# Re-releases with boring covers (rant)



## Scarecrow (Mar 9, 2007)

Does this irritate anyone else?

A book is written, and it has a great cover. Or maybe not a great cover, but at least a cover with a _picture_ on it. Example:

http://images.contentreserve.com/ImageType-100/0111-1/%7BE1B5FE9A-627D-41A5-9474-240FEC1BDF15%7DImg100.jpghttp://images.amazon.com/images/P/0312850093.01.LZZZZZZZ.gif

A decade or so later, as the series is reprinted, for some reason the publishers decide to replace the cover with something boring and blank, under the guise of a "collector's edition" or some such bullshit. Example:

http://ec3.images-amazon.com/images/P/0007119593.01._AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

This irritates the hell out of me. I'll find an old series in the library or something, decide I like it, and go to the bookstore to purchase it, only to find that it's been re-released with a cover that's boring as hell. How could anyone conceivably prefer a blank, dull cover to one with a beautiful illustration on it?


----------



## Hodge (Mar 9, 2007)

What the fuck? Why would they remove the cover art for Km Stanley's _Mars_ series? That's great cover art!


----------



## DesolateValkyrie (Mar 9, 2007)

yeah...that doesn't even make sense. the point is to sell, right? so they should try to grab your attention...what a dumb buisness move. lol.


----------



## Couchfiend (Mar 9, 2007)

Yeah, thats pretty strange.  Maybe they couldn't get the copyright or something for the original cover art?


----------



## G. Palmer (Mar 9, 2007)

Was the second one a hardback of paperback, and was the first a hardback or paperback?

I like plain covers on hardback books, I mostly buy hardbacks if I want a good version of a book on my bookshelf, so often by the time I've purchased it I already like the book and will probably never touch the hardback cover again in my life except to reorganise my bookshelf - I read the paperbacks, but again, cover art is only important when you're trying to sell the book to people browsing on a shelf. At least in my view.


----------



## Scarecrow (Mar 10, 2007)

They were both paperbacks. I think Couchfiend might have a point when he suggetss it's a copyright thing; perhaps the new covers are being published by a different company, who won't let them use the old illustrations.


----------



## strangedaze (Mar 11, 2007)

the worst is when the book is made into a film and they use a still or something for the cover. ie: Fight Club, Million Dollar Baby, The Shipping News, etc.


----------



## Der_Parvenu_Meister (Mar 11, 2007)

the cover is everything, like you know the american psycho cover, the art one with the blood on his face? or muscle or what ever it is? the latest release of american psycho I've seen is some white cover with red stuff in water and in tiny letters " american psycho", looks rubbish.


----------



## AdrienneW (Mar 11, 2007)

They probably do this for several reasons.  One, they don't want to have to pay the cover artists any royalties (some do take royalties for payment) two, they only paid for so many "copies with rights" to that art work. Unless a publishing company buys the art work out right, they do not "own" it and cannot print it forever and ever without compensation to the artist.
Lastly, and it fits under all of the above, higher profit margin and less expense, when you don't pay an artist to decorate the book for you.


----------



## Scarecrow (Mar 12, 2007)

If I ever get something published, I won't except anything but the best cover art on all of my books. If we lost copyright or whatever, I'd demand that we get somebody new to draw another cover equally as good. None of this "collector's edition" shit.


----------



## PageOfCups (Mar 18, 2008)

Scarecrow said:


> If I ever get something published, I won't except anything but the best cover art on all of my books. If we lost copyright or whatever, I'd demand that we get somebody new to draw another cover equally as good. None of this "collector's edition" shit.


 
You don't get a choice about cover art when you don't self publish. The publishing house choses it.

On another note some of the best covers I've seen have been incredibly plain. Sabriel by Garith Nix springs to mind. The cover for the first paperback of that was white with lots of small white runes that you could only see when you titled the book in the ligh and a red symbol on the front. Simple and very atractive. The cover now is more complex and to be honest I don't like it.


----------



## lilacstarflower (Mar 30, 2008)

That first cover seems to have suited what the book was about. Although not a picture everyone may like it attracted attention

That second one was just plain boring - I wouldn't even pick that one up to read what it was about


----------



## Stewart (Mar 30, 2008)

Of those two covers I would not go near the first one. The second one might, at the very least, encourage me to pick it up and have a look to see what it's about.

The first suggests throwaway space opera and the second implies a bit of class and staying power.


