to friends as some pulp action novel to get them hooked

>>19607465
I had this edition when I was a kid! Man, I read that sucker until the binding fell apart.

>>19606562

>>19608086
Yuck

>>19606774
There is nothing wrong with this. Wordsworth is my favourite publisher by a long way. They are sold at a reasonable price and spare the flamboyant nonsense that so many publishers insist on including. This cover is pretty good and doesn't dress up the work unnecessarily.

10/10

>>19608091
>>19609435
Another excellent example of a 10 out of 10 Wordsworth cover. Learn to recognise a good cover.

>>19609469
Hahaha, what the fuck.

I recently was looking for a copy of The Great Gatsby with its original cover. I don't fucking get (original) publishers' insistence on ruining or replacing great covers. For fucks sake Fitzgerald even worked the cover into his book. It's the original, definitive cover - why replace it?!

>>19609469
lmao what the fuck is this

>>19609435
>>19609449
Wordsworth covers look like a poster for a poor film adaptation

>>19609469
Unironically two of the greatest covers I've ever seen. I want them.

>>19606774
Except for the fact they have decent covers as well

>>19606149
Tangentially related to this thread, I was at a bookstore the other day, and while I was browsing the English language shelf I spotted pic related. So these covers actually exist. I thought they were an internet meme. Amazing.

>>19609435
Is it true that the book interior is pretty good? Like they have very decent typography. Or is this just 4chan being retarded and making shit up?
They could be a good candidate for rebinding or making fancy dust-jackets for.

>>19609469
I have these
I like Lombardo's similes a lot. Dialog feels too dumbed down.

>>19609796
I've never had an issue. I find they don't have unnecessarily long introductions which I like.

>>19609756
>dollar store Morgan Freeman

>>19609435
No, they are ugly. You don't need any art, all you need is the title and the author on the spine. Artless covers look much more elegant.

>>19607491
novels are books. it's in the name

Anyone have the cover with the black demon in the garden?

>>19606372
You have to go back.
>>>/r/animu/

>>19610297
cringe take

Brazilian Infinite Jest

>>19606774
this one is kinda funny

>>19609176
>(((NIV)))
>(((NKJV)))
It's all so tiresome

>>19606149
It'll be cool without the "MUH AMAZING BOOK" quote at the bottom.

>>19610312
goddamn thats ugly

Completely disgusting, Blade Runner tier.

>>19610368
What's this dickensian early 2010s artstyle called? For some reason surface level literature communities were obsessed with it up until a few years ago

>>19606149
Looks like a "badass" style truck stop t-shirt

>>19610596
The End Zone cover is okay but the rest suck, especially Underworld. The original Underworld cover design is goat and they replaced it with that shit?

>>19610596
I think they're really cool.
Don't like him as an author much, though. I tried White Noise and went in with the wrong expectations.

>>19606401
I have this, it's a pile of shit looks even worse irl

>>19606774
I can't speak for anything else they've published but I picked up this Tennyson collection and it's quite nice.

>>19606149
terrible compared to the original cover

>>19609435
no it's film poster garbage against the wall buddy

>>19606812
>still manages to fuck it up

>>19609469
>wasn't the book named 2001 something?
>well, it's too late now, we've already sent it to the printing press.

>>19608874
goatse?

>>19607370
>literal who
Banville is considered the best Irish novelist since Beckett's death.

>>19610994
I'm not that guy and know who Banville is but why Banville for the cover blurb? He and McCarthy have very little in common apart from I guess both writing literary genre fiction. They should've gotten another American writer at the very least; even Johnathan Lethem would make more sense here.

>>19611022
That's a first edition. Published in '85

>>19606149
But I have the most beautiful edition.

Literally any of the new vintage editions of Murukami’s novels, except for south of the border which looks alright.
The rest suck ass and there was no need to update the former great covers

>>19611091
I don't see what's wrong with this one.

>>19611115
>>19611115
it's not this

>>19611117
fuck. what edition is this?

>>19611082
>the new translation
Dropped

I hate "now a movie!" covers, but this one was one of the worst I'd seen.
>>19609021
Same, I don't know why that anon has a problem with it.

>>19611126
It's the Pevear and Volokhonsky translation. Is there a better one? It's the only one I've read. No, I will not learn Russian.

>>19611138
Oh shit dawg my bad, that must be an old ass copy then. It does look cool.
No, P&V are fine, imo the best available, and much more readable and accurate than Garnett.

>>19611147

>>19611165
So you’ve actually got an edition from when that translation was brand new. Makes sense why I’ve never seen it. Looks much better than whatever that reddish blotch they followed with.

