/lit/ - Literature

Why do they look like low budget VHS covers for movies that don't exist?

Awful photoshopping skills, ahoy.

>>6419601
Nothing is sacred.

avin a giggle r we, m8??

>>6419604
>>6419601
>>6419595
>>6419591
>>6419589
>>6419586
>>6419581
It's like they just take pictures of their friends at a Halloween party and then photoshop the background.

>>6419589
holy shit this is glorious

>>6419619
Still better than "tasteful" covers.

Fuck kitsch minimalism!

>>6419595
why is friday black?

>>6419643
>Wordsworth
>better than anything

Nah.

And minimalism is what works best for book covers. Deal with it.

>>6419643
Only because they're covers are so bad they're hilarious, but with all sincerity, I'd rather have a tasteful book cover over something like this.

>>6419687
lmao I could fucking imagine the photographer thinking "there's trees behind the office, let's just shoot that. Trees, jungle, it's all the same"

>>6419601
Looks more like Frodo and Sam

>>6419713
I was thinking Smeagul and Deagul

>>6419713
I thought the guy on the left was a woman at first

Can't believe people actually publish such covers...

>>6419736
Wordsworth is a budget literary publisher, so they don't pay their cover artists shit so they can put out domain-free literature for £1.99

Not all of their covers are this bad, in fairness. Their covers that use paintings are nice enough, albeit a bit generic.

>>6419613
is this real?

>>6419749
Yes. Supposedly there's a foreword with one of the devs where they claim Dante would've loved playing Dante's Inferno on PS3.

>>6419749
Yes. What's worse is the translation.

> The Three Musketeers
> cover shows four

Way to give the wrong fucking impression of The Metamorphosis, Wordsworth...

I thought this one was pretty misleading since Notes From Underground doesn't refer to being literally underground, it's underground from acceptable behaviour… so showing a shot of a fucking subway corridor as if it's the poster for an action film is really off-putting.

>>6419766
There were four of them. Is this bait or have you just not read it?

>>6419616
What a quirky and flamboyant ensemble!

A little embarrassed that I own this physically. I want to buy another copy from any other publisher, honestly.

>>6419653
That's a very good cover. Wish I had that book

>>6419703
>tfw i have that oone

so like
are
wordsworth translations
equally bad
or like
what
man

>>6419775
that's good stuff

>>6419778
>that font

Absolutely disgusting.

>>6419809
They aren't usually wordsworth translations. They are old, out of copyright translations. Sometimes classic, often bad.

>>6419690
Probably just a stock photo tbh

>>6419775
Huh, I guess he was actually an earwig all along.

>>6419819
Agreed. It'd be better suited to a sci-fi or post-apocalyptic novel. Even then I think it'd be tacky but it most certainly does not suit a misanthropic tirade of a novel.

>>6419584
This is the worst. It's not even funny, it's really fucking lazy. I hope they're giving copies of this away for free.

>>6419601
Brokeback Mountain?

For the amount of times /lit/ shits on Wordsworth: keep in mind they're the leading budget publisher. Their hardback releases/collections of an author's work are usually pretty neat and convenient too. I own the hardback collections of Edgar Allan Poe and The Brothers Grimm from Wordsworth.

I guess I can't hate them, y'know? People on lit/ are bound to own at least one Wordsworth classic.

>>6419637
Shakespearean-tier acting right here

I have a bunch of Wordsworth Classics, including many posted ITT and I have to say the covers are usually pretty good. They're nothing like the ones posted here, just some random painting for each book. Did I happen to get a newer, better edition or something?

>>6419613
Eh, this doesn't bother me much, this sort of thing is to be expected whenever a game or movie adaptation of a book comes out.

>>6419799
Sorry, I was just kidding around. I didn't have anything to hand with a cover I really hated.

>>6419892
Shit! I thought the same thing, except I thought the 'action' might be less consensual than BBM. Just couldn't decide which one would turn out to be the rapist. I mean, which one's hiding his true self in this picture?

Don't you ever complain about your book covers in my presence

>>6420044
Do you have any more awful book covers?

>>6420036
The one on the left likes to be submissive, it's obvious

>>6420047
That I own? Not sure but I can check. I should share this one that I saved though.