----------



## Leamadzw (Apr 4, 2008)

I prefer classic and simple covers for my bookshelf, but like cover art when i first read a book because it helps sets the scene.  I love stepbacks too.  The Virginia Andrews stepbacks are fantastic!


----------



## Flintenspiel (Apr 16, 2008)

I always thought you weren't supposed to judge a book by its cover.
(Maybe that was just referring to  originals, not re-releases.)


----------



## Linton Robinson (Apr 16, 2008)

Well for originals that would be pre-judging.   But for reprints, it would just be re-judging.


----------



## Flintenspiel (Apr 16, 2008)

I'm really a big fan of this cover! its very exciting!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8e/Catcher-in-the-rye-red-cover.jpg


----------



## Sam (Apr 16, 2008)

Did you all never hear the saying: don't judge a book by its cover? Jesus!

Sam.


----------



## buyjupiter03 (Apr 18, 2008)

*Less is more, perhaps?*



Stewart said:


> Of those two covers I would not go near the first one. The second one might, at the very least, encourage me to pick it up and have a look to see what it's about.
> 
> The first suggests throwaway space opera and the second implies a bit of class and staying power.


 
But, but, but...half the fun of a good space opera is seeing how someone visualizes a cover!

In keeping with the original subject of the thread, has anyone seen the new Kevin J. Anderson covers for Saga of the Seven Suns? Is the whole "less is more" concept still in for art? Gah, bland and boring, and I most definitely would not have picked 'em up if the new covers were what was on 'em.


----------



## Damian_Rucci (May 21, 2008)

Hodge said:


> What the fuck? Why would they remove the cover art for Km Stanley's _Mars_ series? That's great cover art!


I 100 percent agree with you, the stupidity of some people.


----------



## starseed (May 21, 2008)

I don't like when they use the people from the movie as cover art for the book either.


The cover art change from the OP is very strange indeed. The first one looks like an awesome scifi story the second looks like it should be some romantic period piece or something.


----------



## bryndavis (May 31, 2008)

I love the simple covers, especially for my bookshelf.  Nice covers are.. nice but eventually they don't mean that much and it all looks a jumble anyway.

That's why I like these "Classics" series, like the Penguin one where each book is two pounds.  They look good together on my shelf and they're cheap.  Yay!


----------



## quarterscot (Jun 1, 2008)

PageOfCups said:


> You don't get a choice about cover art when you don't self publish. The publishing house choses it.


 
Not true when you do it via the Lulu website. (Which is basically self-publishing for misers). You can design your own covers if you want. Which is great fun and pretty much the only benefit I've had from Lulu


----------



## PageOfCups (Jun 2, 2008)

I meant for books that weren't self published. If Orbit or Voyager were your publisher, you would have no say in the cover art.


----------



## kerr511 (Jun 26, 2008)

I must admit I really do like simple covers. That said I also love some good cover art. The problem is that so much cover art is ugly and makes many sci-fi and fantasy novels look stupid, childish and shallow. I think this would alienate many potential readers who would enjoy the book if they read it but never will because of the absurd cover art.
I also HATE movie tie-in covers, have never bought one, will never buy one.


----------



## PageOfCups (Jun 26, 2008)

Couldn't agree more. The movie covers for His Dark Materials were aweful and considering the forceful rape of the book that the movie was, I'd say near blasphemous as well.


----------



## GoodmanBrown (Jul 16, 2008)

strangedaze said:


> the worst is when the book is made into a film and they use a still or something for the cover. ie: Fight Club, Million Dollar Baby, The Shipping News, etc.



Wow. You're right. I am Legend comes to mind. Someone needs to dispose of Will Smith.


----------



## JHB (Jul 16, 2008)

GoodmanBrown said:


> Wow. You're right. I am Legend comes to mind. Someone needs to dispose of Will Smith.




If you just wait another 30 years or so he'll most likely wither away on his own. Problem solved! :thumbr:


----------



## PageOfCups (Aug 7, 2008)

JHB said:


> If you just wait another 30 years or so he'll most likely wither away on his own. Problem solved! :thumbr:


 
I really don't understand why they put Will SMith on the cover of a book where the main character can be summed up as aryan in his appearance. Fair enough Will Smith played him in the film but it just seems like a complete mismatch of the cover and book to me.


----------



## mandax (Aug 8, 2008)

I like simple covers.  For some reason I absolutely despise when actual photographs and such are used on covers.  I like to imagine everything myself, and when real-life images are used to set the scene, a lot of the story is already given away and half of the fun is sucked out of reading it.  The cover can be basic and classic -- let the story do the illustrating.


----------

