• daisy lazarus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think the point is that the cover is never guaranteed to accurately represent the book.

    Quality of cover =/= quality of book

    • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      Although, I’ll never buy a book where the author’s name is in bigger, bolder font than the title of the book.

      I hate that trend in cover design and I refuse to support it.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        DEAN KOONTZ
        Newbury Award Winner
        New York Time Best-Seller
        The Lake Boat
        First time in paperback!
        With a Foreward by David Baldacci

        • phorq@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Definitely still see it for Stephen King at least, but frankly I’d be creeped out if I saw his name small at this point…

        • brainrein@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s one of the purposes of a cover, you could achieve it without any design effort.

          But that’s not the point, not the main purpose of a book cover. Your previous poster is right, the cover is advertising the book.

          • ngdev@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The “cover art***” sells it, then. They were trying to be funny I think lol

          • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I thought the point of the dust jacket is to make books look shabby when they get crinkled and torn, so you can take it off and find a perfectly serviceable cover underneath.

  • Lemvi@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    1 year ago

    Maybe, the point still stands. I’ve read awesome books with boring covers and vice versa. Its really a good saying that does apply to most areas in life.

  • scarabic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    1 year ago

    No. Some are richly designed to showcase the book contents and others are not. That’s the entire point! It’s not the books with fancy covers that are always the best. You could find a plain cover copy of The Hobbit in your local library next to another copy that is oversized with a gold-embossed cover and an amazing painting showing the party of 14 plus a Wizard huddled on a mountaintop against the storm…

    …and they’re still the same book.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      My copy of The Hobbit is really weird it’s just leather and says The Hobbit in gold inset writing.

      Absolutely nothing on the back, or even a barcode.

      Really old books tend not to have covered designs that seems to be a relatively modern phenomenon.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      The US covers of Harry Potter (yeah I know) are awful and a good example of the artist having differently not read the book.

  • bigkix@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yes, but you still don’t know if the content is good or bad.

        • Serinus@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, clearly racism is the biggest reason to hate the Apple TV version. Not that the writers didn’t understand the point of the books and turned Asimov’s original thoughts on society into magic and mysticism.

  • ruk_n_rul@monyet.cc
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    It wasn’t when the idiom was coined. Have you seen hard-bound books from the 19th century in libraries?

  • LemmyLefty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Unless they’re “as seen in the hit TV show!” in which case it’s okay to tear those covers off.

  • Decimit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    It was very true for movies in the 80s. The cover would sometimes not have anything to do with the movie at all. Horror and sci-fi movies would show monsters that never appeared in the movie.

  • Mongostein@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s not though. Books can, but don’t always, misrepresent themselves on the cover. Just like people.

    It’s not saying that book covers always lie, it’s saying that you shouldn’t take everything at face value and you should think for yourself.

    • scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sounds like that uses a loaded connotation of the word discriminate. That word really just means to differentiate things from each other or discern distinct things.

      I think a better way to say it would be: “judge, but don’t pre-judge.”

      As long as you’re actually judging evidence in front of you, great. If you’re making shortcuts to judgments using superficial cues, that’s where you run into trouble.