I've (almost) always found book covers to be trash. No matter the time period they were published. I think that's incredibly odd considering how many fantastic artists we have in this world. Why wouldn't you hire an artist to design a cover? I buy hard covers and then take the sleeve off and it usually looks way more appealing to me.
I think also with a lot more books on the market than in the past the emphasis is on signaling to the reader that this is in the genre they want to read. The original covers are my preference but they don’t as clearly signal the genre. Looking at Amazon covers in the horror adjacent genres, they all look alike. By design.
That’s why I find myself buying more and more hardbacks on Kickstarter. Authors there are making beautiful books that aren’t necessarily made to blend in.
I definitely agree that the old covers are better. I think it's like old practical movie effects compared to CGI. One has character and a human touch. The other is like a robot who is trying to have a human touch, but the robot just fails. It doesn't have what it takes to appeal to people. Great observations and discussions, CSM.
I suspect the way books are browsed now has something to do with it. Readers are more often browsing covers on a screen, rather than picking them up off a shelf and giving them a good look. So the covers have to immediately signal their content, before the reader's eyes slide off to something else - this is a space opera, this is a crime novel, this is romance.
Very cool post. Thanks for this. And yes, I agree, older ones were more artistic. I loved the old The Stand cover. That new one looks like Ghibli-less AI.
As soon as I started reading this, I thought the author name > story title, which happened with action movie stars, Arnie, Sly. The title was like, whatever. Makes sense for the commerce of it all, even if it is annoying creatively.
I remember the old cover for IT, my first King book, I read it many years ago, claw in the grate, Georgie’s boat. The recent covers feature Pennywise more prominently, which I don’t care for.
I found this link which has some kickass covers from other country editions. The Swedish first edition has a cover image that’s like 90% Art the Clown, before he was a thing.
Yeah they seem bland, and edited for an aesthetic look for those who want a pretty bookshelf. Bring on the creativity, the chaos, the mismatched colors, the varying sizes, shapes, and the OG art!
I don’t think there is one answer, but I think #3 might be closest for this particular book. The cover doesn’t matter for The Stand by Stephen King—because it’s Stephen King—until a significant anniversary edition. Let’s check back here in 3 years when the book is 50 years old. I bet it’ll have a nice new edition with some extra TLC.
Unsurprisingly, as a book designer myself, I am always annoyed by sweeping generalizations about the quality of book covers “today.” It’s all about what you’re looking for and it’s always a matter of taste. I’m not arguing these King covers are good—they are boring—but there’s plenty of terrific cover work happening today. There are just so many books that some of it is bound to be bad.
I always through the sword vs. scythe cover of The Stand was a terrible book cover. Presumably its trying to scream good vs. evil, but its more like a nerd whisper. The new one is not good either. I’d have had an endless highway littered with the tombstones of dead cars and a crow or something.
I think you are on to something but also a problem with the industry has been exacerbated by product overload - in the past (and I have second and third hand accounts that prove this) cover authors were given a one page summary of the book to do their art from. A teacher I had in college had a friend who got a novel published and the cover art on the pre-release copy got everything but one color wrong. He went straight to the artist who showed him what he had been given (a folder with a one page summary of what the editor thought was important, an 8-page sunnary from the beta readers, and the full text. He'd been given this for five books and given a three day deadline. For so.e he had time to read the 8 page summary. For the friend of my teacher, he had only read the single page one and used it to design the cover.
Many of the newer covers, depending on the genre do face a similar template. I’ve seen this very specifically for the romantasy genre of similar fonts, blown up lettering, cursives and swirls with fruit, swords and flowers strewn all about. They have some appeal but look extremely busy for my taste.
The older covers, though not as clear cut in what the book might entail or as modernize, offer something beautiful and give a glimpse into the world that we’re steeping into. Its feels more like part of the story than a cover for the genre. Hope this is making sense. The older covers will always be something I admired and prefer
I've (almost) always found book covers to be trash. No matter the time period they were published. I think that's incredibly odd considering how many fantastic artists we have in this world. Why wouldn't you hire an artist to design a cover? I buy hard covers and then take the sleeve off and it usually looks way more appealing to me.
