Book covers were a mistake
>>25252371Right aren't covers, they're title pages. The covers were usually just some monochrome pastel hue with the title so I don't know why you didn't use pictures of actual traditional covers
>>25252429Op is retarded
>>25252371Shit bait
>>25252429That's the packaging, you're meant to carve it off with a book knife when you open the pages, which used to be done for you by book sellers who would carve off a piece of book for you like a roast at a fine American dinner buffet, and send the cover back in for comission on the sale, also a way to pressure customers into a sale when they would demonstrate it. It made the book "truly yours". You're still supposed to do it to mark ownership, but most readers don't know, and they think it's "destroying" the book because of stupid original packaging fetish.
>>25252429>so I don't know why you didn't use pictures of actual traditional coversIf I had to guess I'd say he didn't use covers because he said covers are bad.You see there is a hint there in the OP where he says covers were a mistake. This suggests that he doesn't like covers. This idea continues further when you look at the image and the part that says bad is covers while the part that says good is not covers but instead an alternative to covers. He presents title pages as the good thing because stated before he thinks covers are bad>>25252470It seems you also are confused. Hopefully you too who randomly decided that the image is about old covers aren't confused anymore. And hopefully the shadow figure that hates new covers and lives in your head goes away
>>25252622Oh yeah I read about this, it’s a shame they don’t do it these days
>>25252622>which used to be done for you by book sellers who would carve off a piece of book for you like a roast at a fine American dinner buffetmmmmm knowledge
>>25252371you are gaythe tolkien is classic, the stanger mod but perfectly reasonable, the wells a clear art reference and decent.the other set isnt covers. they are title pages.
>>25252371You have awful taste
>>25252470as usual
>>25252371Modern book covers are shit. Old book covers are awesome. Man, I miss painted covers. Can you believe that used to be a job? I wanted to be one when I was a kid.
>>25252622This is interesting to me, never heard of it. How can I look up more of this? I want to see what it looks like, searching for "book knife" and any other clues in here doesn't return much
>>25252622Well, all modern books I've handled have a cover very obviously tougher than the pages, so to carve it off really would get your book damaged much more easily and would force you to handle it much, much more carefully. It doesn't get in the way or anything either. It is destroying it, and for older books where what you say might have applied, well, those are likely all collectors' items at this point, so even if it's meant to be disposable packaging it doesn't make much sense to carve it off anymore. Yeah?
Never heard of "don't judge a book by its cover"? You guys are doing just that. Most readers are little kids let them have their childish covers, you're there for the content.
>>25255370I have heard the phrase, and it's bullshit. 99% of the time you can judge a book's contents by its cover. The cover may be great or it may be shit, it may be extremely relevant to the plot and style or completely discordant, but the designers and publishers sure know how to maintain a design language that tells us what kind of product it is and who it's aimed at. In OP:s example, the rightmost three all give the impression of serious literary fiction (with The Stranger looking like a repront), the Labyrinth looking like YA and LotR like something fantastical and epic. Even if you've never heard of the titles or authors, you can tell which ones might be for you.People who say "don't judge a book by its cover" are copers, bullshitters, parrots, or just people completely lacking in judgement.That said, all covers suck ass and I do my best not to get bothered by it.
