/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6350041]

There's a bad covers thread. Let's have a Good Covers Thread and stop being negative nellies.

This collection of Ed Wood's short stories comes with its own pink fluffy angora sweater, which is nice.

[Anonymous No.6350047]

>>6350041
Aside from the author of insert novel bullshit, this is an awesome cover.

[Anonymous No.6350048]

>>6350041
At least are worth it?
I mean... he never wrote anything good.

Anyway this.

[Anonymous No.6350049]

Fun thread :^ )

[Anonymous No.6350050]

>>6350041

I posted this one in a thread the other day and two people said they liked it. I think it's a really striking cover.

[Anonymous No.6350052]

:^)

[Anonymous No.6350056]

[Anonymous No.6350058]

>>6350056

[Anonymous No.6350059]

I like this and The Diamond Age's one.

[Anonymous No.6350064]

>>6350047
I never heard of this book but remember it from a Chip Kidd talk on YouTube. Is it supposed to be rapey?

[Anonymous No.6350065]

>>6350058

That's fuckign shat mate. Did u only hav one cover in your folder or something?

[Anonymous No.6350066]

>>6350059
Yeah its looks waaay better than the blue one.

[Anonymous No.6350068]

>>6350059
Also pretty good (both the cover itself and the publishing house template)

[Anonymous No.6350075]

>>6350064
The cover? That's morse code dude.

[Anonymous No.6350078]

[Anonymous No.6350079]

>>6350066
Completely agree.

>>6350068
Another nice combo, series focused on Greek classics.

[Anonymous No.6350081]

>>6350078
reverse image search turns up this article:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_John_Bardo
>2 spooky

[Anonymous No.6350084]

You have to admit that is one of best Wordsworth covers.

[Anonymous No.6350086]

>>6350079
One of Penguin's best.

[Anonymous No.6350088]

>>6350081
spoopy
google image: "catcher in the rye bad book covers" and you'll find the pic

I don't know why I like picrelated so much. Can't put my finger on it. Anyone have any guesses why this is aesthetically pleasing?

[Anonymous No.6350098]

>>6350041

[Anonymous No.6350099]

Never read it, but 1q84 always appealed to me

[Anonymous No.6350113]

I don't rate the book mega-highly, but this is a good cover.

[Anonymous No.6350127]

>>6350098
i foud this in a used store for 10 cents

love this cover of GR

[Anonymous No.6350132]

>>6350099
don't bother with the book

it takes you forever before you realize that it isn't worth reading. i think i was like 100 pages before the ending when i just gave up

[Anonymous No.6350136]

>>6350127
i like that cover a lot but it doesn't capture the book well at all

[Anonymous No.6350154]

>>6350136
what about this one

[Anonymous No.6350163]

>>6350127
>>6350136

>>6350127

What's to like? It looks like the designer let his kid play with fuzzy felt then he just went "ah fuck it" and posted it into the publisher.

I don't see anything particularly interesting at all.

>>6350154

You've both missed the best one.

[Anonymous No.6350174]

[Anonymous No.6350199]

[Anonymous No.6350200]

>>6350174
wrong

[Anonymous No.6350207]

>>6350200
>The Castle
>It has a picture of a castle on it
>The book explicitly tells us that The Castle doesn't look like a castle

Am I missing something?

[Anonymous No.6350214]

>>6350200
That castle looks nothing like the one described in the text.

[Anonymous No.6350222]

>>6350207
>>6350214
when you buy the book your first idea, one way or another, is that a castle looks a certain way. changing that would be spoiling the contrast.

[Anonymous No.6350226]

>>6350049
noice!

[Anonymous No.6350254]

[Anonymous No.6350318]

[Anonymous No.6350354]

>>6350084
no i dont?
thats a shitty ass stylization of a book that already has a GOAT cover...

[Anonymous No.6350360]

>>6350354

Dunno about GOAT, but it's pretty good yeah.

[Anonymous No.6350363]

>>6350360
smh...
thats still not it.
The original is clearly a GOAT.
the yellow one is 8/10 at best.