I don't even think that they're ugly covers, just bizzare

>>6420072
I love that one actually, Virgil's face is priceless.

>>6420072
>Virgil: Dante, wut r u doing. Get out of the wuds you fuck tard
>Dante: I read all u books m8. Like them. Fine Shit

>>6419754
>Dante would've loved playing Dante's Inferno on PS3.

>>6420050
everytime

>>6419754
Oh my god I HAVE to read that.

>>6419754

>>6420047
Alright, here's what I found on my shelf. Enjoy a few more gems from the world of low budget Portuguese book editions.
1/3

>>6420059
malcom in the middle dude? jkek

>>6420182
Forgot my damn pic what the hell.

>>6420185
2/3
The Lost World, by Arthur Conan Doyle

>>6420189
3/3
Extra fuck you for this one because it doesn't even have the excuse of being either old or low budget, it's just plain shitty.

I like this one, other version is a shit

I have some to share, /lit/.

>>6420201

>>6420196
I have that one too, it's not that bad for Wordsworth standards but they also have better.

>>6420205

>>6420024
>>6420024


Even for a movie adaptation however, this game is supremely bad. I mean, Dante has a giant BONE SCYTHE, which is supposedly "deaths scythe"; Virgil literally and figuratively is not present; and dante is going into hell to kill satan to save a girl.

With all that said, there is a second painful "why" in that the game barely draws inspiration from the poem at all. Satan is a free roaming goat man, qua so many derivative pan misinterpretations; and the frozen lake, or even the aspects of all the layers for that matter, are not even really delved into.
Its a cash in on the "god of war" type mythological cinematic retard button masher. Fuck everything videogames.

Dante would have loved to see these chucklefucks burn in hell forever. It would not bother me much either.

>>6420210

>>6420212

>>6420211
Yeah the game was mediocre as hell and everyone already forgot it ever existed, no point getting so worked up over it.

>>6420216

>>6420220

>>6420229

>>6419793
I don't care if each person imagines the characters' appearances differently, Dmitri does not fucking look like that guy in the middle.

Ivan and Alyosha could work, but Fyodor would not be looking the clean-cut.

I'm gonna buy this because It's cheap, what do you think /lit/? It's $3.26

>>6420377
It's not the worst cover, go for it, I just find it personally odd when the publisher uses the author's photo rather than an image that depicts thematically what's in the book.

Imagine how shitty of a cover Wordsworth could make for sci-fi novels like Dune or some shit.

>>6420447
That would be cool, some dude is a worm costume against a stock photo of the sahara.

>>6420327
>awful book covers
Have you read what OP said?

>>6419690
Its a large print edition, perhaps they hoped their readers eyesight deficiencies would mean it didn't matter.

>>6420216
kekel

>>6420478
Or this (400 hours in MS Paint).

>>6420552
Please tell me how I can copy and paste figures like that without having a white block around them.

>>6420596
.png and magic eraser on photshop my man

>>6420596
To be entirely honest, placing the guy there was done in GIMP rather than Paint. But Paint supports something like that, with the "transparent selection" thing.

>>6420216
What is going on here

>>6420552
I did my best.

>>6420694
10/10

On one hand, I can't help but think "Fuck's sake, Wordsworth, what are you doing, my man?" when it comes to how awful some of their covers are.

But on the other hand I can't help but admire them. Like, first of all, not every single book cover they've printed is dog shit. It's pleasant when they do get the book covers at least somewhat appropriate.

Secondly, I can't help but admire the fact that they put out classic literature for those on a budget so anybody could enjoy Dostoevsky or Jane Austen or whatever. Sure, their works are domain free but it's cool that a company is trying to make their works more easily available.

Gotta admit, I admire their persistence. I do wish they paid for some better cover art though.

>>6420694
Damn beat me, but that's a fucking caterpillar, try again.

>>6420711
children of dune obviously

>>6419754
>Supposedly there's a foreword with one of the devs where they claim Dante would've loved playing Dante's Inferno on PS3.

>>6419827
There are stock photos of real jungles though.

>>6420694
The caterpillar needs to poke out of the image box.

