/lit/ - Literature

>>21942673
Americans are delusional, more news at 11. It baffles me more that even within their faggot fanfic this cover has absolutely nothing to do with the book it's on, lol.

treasure your tolkien collect bros, they are going to ban/heavily edit it sooner or later

>>21942673
I bought and read LotR for the first time when I saw these fugly covers. I was afraid the old editions would become harder to find.

>>21942673
>supposed to be an elf or numernorean
>fat, pock-marked hands with filthy long nails

By Eru...

>>21942768
>>21942805
I read it years ago at my school library, but never bought them. What are some good editions of Tolkien's works that remain untainted by advertisements and poor graphic design?

>>21943831
I recommend the one with Alan Lee's illustrations.

>>21943831
I have this one, it matches with other black Tolkien paperbacks.

>>21942673
I have this one. Great design but more importantly it has Tolkien's illustrations

>>21942768
They'll remove the poetry and tom bombadil first in the abridged version for distracted zoomers.
Trust me. Ive read the internals.

>>21945476
Can we remove Americans instead? You know, from the planet?

>>21945488
I fear there are too many.
They hide amongst us. Their ways are now woven into our daily rituals. We hate them, it's true but we are now so like them that we must first hate ourselves.
De-americanise yourself, cure your loved ones and start a grass roots movement.
Only then will the American parasite be pushed from earth's bowels.

fantasy covers have lost all their SOVL

>>21945509
This is one of the most egregious I've seen and one of the most unexplainable. Why the fuck did they do this and when? Every single cover is some kind of bland, rendered little object on a grey background. Especially compared to the old covers. What on earth happened??

>>21944024
those look nice

>>21945540
More followers, less leaders in the genre.

>>21945509
Stephen Youll is one of the most underappreciated fantasy artists ever. I have no idea why he doesn't get more work

>>21945540
They'll say it's cheaper, but you can bet that "graphic designer" who did the right cover got paid more than the genuine artist who created the cover art on the left.
I'd be okay with "minimalism" if it at least looked good, but it always looks lame. The only reason it doesn't look at bad as those Wordsworth Editions covers is because there isn't enough there for you to see it.

>>21942673
>>21945509
just wait till you see the absolute sovl that is the Japanese covers for LoTR

>>21945509
I found an old hardback copy of Belgarath the Sorcerer recently, and the cover art alone was so gorgeous I had to read it (it was fun).
I tried looking for an image of the full spread online but there isn't one, which is a shame, because it's one of those covers that goes all the way around and continues the piece from the front.
Book covers need to be high-effort again. I hate this minimalist shit.

>>21945722
>Japanese
That's just an Alan Lee picture in a box. Here in the UK his art WAS LOTR until the movies came out. I've got the illustrated hardback edition with Alan Lee's art and it is gorgeous.

>>21945738
>Book covers need to be high-effort again.
It sounds weird, but I'm writing a book right now where a major aspect is the Kit Williams puzzle book Masquerade, and if it does get picked up I'd willingly go without payment if it is given a Kit Williams painting as the cover.

blocks your path

>>21942673
>book covers are literally a advertisement for television to promote a shittier story than the original book you're going to read
As the famous William Falkner once said to Oppenheimer:

>Television is for niggers

>>21945758
>William Falkner
>Height: 5 feet and 5 inches.

Wait until you get AI prompted covers. Then you will have ground to complain.

>>21945758
>>21945781
based short king

>>21945509
>>21945540
>>21945625
>>21945738
>>21945758
>>21945821
What is it about minimalism that gives marketers such a massive hard on? I genuinely don’t get it. Are minimalist covers somehow more eye-catching to the average non-reading retard, and I’m too abnormal to find them appealing? Have the trends really moved so far that the average person likes the inferior art more than the classic images? Is it some kind of conscious modern effort to amplify ugliness and war against aesthetic beauty? Are new marketers simply hacks who don’t know how to properly do their job?

Seriously. I want to know because it’s ridiculous.

>>21944024
>>21944033
why did the turn it black?