>>19606381
>>19606801
>>19609469
looks alright

>>19606395
reminds me of the music videos on youtube where the images mimic the literal lyrics lol

>>19606460
makes me think of an 80s/90s american movie/tv show aesthetic, or the opening credits

>>19606774
real hard mode is no wordsworth classics I always chuckle inwardly when I run into one at a secondhand store.

>>19606785
>>19606802
>>19610874
>>19611114
absolute dogshit.

>>19606828
>>19607483
>>19608086
so dull

>>19607465
>>19609176
kek

>>19610851
wordsworth poetry library editions are truly redeeming. I recommend them to anyone.

I still don't know what the fuck is going on in this cover

>>19611211
that's our boy pepe

>>19610874
This book is such a piece of garbage. I'm surprised that the author can speak French because the French in it is just awful.

>>19611091
It's better than the other covers.

>>19611132
In addition to the "now a movie" covers I hate "Winner of the [prize no one cares about]," especially when it's on a circle that looks like a sticker but you can't peel it off.

>>19611117

>>19611223
uoooooh

>>19611220
I like mine. That one looks like it was written in the early 1800s.
>>19611211
Looks like those machine learning / neural net images.

>>19611255
>Looks like those machine learning / neural net images.
rofl that's very accurate

>>19606149
The future editions will look better

Censored for gore.

>>19611277
book covers designed for women and fags

I HATE Easton Press. I HATE that they're bonded """leather.""" I hate the ugly graphic design intern-tier cover designs. I hate that there's no embossing because the pleather covers can't hold a shape. I hate that redditors think they're classy.

>>19606149
Arcturus dogshit covers, so cheap but look so disgusting on shelves

>>19611277
I've actually got this edition of Aesop's Fables. I think it's nice for what it is - light reading. I can't imagine why you'd buy anything substantial in this sort of cheesy foam-rubber cover, though.

>>19610125
you don't like bruce nauman? come on anon

>>19611277
got to all the effort of nice bindings cheap out on graphic design

>>19611351
Their hardcover stuff with the slipcase are nice

>>19606395
I like this but it is not appropriate for On the Road

>>19610899
Way to get the joke, faggot

>>19611445
reminds me of some one hit wonder brit pop band from the 90s

>>19611255
this would be great without the ANNIVERSARY EDITION bit and a bit better framing

>>19606774
lmfao this can't be real

>>19610125
Looks like some cuck shit.

>>19611277
Is it kind of bad that I like these? I think they're pleasing to the eye, maybe it's just because I like little symbols like those though. I just wonder why The Scarlet Letter's isn't the famous letter A.

>>19611277
I have the top brown one. It's so nice to touch while reading.

>>19611064
What?

>>19611117
Oh my fucking god

>>19610605
Disney pretty much.

>>19611491

>>19612113
based

>>19611117
>We could make it a vagina! I went to a graphic design school and a vagina here is fitting. One of the characters has a vagina after all and I think the book is about sex. But I know this book is very smart, so we draw a vagina over a brain? I am SO clever, oh my gosh, this is such a nice idea. The customers will see the vagina and think "is that a vagina? This is so shocking!" and they will be curious to know if the book talks about vagina. Then they come closer and will see, oh, look, it's a brain! So this book is smart. I have a brain too, so I know I am smart. This is why I have these nice cover ideas. I also have a vagina and I know I am interesting, so if there's a vagina on the book the book must be interesting, too. I have a friend who blogs at Medium who can talk about how shocking and controversial the vagina is. Vagina. I have a vagina.

>>19611117
>>19612148
>vagina

I wouldn't even have noticed the resemblance.

why

>>19612165
ahh, the "my nephew can use photoshop" style of book cover design

>>19610319
I like this

>>19606401
A gutter?

>>19606828
would be fine without the text, must say it does look like an asshole

>>19608086
looks fine

>>19608091
?? some1 doesnt get irony...
>>19606774
lmao

>>19609695
these are shit lol

>>19611117
subtle

Someone post the penguin edition of rubin crusoe

>>19606774
OOPSIES

>>19609469
These are potentially solid covers for completely different books

>>19606372
i dunno that girl looks pretty cute to me

>>19609469
The Iliad one is somewhat thought provoking at least

>>19610319
That’s good. Send me a copy.

Czech edition of American Psycho

Spanish version of The setting Sun looks like photoshop vomit

>>19613112
>"I'M SOOOOO FUCKED UP!!"