>>6420447

>>6420724
"haha no there isn't la la la i can't hear you lmao if i can't see it then it can't exist" - that publisher

Does it have to be of work anyone's heard of before?

So like, has anybody considered buying a wordsworth and then using the money saved to rebind it?

Like how some bibles are bound by taking a paperback and gluing leather to it?

>>6420758
It will lose the kitschs appeal.

>>6420758
literally who does that

>>6419754
>where they claim Dante would've loved playing Dante's Inferno on PS3.
Hey, if you gave me entertainment from 700 years in the future I'm sure it'd knock me on my ass as well.

>>6419581
They should've just put the poster of the movie "300".

>>6419754
Anyone have a pdf of this particular version? I really want to read this particular part.

>>6419893
>they're the leading budget publisher.
What about Dover Thrift? the covers don't look like shit and they're like $3.

>>6420817
I'm not sure "Love" is how I'd describe it. Moving pictures would be terrifying, let along ones in a modern DARK AND EDGY artstyle, which are also misrepresenting my work.

Dante would have a fucking heart attack.

>>6420817
>By God, this is amazing. A figure in this glass box obeys commands given to it via this series of buttons and levers.
We knew you'd love it, Dante!
>So, this is based on a hyper-action novella that takes place in Hell. An I correct?
Actually, it's an adaptation of your novel, Dante's Inferno.
>...
>I didn't write this
Yes well, it may be a more liberal retelling, but we tried to make it accurate to the source material
>Just how hard did you try?
It was a difficult effort made through the labor of a large team of animators and writers
>...
>I don't wish to be here any longer.

>>6420734
kinda like it

>>6420841
>which are also misrepresenting my work.
mozart_was_born_500_years_ago,_there's_no_way_I'd_be_still_alive_you_fucking_idiots.jpg

>>6420447
>>6420552
>>6420694
>>6420711
3 centuries in MS Paint

>>6419613
Oh shit! I just remembered that I saw this for sale at a local flea market.

I'm tempted to run up and buy it just so I can read that forward.

>>6420900

fucking gold

>>6420825
exactly what i thought lmao

>>6419589

Why do they not just... not use an image?

>>6419775
"One morning I awoke and found my copy of the metamorphoses transformed into a monstrous vermin."

>>6420963
steal it, scan the forward and post it online, then burn the book.

>>6420216
what

>>6419586

It looks like the face was photoshopped onto the rest.

And that hair can't be real.

>>6420843
>novel

>>6421063
A lot of them look like faces have just been photoshopped onto the body, it's really weird

Like, I want to talk to one of these photoshop artists hired by Woodsworth and ask what the fuck is going on. Clearly their book cover quality control is non-existent

>>6420216
is this life

>>6421037
>stealing from flea market vendors

I'll gladly pay money to be able to destroy it.

You can get three paperbacks for a dollar there. Shame all they have there are a bunch of Tom Clancy and Dan Brown books.

>>6421235
Paying money to destroy something creates perverse economic incentives though. People might start printing more copies just so they can be burned.

Then again, this effect is probably neglagable in secondary markets.

>>6421255
What the fuck are you...

>secondary markets
There you go.

>>6419775
Looks like a Goosebumps cover.

>>6420694
I'd ask for the creative process but I think my guess is good enough.

>>6420754
I can't even tell what that is.

>>6420018
The ones with old style paintings are the slightly older ones I think, recently I've only seen the ones with the almost 'CGI' covers...

>>6421486
Really? I must've gotten really lucky since I got them like 2 years ago and all of them are the painting covers. What even possessed them to change those covers I can't even imagine, they were pretty damn good.

>>6421495
Yeh, a month or two ago I bought a Wordsworth War and Peace because I'm a degenerate, and well, I laughed at the cover.
The old style Dorian Gray is next to it, I think War and Peace used to have a cover of a painting.

>>6421527
Forgot pic.

>>6421527
>>6421531
Yeah the old cover is that painting of Napoleon pulling a sick wheelie on his horse.

>>6421011
This is also something I will never understand.

If Wordsworth just used completely monotone coloured covers with just the title on, like Penguin does, it would look ten times as good. It's like they go out of their way to make their covers look like ass.

>>6421531
10/10 Frankenstein cover there.