>>21946647
>Are minimalist covers somehow more eye-catching to the average non-reading retard
I assume they think they're more "mature" or something.
Honestly, I really don't know. I've always thought it was lame, and I hate how it's becoming more and more prevalent. What's worse is that we don't even have that style of cover now and are in fact just going for abstract shapes.

What's worse is that some mong will say something like "hurr don't judge a book by its cover" but fuck them.

>>21942673
Tie-in branding can work, but requires the new material you're tying it to NOT suck.

>>21945509
It's digital art. No one actually does proper pieces for covers anymore. Croatian cover of FotR always stuck with me.

Google search "fantasy book cover" and despair.

>>21946935
That cover is badass, holy shit.0vys0t

>>21942673
Ignoring the absolute cringe/ disrespect of writing lord of the rings fan fiction and calling it canon because you paid the estate a billion:

Anyone else shocked at how bad the writing was? Even if you seperate it from lord of the rings and just take it on it’s merits as a television drama.

It’s amazing how many writers are out there that just think in terms of ‘strong woman, political intrigue, black guy being just like white guys, that’s how to write!’

>>21947411
I only watched the first three episodes, but yeah, it feels on the level of a video game story. Maybe they wanted to play it safe, maybe they had too many writers and too much bureaucracy. In the end they created something that was just incredibly bland.

I wonder how it did. As just another show on a streaming service it's obviously hard to tell. But it feels like a financial failure with the budgets that were floating around.

>>21942673
Lord of the rings has become on par with star wars, harry potter, and marvel movies. There are slavering masses waiting to consoom any bullshit they pump out.

>>21947451
I don't think so. If anything RoP is on the level of Foundation's adaptation. Popular to hate watch for a while and quickly fallen into obscurity.

>>21947470
Which is why they'll start going after the actual books next.

>>21942768
I pity you Murricans by not having critical editions of your popular works

>>21947505
>critical editions

?

>>21947451
Incorrect. There will always be The Hobbit and The Lord of The Rings. Everything else is derivative and can be ignored

>>21942673

>>21946647
>Is it some kind of conscious modern effort to amplify ugliness and war against aesthetic beauty?
It's more like a war on competence in general. Nobody can be allowed to feel bad, so everything and everyone must be samey, mediocre, milquetoast. That's pretty much it. It's the same shit you see in your workplace: don't step out of line, don't do anything outside your duties. I know a guy at a local Goodwill who helped some woman find some stuff she mistakenly donated, and she was really grateful for it, and you know what his manager said? Next time, let your leaders handle it, even though leaders usually toss shit and don't bother to set shit aside for people. He told me she donated a photo album by mistake, and that store policy is to always toss that shit. So he reached out to help this woman out, and he gets shit on for it. THAT is the problem you're facing, anon. Nobody can do anything to stand out. Everyone must stay within the socially acceptable parameters.

>>21947446
Seeing how the ending has Sauron confess his love to Galadriel they definitely weren’t playing it safe.

>>21946935
That cover is metal.

>>21944024

>>21945738
Fuck that's a cool one I've only seen the red bordered one

>>21942768
>>21942805
Marketingbros, we can’t stop winning

>>21942673
People will schiz out about
>muh artsrtyle death
>muh its cheaper
>muh woke
But the reality is that this is done in service of the younger middle class dipshits who think anything that looks like "in dem boomer days" is cringe. Everything has to look like a new mobile phone advert or at the very least as a sharp and hyper stylistic gucci packaging. All items must look like alliuminum alien eggs with zero seams or marks of human craftsmanship. All excess must be killed and labeled as kitchy. That is what you get when you let your culture be shapped by people such as Steve "physical button phobia" Jobs

>>21945509

>>21946898
Yeah, it's the mature thing. People associate busy coverart like >>21946935 with pulp novels and D&D. "Serious" and "respectable" books have covers like pic related. Don't blame modern designers and Steve Jobs, Penguin has been doing this kind of shit for decades.

>>21945740
i like alan lees pics cuz he didnt make anyone look like a MAN ALPHA DOG WOLF LEADER AND A SIGMA, he made them look like a bunch of junkies.
when i stumble upon a picture i look at it for minutes and minutes until i continue reading.
Here in Serbia we still have books with these pics.

