I was thinking back to the presentation in class today, and I remembered all the different covers and art work that they showed us. It got me thinking of that phrase: don't judge a book by its cover. I don't think anyone really does this. When you are looking for a book to read, you tend to look at the one that has a cover that is the most interesting to you. And it's obvious that these book/comic companies have picked up on this. They try to make covers that catch people's attention.
Do you think that the cover art is so important that it takes away from the actual quality of the book? Also, couldn't these companies make a cover that catches people's attention effectively but have nothing to do at all with the content of the comic? I mean, it's not impossible for them to do that, but do you think that they would? After all, in the end, don't they really care about how many copies of their work get sold?
Mary Quien
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I was thinking this same exact thing! And although it seems pretty superficial - it's totally and completely necessary. The principle may not apply as much to regular novels as it does to comic books and graphic novels. Since half of a comic book is comprised of art, the cover art is an essential component of the whole project. If the art isn't appealing, how much are a few lines of dialogue going to add to the story?
In a regular novel, the text means everything. In a graphic novel, priorities are shared - between art and writing. The key is balance; it's impossible to put all effort into one without neglecting the other.
(Sam Maliha)
The cover art of a book does not necessarily takes away the actual quality from the book. Actually, it can work in both directions. A good cover art can attract more audience, but a bad cover art can result in no audience.
For a person whose purpose of publishing a book is solely for money, the cover art would really matter. People tend to judge something by its first impression. Unless there is a big difference between what the cover art is portraying and the real content of the book, I do not think it is wrong to depict something eye-catching on the cover.
Jennifer Park
Regarding your question as to whether or not a company would be able to simply make an entirely irrelevant but attention-grabbing cover, I think that the choice would be extremely unwise. Clearly, although we're taught to not "judge a book by its cover", it's distinctly impossible not to have a reaction to the cover before examining its contents. Thus, once we take note of the cover, it plays a part in how we view the book, regardless of whether or not we want it to. It then seems impossible that you would not realize the discrepancy between the cover and the content of the story. You, as the reader, would most likely feel cheated in some fashion.
On a slightly different note, I find that covers are actually intentionally factored into critiques of pieces of literature. After all, it's not uncommon to hear discussion about the symbolism of a particularly abstract cover or the events unfolding in a more detailed one. Just as something can be penalized for a bad/irrelevant cover, a work can also be lifted up by an appropriate cover.
Well, the cover often is what first prompts us to pick up an unknown book for further examination. So naturally, companies try to make these covers as appealing as possible in order to catch our attention. Sometimes the cover might not be truly related to the story, but if it causes us to pick up a book, it did its job.
On the other hand, sometimes covers act as more than mere eye candy. I'm sure you all remember the iconic cover of the Great Gatsby, with those hypnotic eyes gazing at you over the landscape of Coney's Island. You can even see reclining women in the pupils of the eyes. Incidentally, Fitzgerald loved the cover, and some believe that he even incorporated some of its elements into the story itself. There's good reason why almost every reprint of The Great Gatsby continues to have this cover.
-Eric W
Post a Comment