[Anonymous No.6350416]

>>6350363
>The original is clearly a GOAT.

You mean the blue one with the naked ladies and the eyes? That's shit man. Even Fitzgerald hated that one and he was a semi-literate alky.

[Anonymous No.6350426]

Postan best Inferno

[Anonymous No.6350442]

>>6350199
this can't be real..

[Anonymous No.6350446]

>>6350442
Do you hate fun, anon?

[Anonymous No.6350452]

>>6350446
I think it's funny, I'm just surprised someone actually made that. Maybe i need to lurk moar

[Anonymous No.6350454]

>>6350426

horrible cover

far superior divine comedy one here

[Anonymous No.6350479]

>>6350454
You can go have your own, equally valid opinion on this trifling matter.

Is matches Purgatory so well, too!

Sure is a shame ML still hasn't redesigned their Paradise cover.

Esolen is also my favorite translator, and having the original alongside the english is a huge plus in my book

[Anonymous No.6350483]

>>6350454

That one's boring as shit and why has it got a fucking red indian on it anyway? The other guy's is better.

[Anonymous No.6350496]

>>6350416
>implying fitzgerald wasnt autistic and full of self-loathing

Its a brilliant cover you pleb. Way to "appeal to authority" though, clearly Fitzgerald never made poor choices.
Its a work of art in itself that cover, its about just as much as the book is.

[Anonymous No.6350499]

I'm so mad I gave this as a gift to a former love interest.

Fucking bitch probably didn't get two pages in.

[Anonymous No.6350513]

>>6350483

>being this aesthetically challenged

[Anonymous No.6350524]

>>6350496
>Its a brilliant cover you pleb.

No it's not, it's fucking shit you ignoramus.

[Anonymous No.6350527]

>>6350499
Lost a collection of Poe's poems printed the year after he died (that I copped for $40 from some shitty antique store) that way.

Point is, don't give bitches books, there are easier ways to get laid.

[Anonymous No.6350528]

>>6350499

You gave her nothing?

That's what she's telling her current boyfriend anyway.

[Anonymous No.6350531]

>>6350483

>The other guy's is better.

It's literally the same as some minimalist illustrator trash that someone on reddit would make in some lame alternate cover subreddit.

You have objectively subpar taste.

[Anonymous No.6350537]

>>6350524
tell me then, why is it shit you retard?
Is it too abstract for your puny brain to comprehend?

[Anonymous No.6350538]

>>6350531
This post made me sad

Why doesn't anybody else like the Modern Library Classics series?

[Anonymous No.6350554]

>>6350537
tell me then, why is it good you retard?

Also, you may want to check what abstract means before you go any further because some a face hovering over a pier isn't fucking abstract you complete idiot.

>arguing about art without a basic understanding of concepts

[Anonymous No.6350557]

>>6350538
I like it, most people like it, unfortunately /lit/ is populated with autists who spray shit all over anything remotely popular, because the second they stop seeing themselves in this ridiculous modern-gentleman light (while they remain the equivalent of neckbeards trying to dress like madmen characters), then they're forced to acknowledge the face that they've substituted a personality with a shit-caked cocoon of what jives with their ham-fisted, child-wearing-daddys-clothes vision of culture.

Or something.

[Anonymous No.6350559]

>>6350531
>You have objectively subpar taste.

Whenever anyone says that, even "ironically", you know you're dealing with a moron and there's no point continuing unless you're bored and like poking idiots.

[Anonymous No.6350586]

>>6350554
Its great because its symbolic, and therefore its also inherently abstract.
Some people wont understand (fuckheads).
sorry ur so dumb lol

[Anonymous No.6350593]

>>6350554
dude youre a fuckin retard.
Do you know anything about essence and abstraction?
obviously not.
Dont act like an authority when youre not.

[Anonymous No.6350602]

>>6350586
>Its great because its symbolic, and therefore its also inherently abstract.

What a load of complete shit.

This kind of gnomic bollocks might confuse your friends at high school, but it's not playing here.