>pictures sticking out of the image box on the covers

I hate this so much.

>>6421539
i suppose that is to catch the attention (?) or you know the old all publicity is good.

>>6421544
'The cover is the real monster.' -Mary
>>6421539
I think the only goal left in my life is to create the longest unbroken chain of Penguin Modern Classics spines.

Has anyone else noticed how Wordsworth has a fucking TINY font? I always fall for that shit.

>>6421535
Thanks for that. I loled.

>>6421614
Yeah, I've noticed but I can't complain, I have quite a few books in small print.

>>6421531

Is that Michael Fassbender and Barbra Streisand?

Has anyone seen those new Cormac McCarthy covers? - The ones covered too to bottom in ridiculously garish writing, actually sickening.

>>6423282
standard picador thing.

>>6421468

That is beautiful.

>>6421468
I wish Vintge wouldn't fuck the up the authors name like that, makes them sound even more pretentious. And they should get rid of the red spines!

>>6423382
If it isn't "Ehhh, the name is bigger than the titles" it's "AUGH! Just his last name? How pretentious!"

The title stands out on this book. All you need is that last name. Plus, we're talking about.

>>6419687
>>6421309
good ole tutis classics

>>6419775
>mfw when I own this literal piece of shit edition

>>6423323
Pls no lies, my friend. The Miles Davis autobiography has a great book cover.

>>6423382
Red spines from Vintage don't bother me, nor do their book covers. Although I wish the classic Gravity's Rainbow artwork was what was published rather than the paint stencil rocket design they went with.

>>6419581
How did no one post this yet?

does this belong here?

>>6424118
what the actual fuck

i thought modern library was respectable

I am ashamed that this is my copy of The Stranger.

The spine is the worst thing. The letters go from down to up instead of the usual up to down, and Camus name isn't even on there. It's just "SPIRITUAL CLASSICS - The Stranger".

Fucking horrible.

>>6424178
that's a great cover

>>6420220

>>6424202
mmmmm she looks like a good girl.

>>6420327
badass as fuck yo

>>6424202
>>6420220
WHY DO THESE EXIST

>>6419581
this thread is gold. thanks OP

>>6420162
are you /lit incarnate?

>>6420050
MY SIDES

>>6420900
holy shit the keks

>>6419778
it looks like that shot from clockwork orange

>>6424240
no idea what you mean.

>>6420220
>Dr.

>>6424286
Some interesting reviews on Amazon, ranging from the bizarrely enthusiastic to:

"This is the perfect book for any dad that likes to love his children. In the butt." (24 out of 37 people found this review helpful.)

>>6419703
At least this one doesn't feature an Albino whale like so many others do

>>6419754
I am sure you could probably trick him into thinking he is actually killing demons and fighting Satan, he would be well into it.

Undecided on this one

>>6424403
>>6424410
>>6424417
There's honestly not much else you could have done with titles like these.

>>6419650
picture was taken after thanksgiving

It's such a hit or miss. Imho they're either brilliant or atrocious, nothing in between.

>>6419601
i always suspected Huck Finn was secretly 40 years old.

>>6419637
>Screen Shot 2015-04-18 at(...).png

>>6419601
Uh, wasn't Huck black?

>>6419766
>no muskets anywhere
cmon wordsworth

>>6424506
ayy lmao

>>6424502

Where did you get that idea?

>brotherhood of the grape
They basically brought a jar of piss to an Ikea store.

>>6424506

10/10 book.

Don't have that cover but it's kind of grown on me in a weird way. I don't know why.

>>6420072
they look like kids books, what with the puffy covers and shit. i mean i considered buying because they're cheap but then i'd have a huge doorstopper with a poor edition of a classic inside

>>6424495
Who cares, you aspie

>>6424477
Some of them actually look pretty damn good, but then you get those awkward ones that looks like a mish-mash of amateur photoshop skills. I prefer the covers with paintings or drawings rather than those awful TV-movie looking ones.

>>6420832
>Dover Thrift
Holy shit these look good.

>>6420072
Isn't this the same publisher who crammed in the entire 7 volumes of "In Search of Lost Time" into one massive book with tiny as fuck printing?

>>6424649
The translations can be a bit screwy though.