>>21949807
Meant to include

>>21942768
Nothing will happen, fearmonger.

>>21945509
Found this today. Excuse the quality, I made it in a hurry.

Never read lotr before. What’s the best edition bros? Or should I read the Hobbit first?

>>21942692
Forget the content. The cover has nothing to do with the TITLE.
>they couldn't even put the ring on the hand that's showing
>it's just some literally who from the amazon series
What the hell?

>>21949948
Read the Hobbit first, it's comfy and you'll enjoy LotR more.

>>21949948
Read the Hobbit first. Then LOTR. Then Similrilion. Then Tales from the perilous realm

>>21947207
>that face
I see that same face everywhere and I don't really understand why. What's up with americans trying to make "medieval" characters that look exactly like mall bimbos with a tan? Not like the rest of the cover isn't horrible, but the omnipresence of that same shitty face disturbs me.

>>21942673
This is what i get for listening on audible instead of actually picking the book up. But i just HAD to hear the guy who plays Gollum do imitations of the actors from the movie. assalamu alaikum

>>21946692
It's the eye of Sauron

>>21949768
While I believe there is deeper cultural, political and even religious aspects to it, you are absolutely right in most cases: people relate ugly, "elegant", minimalistic covers with professionalism. They see the crappy, seamless elements as evocative and thus necessary for a book to be taken seriously. There is a fundamental rejection of sincerity in favor of pretentiousness that kills beauty.

>>21947451
And just like that other stuff there is a barrier from people who are just there to fuck the sexy actor/actress who plays a part in the nerd movie, and the people who actually read the shit. Unfortunately the people who only casually watch the shit to be cool are trying to push the people who have been into the nerd stuff longer out. Maybe I want to talk about the time Spider-Man died trying to save a little girl from a freon explosion. It gets covered up by the soiboy who wants to debate which actor played the best Peter and which played the best Spider-Man.
Maybe I want to go ahead and learn elvish based on what Tolkien wrote in his songs. It's blocked out by the attention whore playing the Gollum game on Twitch. So what are you going to do?

>>21949856
They are blackslisting fucking Scrooge Mcducks comics, you're fucking retard if you think they won't edit lord of the rings sooner or later.

>>21945509
is that an actual ASOIAF commissioned art piece though, or just a random fantasy looking picture

>>21950166
>>21950140
Thanks guys

>>21945509
/co/ here. We're suffering too. We've gone from Ralph Bakinski to Amphibia. From Conan the Barbarian to fucking the recent Dungeons and Dragons. It's not looking good

>>21952147
Amphibia is great

>>21952150
lmao. On what basis? It's derivative globohomo bullshit aimed at kids.

>>21952163
Have you actually watched it? It is great, I liked it quite alot

>>21950649
yes that's catelyn meeting her uncle (or I guess it could be some other random knight) in the vale, she has the dagger and everything
there were others for the first few books

Harry Potter had "adult" editions at the peak of its popularity and they actually sold really well. People didn't want to be seen reading childrens literature in public.

>>21952178
I already told you I come from /co/. I don't. WATCH. cartoons. Just like /lit/ doesn't read. And /v/ doesn't play video games.

>>21946935
beautiful covers ngl

>>21945540
>Why the fuck did they do this and when?
Didn't you know? Minimalism = sophisticated and better. It probably started back at least as early as 2012 with the release of Windows 8. The traditional skeuomorphic and glassy/metallic icons of XP/Vista/7 where given the boot. Those icons where typically somewhat detailed, and typically represented a program's equivalent in the real-world. They where replaced by flat squares with single-color icons overlaid. Just search "Windows Vista Icons" and then "Windows 8 Icons." Then with iOS 7 Apple changed the detailed, skeuomorphic designs of their icons to flatter, more minimalist ones. Facebook later began using their Algeria/Corporate Memphis/Globohomo art in ~2017. Even many Linux Desktop Environments have been infested with flat icons. This has been a graphic design and illustration trend since the last decade, and there really appears to be little hope that it's going to stop anytime soon.