>symbolism is inherently abstract

Please post more.

[Anonymous No.6350609]

>>6350602
>BEING THIS DUMB
u best be trollin dummy

[Anonymous No.6350619]

>>6350602
dude fuck off he's 100% right.

[Anonymous No.6350623]

>>6350609

[Anonymous No.6350626]

>>6350609
>>6350619

[Anonymous No.6350627]

>>6350559

>this kid with objectively subpar taste is so fucking stupid that he needs to tell shitposters that they're shitposting

Wow thanks almost forgot for a sec gw m8.

[Anonymous No.6350636]

>>6350623
das right tardy, crawl to daddy.
also your pics honestly suck. They only cemented my impression of your terrible sense of taste in my mind.

[Anonymous No.6350640]

>>6350636

[Anonymous No.6350661]

>>6350537

How's that abstract? It's clearly representational.

pic related: abstraction, apparently.

[Anonymous No.6350702]

[Anonymous No.6350706]

>>6350452
http://www.pulptheclassics.com/index1.php?imprint=8

[Anonymous No.6350708]

>>6350702

That is a weird author blurb from Beethoven.

[Anonymous No.6350713]

>>6350661
representational is the same thing as symbolic you fuckwit.

[Anonymous No.6350715]

>>6350199
he's one bad mutha
>shut cho' mouth!

[Anonymous No.6350718]

>>6350713

But it's not the same thing as abstract is it? Are you having difficulty keeping up with the argument?

[Anonymous No.6350722]

>>6350113
I like this one.

[Anonymous No.6350725]

>>6350722

While I respect your opinion, that one looks like it could just have easily have gone in the bad cover thread >>>6348686

[Anonymous No.6350726]

>>6350718
uhhh yeah it is you fucktard.
Its basic algebra.
Symbolism=Abstract
symbolism= represention
Representation is always somewhat abstract.
are you having trouble doing basic algebra.

[Anonymous No.6350730]

>>6350718
also for your highschool level clarification "abstraction" is not the same as "abstract art", which in a way is a bullshit label blah blah blah
fuck off

[Anonymous No.6350731]

>>6350726

[Anonymous No.6350736]

Not an actual published cover but it makes me cum

[Anonymous No.6350741]

>>6350726
>Symbolism=Abstract

[Anonymous No.6350748]

>>6350741
if you knew anything about how symbols gain power you would agree with me.
but hey, youre dumb

[Anonymous No.6350751]

>>6350748

>I'm going to keep typing words and hope I fool someone I know what I'm talking about.

[Anonymous No.6350753]

[Anonymous No.6350755]

>>6350736
NICE.

Will buy the hardcover.

[Anonymous No.6350756]

>>6350741
just because you don't want to symbolism to be abstract doesnt' mean it isnt you fucking solipsist.

[Anonymous No.6350758]

>>6350751
not really a great cover but the book is suepr pretty if you see it in person

[Anonymous No.6350761]

>>6350751
alright see ya tardo.
im done.
have fun in junior college

[Anonymous No.6350765]

>>6350758
didn't mean to reply lmao

[Anonymous No.6350767]

>>6350753
The cover is good. The book, unfortunetly, is terrible.

[Anonymous No.6350769]

>>6350761

Now THAT is projecting.

[Anonymous No.6350773]

>>6350767
I don't know about terrible, but Heinlein is a bit shit, at least for how high people seem to place him on the sci-fi pecking order.