Pretty much every cover to Moby Dick ever. I found one years ago (Signet Classic, I think) that was just a beautiful picture of the ocean from just above the waterline, which was perfect. Wish I'd kept it.

>>6424686
I actually like the second one from the top left, the black cover. Not sure how I feel about the font they used though.

>>6421531
>mfw the book is so thick passersby can tell you have an ugly version because the editor plastered the pic on the spine

>>6424686
me.

Shit, I found it! I don't know how many times I've looked for this.

Think I'll buy a lottery ticket today.

>>6424686
this ones not too bad

>>6424506
what's so bad about this

>>6424686
Some of those look good.

>>6424727
It's just too close to the expression we all have when we're dropping a big steamy one
it only needs the vein standing out on his forehead to be complete

>>6424656
they do that shit all the time, they also do randomly select 7 authors from a country, say that they're the best authors from that country, and cram 1 novel per author in a single volume.

>>6424686
Second from top left and third from top left are god-tier though.

>>6420050
FUCK

>>6421594
I bought the Crime & Punishment one just for the cover. Then I realized if the cover is shit, the translation probably will be too. Guess I'll find out soon enough.

>>6424826
Most likely it's the Constance Garnett translation since it's in the public domain.

In other words, you fucked up.

>>6424846
It is. What makes it so bad? And which translation would you recommend?

>>6424864
The Pevear and Volokhonsky's translation is the way to go.

The only reason Garnett still gets read is because she was among the first to translate Dosto's works. Otherwise she's horrible mostly because her prose is stale and when she doesn't know how to translate a Russian pun or saying, she just skips over it entirely. Avoid her if possible.

>>6424901
Well fuck. I might just buy that version as well then. Thanks for the heads up because I was excited to go home and read it. I'll keep the other one on my shelf for the lulz.

Bumping for more awful book covers.

>>6424901
>pv
Only if you want Google translator quality

>>6420707
Just get Barnes and nobles classics. They're worth literally nothing for a decent translation

>>6419775
i think kafka would have really liked that. its funny af

>>6425289
We don't get Barnes & Nobles in the UK

>>6419586
this is the worst I have seen of my favorite book. You won OP

>>6420231
I got given this by a neighbour when I was a kid and Beethoven frightened the living shit out of me.
Those pervy eyes still give me shivers

>>6424686
My copy's real nice. Penguin English library

>>6425329
What is even going on here

>>6426104
That's the version I've seen on Amazon and it looks really tempting. I have Dante's Inferno in a similar cover from the same publisher.

>>6426104
I really like these Penguin English Library Books, they are easily superior to the regular penguin classics and modern classics. They're cheaper than most books, have a very clear, nice typeface and are ended by a decent analysis. I've only started seeing them recently though and it seems that at the minute they don't seem to have a great range of books in this style.

Oxford World's Classics are still better though.

>>6420216
Jesus, what is that?

>>6420205
fUCK WHAT IS THIS

>>6426677
OWC are nice and usually have a great academic introduction, excellent notes and further reading. But the printing quality is inferior, and the penguin English library has this lovely matted cover and minimalistic design that really tickles my pickle. The typeface is usually exquisite too.

>>6419586
It'd Ed fucking Milliband.

>>6419601
that looks like a cover of a gay porn movie

This is probably the worst editor operating in Brazil nowadays for many reasons, not the least the horrific covers. I have a couple more I would like to share
1/?

>>6426929
Look at this fucking thing. The guy always makes way for a naked dude in the cover. And what about the flying libra, the out of context ribbon? The colors? Fuck that guy

>>6426929
>>6426947
love the subdued homoeroticism

>>6426929
>>6426947
>>6426966
I know, right? Just being gay doesn't qualify to work with art. No eye for drawing, no taste... not even a sense of proportion (pic related). Fuck that guy

>>6419581
Poor fucking Wordsworth. Did this shit-tier company just take his name to drag it in the mud, or is his family in some way affiliated?

>>6425218
See this is why I can't ask for advice on this site.

the sequel

>>6420216
what the fucking fuck

>>6421531
lmao dont read it in public, you just know everyone will be looking at you and laughing

>>6425329
Baller, wether you receive the book or the dank shirt, you're happy either way

What were they thinking tbh

>>6420216
what

>>6429633
you know what they were thinking ;^)

>>6426884
I know he's against pay day lenders but this is going too far.

