Its amazing how you can take the greatest literary works of all time, some taking years if not decades to write, and make them look like shitty college psychology textbooks.
>>24719947modern refers to the 20th century
>>247199552020s began the oversimplification trend.
>>24719963They just haven't gone simple enough. A solid color hardcover with the title engraved on it looks fine.
>This will go nicely on my Warrior Cats shelf
>>24719947i like the one at the toplooks like those philosophical/romantic classicsbottom one is straight-up ugly i agree
>>24720014Far left is the good example for both
>>24719947These Asian books have an opposite problem to LotR where the western releases go overboard with the maximalism. Meanwhile the local covers treat it like any other piece of fiction.>GET IT GUYS ITS AN EXOTIC CHYNEESE FOLKTALE
>>24719947*Contemporary
>>24719947I adore Penguin's cover designs like that. Those are classy.
>>24720386>classyno, they are postmodern trash
My dad's lovecraft omnibuses from the 80s just ooze SOUL
>finally a good cover->playing cards
>>24719947That's just paperback vs hardcover retard
>>24719947You know Tokien drew that Hobbit cover himself right?
>>24720752It's literally impossible to get Three Kingdoms in English without an ugly cover. Paperback or Hardcover.
>>24720766Yeah then some faggot removed the color and all background and foreground elements.
>>24719947Those hobbit/lord of the rings covers would be okay if it was a different color
>>2472041280s horror covers are kino. No sloppa is too shitty not to be saved with some nice oils.
>>24720894Also missing those stamped foil titles. More whacky fonts!
>>24720766The one you posted and the one in OP's is the difference between a normal town and the town right after being napalm'd
Thoughts on Barnes and Noble-core?
>>24720914I think the spines are neat but don't find the covers appealing.
>>24720912Yeah well the Shire got scoured
What were they thinking
>>24720914Kitsch. This pinterestesque
>>24719998Imagine not buying the tv show cover
What I lament is the shitty quality of books. I own several 100+ year old books and even the shittiest slop book that cost the equivalent of 3 dollars back then is a nice hardcover print on good paper. Even paperbacks from 70's are higher quality than some of the shit that gets printed today. It's quite shameful
Lmao
>>24720914These are so fucking bad it's actually remarkable. Literally who is this for? Who would like this more than the various Penguin versions that use classic art pieces? Why can't they just hire an illustrator? It's ONE drawing for the entire book. The Project Gutenberg version of Pride and Prejudice has several illustrations for each chapter, pic related for example. Each of these is far more soulful and interesting than that slop cover design. Why can't they just use one of these and pay an illustrator simply to color it? Put it in a rectangular outline and there's your cover.
>>24719947>>24720766>>24720780>>24720912The new Hobbit cover is better than Tolkyen's original.
>>24721996It looks like a Starbucks gift card.
>>24720387I particularly like the fine textured paper they're printed on. They're nice.
>>24721341Penguin really does just fuck everything up.
>>24719947I like 'em
>>24720914Sovl
>>24722129No it doesn't.
>>24720894>>24720896Very fucking nice, a lost art sadly
>>24720773The Folio Society edition from 2013 is completely fine.
>>24722784>$400-$600 depending on the conditionMeanwhile the Chinese are releasing "4 masterpieces" collections in embossed faux-leather for $150 with three other novels included every single year.
>>24722632
>>24723077time to learn Chinese buddy
>>24723198You'd think the Chinese would want to get high quality versions of their books into western hands like how they're pushing hard for international movies and video games in recent years. Nearly all English releases are just random retards trying to make a quick buck off of public domain media.
>>24720732>Jackson RobinsonThe baseball player?
>>24723657Yeah
>>24723128Kek
>>24719947I've got the Hobbit with the fat little Bilbo painting. It looks shitty, but in a way that I appreciate.
>>24719947I am going to be honest I think the unique ugly one in that picture is the bottom right. The penguins one use some classic art and I have always loved the classic designs in the left. My favorite covers for books are like the left ones but with more vivid colors, I mean, stronger black or white for example.
>>24724229I like it but for some weird reason the guy looks like ai to me. I don't know if it is pattern recognizition.
>>24724265Hobbit deluxe is so pretty. Sad that there wasn't a matching LotR.
>>24724275That Hobbit deluxe looks good. I also like that type of book covers, in general I like covers that are simple but have pleasant colors.If you want an example of how I like my books here is a bible I found recently.
>>24724269AI people often look kinda shiny. In this case, though, the model was probably just sweaty because he was fat.
>>24721430Agreed. Academic publishers held out longer than others but they too have reduced quality to save a shekel. It's why I almost exclusively buy used>niche work only a tiny fraction of the population will ever be interested in>cheap paper, smudgy ink>slap some glue in the spine and call it a day>$200
>>24721978They wouldnt even have to color it, just use shading or outlines but everything must be ugly now
>>24721978>Why can't they just hire an illustrator? It's ONE drawing for the entire book.I think the problem isn't it not having a picture as cover but the design of text cover itself. I think you wouldn't be reacting this way if it was a more trad one like the OP pic left with just some text and some symbols. There are plenty of book covers who are just text.
>>24720914it's giving stomp clap hey/midwestern microbrewery/boutique guitar pedal
>>24724411Oh you ingenious bastard now I can't stop thinking about it.
>>24724289Not a fan of the stark black minimalism. Looks unfriendly and unholy.
>>24724421What style do you prefer?
