I do find it striking just quite how similar a lot of those fantasy covers are to all the myriad Mills & Boon books I sort through each day at the shop. That in itself has rather put me off reading a lot of them. It rather gives the impression they are less about the story and rather more to some mythical romantic ideal and whilst of course it may be all silly fantasy stuffs, some nod towards content rather than style might be appreciated, especially since they all end up looking the same and so rather continue to uphold fantasy's bad name as not being a proper serious genre.
I was always rather puzzled by the 'grown up' covers for Pratchett though. Josh Kirby's art always seemed quite grown up enough for me. The 'Adult Editions' as I find them amusingly entitled on Amazon, of Harry Potter are really just a bit weird. Both are really in no way representative of the books which they, umm, enjacket! (To invent a fun new word!) I'm not sure how insulting it might be but it's certainly a weird logic. People are embarassed to be seen reading a book with a 'childish' cover? Doubtless these people would be among the first to claim that adults can enjoy them too if they were caught out on the matter. So doesn't hiding from the fact rather undermine that more noble sentiment?
I assume most revamps of covers are largely to do with marketing more than anything else but in the end I don't suppose I mind too much. The obsessive perfectionist in me does rather like to have a series of books on the shelves all in the same cover style. It is nice to have pretty books but its far from the biggest factor for me. I've certainly never chosen a tome purely because of the cover art but I can't say I'm probably not more naturally inclined to a book that looks interestingly artistic if not dark and gothy to one that does not. I suppose it starts to matter a bit more now that kindles and such are taking off, the paper book needs that extra aesthetic quality to keep hold of its value as an object alongside its downloadable cousin perhaps.
Re: I love my bear.
I was always rather puzzled by the 'grown up' covers for Pratchett though. Josh Kirby's art always seemed quite grown up enough for me. The 'Adult Editions' as I find them amusingly entitled on Amazon, of Harry Potter are really just a bit weird. Both are really in no way representative of the books which they, umm, enjacket! (To invent a fun new word!) I'm not sure how insulting it might be but it's certainly a weird logic. People are embarassed to be seen reading a book with a 'childish' cover? Doubtless these people would be among the first to claim that adults can enjoy them too if they were caught out on the matter. So doesn't hiding from the fact rather undermine that more noble sentiment?
I assume most revamps of covers are largely to do with marketing more than anything else but in the end I don't suppose I mind too much. The obsessive perfectionist in me does rather like to have a series of books on the shelves all in the same cover style. It is nice to have pretty books but its far from the biggest factor for me. I've certainly never chosen a tome purely because of the cover art but I can't say I'm probably not more naturally inclined to a book that looks interestingly artistic if not dark and gothy to one that does not. I suppose it starts to matter a bit more now that kindles and such are taking off, the paper book needs that extra aesthetic quality to keep hold of its value as an object alongside its downloadable cousin perhaps.