>this many posts
>no Nabokov with a certain Japanese cover yet
Truly I don't know you anymore /lit/

>>6430018
this looks cool as fuck what are you talking about

>>6430112
It's cool for a PKD book but not for Lolita

Cover should have been black with white lettering. Noir-esque novels shouldn't have neon coloring for the cover.

>>6424686
I like this one. No whale.

>>6426929

This translation is actually good: it is in prose and the translator at least tries to be faithful to the original. I think the cover illustrator was inspired by the Kenneth Branagh Hamlet movie, and maybe with some Mel Gibson traces.

I don’t think I am able to say if Mel Gibson interpretation of Hamlet was good or bad, but to this day I imagine Hamlet to be just like Mel Gibson.

>> 6424686
Italian "Oscar Classici Mondadori" version. It's superb IMO

>>6430464
>dat Pavese translation

>>6420189
holy shit they literally cut out a dragon and a Benjamin Franklin impersonator from a newspaper and glued it there

>>6421468
I have this, it's o.k.

>>6424118
my jaw dropped
I can't handle this anymore

>>6426929
>>6426947
>>6426999
this is what you get when you lend a continent to the jesuits

>>6430464
>con un saggio di Harold Bloom
do want

>>6426929
I also have some of these. A lot of their translations are in the public domain. The worst thing is that they are not even cheap. LP&M are cheaper and they make their own new translations most of the time.

I have Odorico's Aeneid here to read, but I don't care, I'll read Nunes' translation even if everything I find are bad PDfs.

>>6420216
>burly,sexual, and full of nostalgia
my fucking sides

>>6420216
mfw

>>6420900

>>6429633
Oh my god there's a cover now?

PUBLISHED WHEN???!?

>>6424686
I have this one from the 70s, when Penguin's classics had a nice no-frills approach

>>6420216

>>6426929
Hamlet has rather astonishing dandruff.

>>6424394
that's a great cover mang

>>6419608
I keked

>>6419581

>>6433276
What's wrong with those?

Children's covers for children's books.

>>6433276
Last one is actually pretty damn good.

>>6420205
>>6420210
>>6420216

2

>>6420216

This is ugly...I think. It must've been made for the blind. Or it's made for retards who can crayon their own cover.

>>6430154
>PKD
Compare this...

>>6434294
...with this. Thank you for nothing, bargain bin modernists.

>>6429633
> by a concerned soul

>>6433276
Reminds me of TinTin.

>>6434414

jesus

>>6434280
Can't tell if bait or not.

>>6434409
Oh man that's fucking hilarious

I want to dump all the shitty covers I have, but with the thread nearing its end, I don't know if it'd be worth it or to just wait until the next thread.

>>6434491
>thread nearing its end

bump limit is 500 posts

>>6424656
I own the complete works of Shakespeare on one copy. And entire History of the Decline and the fall of the Roman Empire. They're A3 size with the small font.

>>6434409

>>6434414

Why.

>>6434506
What's the image limit on /lit/?

>>6434670
its not that bad

>>6434687
That Saturday Night Fever typeface ruins it.

>>6424354
isn't that the point?

>>6420402
>implying a picture of Kafka doesn't depict just that

>>6430018
Ro Ri Ta?

>>6434658
should be around 250. as with all other boards.

>>6434754
It's 300.

this was my first Hobbit version. the interior art is just as awful, Bilbo looks like he's wearing clown shoes those Hitler pants, forgot the name. It's just horrible. Would provide interior art but I don't have it any more.

>>6434776
found a few on the net, but sadly no one made photos of the worst illustrations

>>6434818

>>6434829

>>6434720
It doesn't.

>>6420216
Is that fucking JonTron

>>6424686
I have the upper right corner. Spine's a little weak tbh.

>>6424708
I like this one.

>>6434744
Long vowel in the middle

Has thread reached post limit?

Surprised this one hasn't shown up yet.
On the plus side,
>>6434666
>>6434674
>>6434684
>>6434689
glorious Tutis

>>6434846
It does tho.