[Anonymous No.6350826]

>good book covers thread
>still turns into a shitfest of kids posting about high school books

<<<<< Best gatsby

[Anonymous No.6350835]

I posted this last time and I'm going to post it again
>I wanted, above all, to comply with the author’s wishes that the jacket design be consistent, typographically and stylistically, with the design styles of the eighteenth century, the time period in which the novel is set. After toying with the idea of finding an antique letterpress to set the type, I found a book in an antiquarian bookstore and scanned in a page of the eleven point text. I then created the title words from the letters on the scanned page, enlarging each letter so much that the letters became irregular and rough, and the vague shadows of the hot press type became visible. The paper fiber, blown up so many thousands of times, created a kind of mottled peach effect, which became the background color and texture. Originally, I was going to use the type in a more traditional way, all centered on the front jacket, with some kind of map or graphic element depicting the Mason Dixon line, but as I worked on the letterforms, they seemed so beautiful that I almost couldn’t bear to make them small again, to confine them to that 6 x 9 rectangular format of a book cover. I designed it so that they could be as large as possible within the format of an entire jacket, using all the available space allowed from the back and spine and front put together, and even then it didn’t quite fit so I made it larger still, bleeding off the page. I was hoping that it would feel as if we had actually taken an old newspaper from that time period, with the headline of Mason & Dixon, and wrapped it around the book. I was so into that concept that I couldn’t figure out how to integrate the author’s name (the single most important thing about this book, after all!) into the front jacket design without it seeming anachronistic. I kind of liked the idea of those words glaring out at the consumer in a bookstore, “son & xon,” without any further explanation. But of course this was entirely unrealistic, in terms of sales and marketing, so the acetate overlay was the perfect solution. It put the vital information over the jacket front and spine without actually impinging on the paper underneath, and it echoed what they do to old books in antique bookstores, which seemed right in the context of what we wanted to achieve.

[Anonymous No.6350843]

>>6350835
>I'm going to post it again

why tho?

[Anonymous No.6350871]

If I'm honest, I don't know why there are pictures on the covers of books, especially "literary books".

I mean, I like them and all, and some of them are genuinely beautiful and artistic, but I just don't see why they have to be on the cover of a book. It's not that long ago that the hallmark of serious literature was that all the books looked the same except the words on the front, and what was wrong with that?

I can see why with genre fiction, where the spaceships on the cover or the dragon or whatever draw you in, and give you an idea of what you're in for, but are people really walking through bookshops thinking "ooh, that Ulysses has a nice cover, I think I'll try that"?

I doubt they are.

[Anonymous No.6350910]

>>6350871
>but are people really walking through bookshops thinking "ooh, that Ulysses has a nice cover, I think I'll try that"?

Sometimes, but mostly to differentiate themselves from the competition and, let's face it, being pretty to look at is desirable.

[Anonymous No.6350924]

>>6350910
>being pretty to look at is desirable

in your opinion.

[Anonymous No.6350937]

>>6350924
Well of course, I'm only answering the question of "why are there pictures on the covers of literary books?"

[Anonymous No.6350942]

>>6350048
Not real but... for our zeitgeist

[Anonymous No.6350952]

[Anonymous No.6350964]

>>6350937
> I'm only answering the question of "why are there pictures on the covers of literary books?"

Not really though. Why are there only pictures on the covers now, and in the last 20 years? If having pretty pictures on the front is something inherently desirable, then why were penguins just orange and white for so long? And also, why do people think those penguins were so cool then now put them on mugs and hammocks and bags and whatever merch?

Obviously something has changed in the literary publishing market, especially since having art on the front costs more, so there must be a reasoning for the change beyond "it looks nice". I just don't know what it is.

[Anonymous No.6350965]

>>6350132
Different person, but I felt the same way about The Colorless Tesuka. I felt like there was a certain connection I found towards the beginning, but there was just so much meandering, talking about things that everybody already knows, and a deep sense of pointlessness, that I never forced myself to finish it before I returned it.

Was Murakami better in his earlier work, or is this type of sentiment common in all of his work?

[Anonymous No.6350996]

I like imagining books as obscure 80s OVAs. It makes me like them more.

[Anonymous No.6351003]

[Anonymous No.6351024]

>>6350964
It's not exactly 'inherently valuable,' but many, many people do enjoy a pretty cover design.

There's plenty of possible reasons though: the internet (you have a lot more options between publishers), increased literacy rates (the lower classes are more likely to be swayed by shallow aesthetics), and maybe someone just starting doing it and noticed an increase in sales.

What does cost have to do with it looking nice? If it looks nice it's going to sell more...