>>19612165
I have had this edition for so long I've grown numb to its horror and ever time I look at another print of the iliad I'm taken by its beauty kek

>>19610874

>>19606785
I used to have this version, from Barnes and Noble.

>>19613475
this is kino

>>19610874

Fucking hell why are all editions of blood meridian so fucking ugly?

>>19609469
America was a mistake.

99% of the spanish editions are ugly as fuck, that one of the big reasons I read in english as much as I can.

>>19612165
You think that is bad I had to buy this and the new Odyssey for my Epic Greek Poems class. Lattimore supremacy regardless of the covers

>>19614385
this is much more bearable than >>19612165

>>19614406
Maybe it’s because that Iliad is formatted professionally and uses good paper. And the Harper Odyssey was formatted by a blind retard and they got their paper from the dumpster. Just holding the two in your hand you’ll feel a difference

>>19612113
Lol very good

>>19606149
They're not horrible in terms of graphic design (except for VINTAGE MISHIMA written in giant letters--making them look cheap) but the new Vintage editions of Mishima are a big step down from their previous runs. Some of them are fine, just a little lazy, but the biggest thing is moving from a nice textured and reasonably tough (and still malleable) cover to a flat glossed and stiff cardboard.

Like I said, some of the designs are fine while others (pic) just look lazy. The biggest thing is the massive decline in quality. I'm sure they did it because his books have become more popular and they wanted to pump them out on a budget.

>>19606149

I personally dislike every book re-issued after a film has been made, featuring the film poster, and the tag "now a major blockbuster". I never buy those books, going out of my way to find earlier prints?

>>19614452
If the cover is horrid but the book block is nice, you can easily make a dust jacket. You need cardstock, a cutting ruler, a cutter, a board on which to cut, and a bone folder or a piece of hard plastic like a credit card.
Cut a long strip that is as tall as the book, then you "roll" the book over it, leaving a margin (some 4 inches) for the inwards flap in the beginning. Lightly mark the line against where the book rests as you go but account for the thickness of the cardstock, and with the last cover you leave another margin. You should have a long strip of cardstock that is this long:
>margin|length of cover|thickness of spine|length of cover|margin
every pipe | is a thickness of the cardstock.
use something to score the cardstock where you are supposed to bend and voilà, dust jacket.

>>19606149

>>19611117
Wrong. This is the better cover.

>>19606774
KEK

>>19611277
Maybe it’s because I’m a fag, but I actually like these a lot.

Do not buy Simon and Brown

They do the same cover for everything it's a monstrosity

Who is paid to make this shit and thinks it looks good

Forever fucking seething that there's only this cover and a movie cover available. The picture doesn't do it justice, it looks atrocious in person.

>>19609503
or gay porn...

>>19607465
And Steve Merchant, eyes bulging with imagined riches.

>>19614580
Ew

>>19615046
>>19615054
>>19615064
Very bizarre. One would almost have to be in the grasp of some form of mental illness to think that is a valid approach to book covers.

>>19615317
What you talking about anon, for just a couple hundred dollarydoos you can have this cover

>>19606572
>The Unofficial Holy Bible
So who would give you permission for an official one then?

>>19610319
I'd buy it

>>19613475
Actually pretty nice tits desu

>>19611351
they look like boxes of candy, specifically targeted at women I'm thinking

>>19611147
Garnett is good :(

>>19610851
>>19611091
>>19611255
There's nothing wrong with these

>>19614535
>>19614535
Which one do you prefer?

>>19616365
I own the one on the right and I prefer it. Like I said, the new ones aren't terrible (if you look passed the generic (i.e. cheap) font and VINTAGE MISHIMA) but the quality of them is absolute shit. They aren't even nice to hold while you read them because of how cheaply made they are--they're basically mass-market paperback quality.

On the right, the outside cover has a nice rough texture and isn't stiff. It retains moisture and you have to really rough it up before creasing it. Also, it looks like it was designed by someone and not AI.

The new editions are cheaply made--the covers are stiff thin cardboard that has been glossed on the outside and the binding is shit (within a year pages will be falling out). You have to crack the spine in order to open them and the cover will have creases and cracks all over it by the time you're through with it.

They just look cheap and that's what they are.

>>19616365
>>19616893
Cheap. Generic design. Low Quality.

>>19616365
>>19616893
Cheap. Generic design. Low Quality.

>>19616929
>>19616893
tfw we will never get a hardcover smyth sewn box set of the tetralogy

>>19611277
checked. i hate these fucking things.