''Why wouldn't you hire an artist to design a cover? ''
Who do you think designed those 70s covers? Real, commissioned artists. I don't see your point.
I think also with a lot more books on the market than in the past the emphasis is on signaling to the reader that this is in the genre they want to read. The original covers are my preference but they don’t as clearly signal the genre. Looking at Amazon covers in the horror adjacent genres, they all look alike. By design.
That’s why I find myself buying more and more hardbacks on Kickstarter. Authors there are making beautiful books that aren’t necessarily made to blend in.
It’s almost like how many modern movies look bad; so shiny and perfect they don't have any “realness” to them.
I definitely agree that the old covers are better. I think it's like old practical movie effects compared to CGI. One has character and a human touch. The other is like a robot who is trying to have a human touch, but the robot just fails. It doesn't have what it takes to appeal to people. Great observations and discussions, CSM.
I prefer older book covers as the designs are almost always superior.
I suspect the way books are browsed now has something to do with it. Readers are more often browsing covers on a screen, rather than picking them up off a shelf and giving them a good look. So the covers have to immediately signal their content, before the reader's eyes slide off to something else - this is a space opera, this is a crime novel, this is romance.
Very cool post. Thanks for this. And yes, I agree, older ones were more artistic. I loved the old The Stand cover. That new one looks like Ghibli-less AI.
As soon as I started reading this, I thought the author name > story title, which happened with action movie stars, Arnie, Sly. The title was like, whatever. Makes sense for the commerce of it all, even if it is annoying creatively.
I remember the old cover for IT, my first King book, I read it many years ago, claw in the grate, Georgie’s boat. The recent covers feature Pennywise more prominently, which I don’t care for.
I found this link which has some kickass covers from other country editions. The Swedish first edition has a cover image that’s like 90% Art the Clown, before he was a thing.
https://lithub.com/10-covers-for-stephen-kings-it-ranked-from-least-to-most-terrifying/
Yeah they seem bland, and edited for an aesthetic look for those who want a pretty bookshelf. Bring on the creativity, the chaos, the mismatched colors, the varying sizes, shapes, and the OG art!
I don’t think there is one answer, but I think #3 might be closest for this particular book. The cover doesn’t matter for The Stand by Stephen King—because it’s Stephen King—until a significant anniversary edition. Let’s check back here in 3 years when the book is 50 years old. I bet it’ll have a nice new edition with some extra TLC.
Unsurprisingly, as a book designer myself, I am always annoyed by sweeping generalizations about the quality of book covers “today.” It’s all about what you’re looking for and it’s always a matter of taste. I’m not arguing these King covers are good—they are boring—but there’s plenty of terrific cover work happening today. There are just so many books that some of it is bound to be bad.
All the best one are in libraries already.
Don't think you can beat the 80's book covers - some were insane.
I always through the sword vs. scythe cover of The Stand was a terrible book cover. Presumably its trying to scream good vs. evil, but its more like a nerd whisper. The new one is not good either. I’d have had an endless highway littered with the tombstones of dead cars and a crow or something.
Is the a swer to the topic question because they don't hire artists anymore?
Sometime have some fun looking up Ellen Raskin's covers from the 70s. I'd wallpaper a room with them if I could.
I think you are on to something but also a problem with the industry has been exacerbated by product overload - in the past (and I have second and third hand accounts that prove this) cover authors were given a one page summary of the book to do their art from. A teacher I had in college had a friend who got a novel published and the cover art on the pre-release copy got everything but one color wrong. He went straight to the artist who showed him what he had been given (a folder with a one page summary of what the editor thought was important, an 8-page sunnary from the beta readers, and the full text. He'd been given this for five books and given a three day deadline. For so.e he had time to read the 8 page summary. For the friend of my teacher, he had only read the single page one and used it to design the cover.
Many of the newer covers, depending on the genre do face a similar template. I’ve seen this very specifically for the romantasy genre of similar fonts, blown up lettering, cursives and swirls with fruit, swords and flowers strewn all about. They have some appeal but look extremely busy for my taste.
The older covers, though not as clear cut in what the book might entail or as modernize, offer something beautiful and give a glimpse into the world that we’re steeping into. Its feels more like part of the story than a cover for the genre. Hope this is making sense. The older covers will always be something I admired and prefer