[Anonymous No.6351042]

>>6351024
>increased literacy rates (the lower classes are more likely to be swayed by shallow aesthetics),

I should expand on this more. If we accept that in previous times a overly designed cover was a sign of pulp, then increased literacy rates -> leads to more interest in literature by the lower classes -> eliminates the elitism.

[Anonymous No.6351075]

>>6350996
looks line ripley to me.

[Anonymous No.6351146]

>>6350059
Awful. Looks like a lazy uninspired IDM album cover

[Anonymous No.6351172]

>>6351146
i gonna buy it just to piss you fucker.

[Anonymous No.6351173]

>>6351024

I think it probably gets them a bit more ink in the press. When the new DeLillo covers came out, it was in a lot of the papers with articles about the israeli guy that did them, so I guess replacing the covers is a way of stimulating sales on old properties. There's probably some completist collectorfags who even buy multiple copies.

And it probably doesn't cost very much at all: designers are ten a penny.

Probably one more awards show a year to go and get drunk at and do coke off some bird's tits.

[Anonymous No.6351185]

Love the Penguin Republic.

[Anonymous No.6351199]

>>6351172
Okay

[Anonymous No.6351835]

>>6350059
more like, SO CASH, amirite?

http://www.adweek.com/galleycat/sylvia-plath-bell-jar-cover-inspires-online-parodies/65708

[Anonymous No.6351843]

[Anonymous No.6351856]

[Anonymous No.6351917]

I've always liked this cover, actually.

[Anonymous No.6352213]

Penguin publish some sexy Nabokov covers

[Anonymous No.6352241]

[Anonymous No.6352284]

[Anonymous No.6352440]

>>6350075
But is it something more than that? It looks like cocks going toward the holes. At least that's the impression I got when I saw Chip Kidd talk about it.

[Anonymous No.6352452]

>>6350835
I always love reading about how great typography comes to be

It's truly a dying artform

[Anonymous No.6352475]

>>6352241
How does it fit into three volumes that size?
Microfont?

[Anonymous No.6352482]

>>6352241
>translation

please dont embarass yourself

[Anonymous No.6352494]

>>6352482
hush

[Anonymous No.6352500]

>>6352482
Wasn't it your go-to shitboi Pound said the translation was better

[Anonymous No.6352515]

>>6350088
after scrutinizing over this cover of yours i've realized that the font itself is pretty

it's well kerned. everything is rounded and flows well as you read it. the spacing between all the elements are consistent and good. the values are nice and the gold is a good complimentary. it also forms a square just about, a block of white. the three circles are nicely arranged also ( 'E.B.' and 'ite')

if you look at the second 's' you will see it's different from the others, something that goes to show whoever designed it certainly had aesthetics in mind

the shitposter below will come up with the layman consultation fee, have a nice day

[Anonymous No.6352517]

>>6352515
*the first 's'

[Anonymous No.6352521]

>>6352440
I can see that once you point it out, and the book is an exploration of how technology and language can obscure the obvious. So it works too.

[Anonymous No.6352747]

>>6352475
The font's not especially small (an 'I' is about 3.5mm tall), but the margins are all less than an inch and the pages are pretty thin. Each volume has about 1000 pages. And there's not much editorial stuff. The first volume, e.g., has only a 2 page translator's preface, 2 pages of notes, 6 pages of addenda from other manuscripts, and a 7 page synopsis.

>>6352482
Pretty sure you're the one embarrassing yourself.

[Anonymous No.6352768]

>>6352747
Ah. I own the 6-volume edition from ML, and each volume is about 650 pages. The set together is probably physically twice as long as that set

Them deliciously thick pages

[Anonymous No.6353193]

[Anonymous No.6353276]

>>6352482
http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/how-a-flawed-version-of-proust-became-a-classic-in-english

[Anonymous No.6354219]

>>6351003
In my opinion that cover of Psycho is pure shit

[Anonymous No.6354390]

[Anonymous No.6356147]

>>6350050

>dat last chapter