>>24724421Are you a Christian? I personally think that there is nothing bad about the color black. And I do agree that the stark black sometimes is unfriendly but I think it looks beautiful.
the unabridged Romance of the Three Kingdoms is not worth reading unless you have a fetish for enumerated lists of characters and their family members
>>24724424Just as bad, but in the opposite direction.>>24724426I wouldn't call myself a Christian, but I've been reading the Bible and often wish I were.It's not just the color, but the overwhelming amount of it with only a bit of white. Also, the minimalism just looks lazy and uninspired.
>>24724435>Also, the minimalism just looks lazy and uninspired.This made me realize that in aesthetic preferences I am either extremely detailed or minimalistic. I want books to have great covers or either being just like the book I posted.I think in this case it is just your preference. But this made me curious, what's your type of cover? Extremely artistic or with well-placed symbols?
>>24724443I don't have a type. If it's good, it's good. I enjoy Tolkien's Hobbit cover >>24720766 and the various schlocky horror covers elsewhere here. I do generally think that almost all new art is shit, so my preferences tend to be older stuff.
>>24724470Well yeah, I agree. I prefer artsy covers instead of minimalistic ones when talking about literature.This one specifically >>24721341 is one of my favorites. Or these ones >>24723077
>>24724434My autism prevents me from reading anything that could be considered "dumbed down" or "missing content"
>>24724511Personal favorite is top left in >>24720130 The silvery gold with the dragon print is real classy.
>>24720387>>24719947Penguin classics label is older than you are, fucking retard
>>24724720Ruining book covers for nearly 100 years
>>24724557Hell, the Chinese books at the top are so fucking classy. Some are simple but still pretty to see.
>>24723198I wish I had a Chinese buddy. The only Chinaman I ever knew ripped me off.
>>24724411KEK
>>24719947Modern would imply ebooks and text files
>>24725253Not a literature book but I love these kinds of covers that portray animals.
>>24720914They look like Wonka chocolate bars.
>>24725300Are you telling me there is no chocolate inside them?
>>24725293Animals and plants are universally primal interesting things to look at
>Want to read a new translation of Ovid>Buy this>Too embarrassed to read it because of how butt ugly the cover is
Not a fan of Penguin Classics covers but this is definitely one of the good ones
>>24725335I specially like the ones with wolves. This one is quite simple but I like the photos.
>>24719947The Hobbit one is kinda cute though. Also, I'll take a cheap design for a cheaper book any fucking day. It's a source of information or narrative not furniture. + paperback is fucking nice man I absolutely abuse my books twisting them and shit while holding them one handed. tldr; stop larping an 19th century intellectual
>>24720387> they are postmodern trashYou can’t even explain what this means
>>24721341What's wrong with having a Noh mask for Noh plays?
>>24725502I think it is just that it looks less artsy and more minimal than the first one. But honestly thats up to preferences.
>>24724880Its really an underutilized style over here.
>>24719947That lord of the rings set is okay. It's a bit over simple but it at least conveys the series fine. It's not my favorite set but I wouldn't kick it off the shelf.
>>24719947i have that hobbit
>>24724229That was the first version I ever read. It was in our school library.
>>24721344You could've just said "pinteresque"
>>24724275I have these versions of Hobbit, LoTR and Silm. They're neat I think. I do want to grab that Alan Lee set though,
>>24719947You want bad you want these eye sores
>>24726321Who the hell made that design? The color combination and shade is so unpleasant I could make a creepypasta of a cursed book using this as sample
People who seethe about book covers don't care about literature, just fashion accessories.
>>24726336You can say that but the cover of a book is unironically important. There is a psychological effecr where depending on the cover's photo color or design the way you imagine the book may be completely different in your mind. Happened to me with 1984.
>>24726338Your being stupid enough to form ideas about a book based on the cover is not proof of anything. Do you also swallow the blurbs and back cover summaries? Stop being a slave to marketing.
>>24726353Why is it bad to want to have a pretty looking book? It does not even have to be recent.
>>24726353How we present our thoughts is as important as the thoughts themselves. The writer is the one who wants my attention, I'll live quote happily if I never pick up their book. They are the ones responsible for making it look appealing.
>>24719947the right is cost cutting and marketing oriented. Perfected for current society.You can still buy left on ebay, dont worry, precious baby.
>>24726593yeah because it must cost so much to higher an artist
>>24726596I am talking about the material and machines to mass produce these books. Modern books literally costs cents to print and finish for these major publishers.
>>24720914It looks like the bric-a-brac Kohl’s puts out around the holidays for people to buy as mindless stocking stuffers.>haha this bar of soap smells like beer and has profanity on the box, dad will love this! >and… Pride and Prejudice? Eh, guess I need something for my aunt
>>24726602I admit I don't know much about the printing and distribution process but I find it hard to believe they're saving all that much
>>24726618if there is one thing you can be certain of is that profits are being maximized in any way possible. Plenty of Private Equity and Consulting groups have gone through these major publishing houses of course.
Only decent "modern" set I've seen.
>>24727092
>>24719947Actually agree on a post from /lit/ for once (fuck Wallace HACK!)
>>24727111What in the fuck. If your drawing skills are that bad just take a picture.
>>24719963Earlier than that zoomer.
I don't know what I hate more. Overly "minimalist" covers or covers that feature stills or a sticker for a movie adaptation.
>>24727146Its been happening for decades. OVERsimplification occurred in the 2020s.
>>24727097Eww
>>24727097The illustrated by the author edition is better