>>19614535
i fucking HATE the way vintage put "VINTAGE [SURNAME]" rather than the author's full name, it bothers me unreasonably
like this ain't no ordinary mishima, this right here is VINTAGE mishima, part of our shitty brand
fuck you vintage

>>19617036
Thanks to Pewds we might get one soon

>>19614685
I didn't read the book but this design is very interesting. I'd maybe change the font, though.

dover thrift has some of the uglies covers ive ever seen

>>19617175
i hope this gets turned into a book cover in our lifetime

>>19615835
god fucking damn it I'll just get the movie cover

>>19606149
>tfw I have this exact edition

>>19608874
Nicokado Avocado?

>>19617340
Is it good enough? I saw a remaindered copy for about 3usd thinking of just getting it lol

>>19615844
>... for Minecrafters

>>19617432
pretty good despite the lame cover

>>19614580
Too old.

>>19614620
I refuse to believe this is a real cover.

>>19615844
Notch.

>>19615045
Same. Maybe >>19611294 is right

I own this one and it's not that ugly but why is the cat grey

>>19606801
Looks great, the cover is as abstract and cryptic as the story.
>>19614685
I wonder how they associate two and two together.

>>19610319
livro de macaco

>>19614685
If only that one were real.

This one... dear God.

>>19606774
Pleb. Wordsworth covers are kino

>>19610319
not cringe at all

idk if it's the worse GR cover but it's far from the best

>>19621350
worst*

>>19621350
>>19606401
This kind of cover art is easily some of the worst cover art I've seen on any publication. But the others are still pretty bad too.

>>19611255
is there a full version of that image?

>>19621840
My daddy taught me not to be ashamed of search engines.
Here's an interesting article talking specifically about Lolita covers, and apparently there are even books on the subject:
https://www.cnn.com/style/article/difficulty-of-illustrating-lolita-persists-60-years/index.html

My copy of the book says:
Cover design by John Gall
Cover photograph copyright Andreas Kuehn / Getty Images
So possibly the source is somewhere in the Getty Images collection? I don't have time to follow it up more. But if you're desperate you could probably reach out to the cover designer... leading to the question...
Who is John Gall?

>>19606149
any book with a movie tie in cover

>>19622062
thnks
was hoping for a the whole face

>>19609469
what the

>>19612113
kek

>>19622209
Damn, I was hoping the same.
Now only Andreas holds the key to who the model was.

To this day I've never seen an uglier cover design

>>19621447
Frankly, these grew on me overtime. It’s nice that they are consistent at least given how much Pynchon carries ideas and sometimes even characters between novels. Makes them feel connected. And they very much stand out.

Entering so bad it's good territory. Personally I like to collect this series of PKD covers.

>>19607465
Bilbo took the Norf-pill, I see.

>>19606149
never liked this one

>>19621350
Actually I quite like this one

>>19620993
Wtf? Are they really doing this on purpose because those are cheap editions so it must have a cover that represents its price and that if you want a better cover you need to fork out for the expensive ones as its marketing strategy? Or are they just retards? incompetent.

>>19623052
I don't understand what they were going for, but maybe I'm a /lit/let.
>>19622574
This looks like something a student would turn in last-minute because they woke up the morning of cover submission today having forgotten about the assignment until then.

Horrible cover compared to blueprint style.

>>19618316
Believe it anon, it gets way worse

I want to buy Ice, but this cover really puts me off
It's the only one on Amazon (that I could find)

Finnish cover of lolita

>>19609469
I actually kind of like this

Ugliest cover I’ve ever seen.

>>19625416
Too old.

>>19613112
Most Czech covers are dogshit, I don't know what the fuck are our publishers smoking. That's also why I mostly buy English books.

>>19623293
>only options for reading m&d is giant fuckoff brick of a hardback or where's wally tier paperback
Color me fucking pynched.

>>19623293
>My favorite Pynchon novel? Why, Son and Xon, of course.

>>19610319

>>19611353
>Papyrus

>>19611091
That's not a bad Lolita cover compared to some of the others

>>19627571
The first Czech edition of American psycho looks pretty sick though, although I'm not sure which character it's supposed to be

>>19609469
I’ve seen and depending on my state of mind have admired that Iliad cover before. Interesting choice to imply the Trojans as the Nazis I must say, but clearly you don’t want to think too much about either because at the bottom the retardation shows too clearly

>>19615317

>>19624838
If you have the patience hold out on buying it until you find the Penguin Science Fiction edition. The covers are thick, textured card complete with debossing. About AUD$15-20 which is pricey for everyone else but pretty reasonable here given the quality

>>19612165
This hurts so much because I first read the Iliad in a gorgeous hardcover Lattimore edition