ITT: your favorite books covers
pretty clever
>>7685691
oh I like that.
>>7686034
Love this one, a great book too
>>7685691
this is a pretty godawful cover desu senpai.
The only slightly clever thing about it are the black sections covering the title and the author. The rest is pretty terrible and doesn't reflect the book in any way.
Bright orange and white cover withe the publisher's title and logo in large is just really really bad.
>>7686034
dis purdy, george
This
Latvian translation of Master and Margarita
The quote ruins it a bit.
Under the dust jacket is the brightest green imaginable.
>>7685691
>plays with censorship with the black bars
>has 'complete unabridged' in large below
Didn't think the cover though/10
>>7686308
>mihails Bulgakovs
>>7686353
posting more Latvian covers
Ulysses
>>7686380
War and Peace
>>7686385
>>7686380
Kekkek
>>7686407
Ew, what, faggot? That's a pretty little girl; exactly what should be on the cover of a Lolita edition.
>>7686401
>>7686418
It's dreadfully on-the-nose, nig-nog.
It's alright if you need shit spelling out for you and you struggle to comprehend your ABCs, but most people on here are more functional than that.
>>7686435
i don;t know they look alright, certainly better than the penguin versions
>>7686441
It's about aesthetic, which is the only concern I have when choosing between different book covers. This one is incredibly aesthetic, the girl is attractive and beautiful, other covers I have seen don't even come close. Don't pretend like you wouldn't choose a different book on the basis of how good the cover looks. There are many editions of Lolita, each attracting a different audience. This cover, as it happens, is the one which attracts the pedophile.
>>7685655
This stuff is gold. If I wasn't on my laptop right now, I would've posted the rest of the lot..
>>7685653
>>7686343
this
>>7687182
This is good
>>7685653
>no puncture wounds on Moby's flukes
Into the trash it goes.
>>7686353
What is this, a spurdo for ants?
>>7686451
>this one is aesthetic
Subhuman ignoramus detected
>>7685691
there are abridged versions of 1984?
why is there a thread about covers everyday?
why people cares about covers? the girl (or homosexual) that make the cover of the book didn't read the book, doesn't care and just has some indication of the editor to work.
the worst thing is that there are artist's books, and those covers are the important, but I never see one of them here...
>>7687395
Jurgis isn't the latvian/lithuanian for Joseph, Jāzeps is
![411pakPjvdL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/gHp7DIk.jpg "411pakPjvdL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_[1].jpg")
I think all the covers by this publisher look really great, very simple but they still look fantastic, and the fact that they're all aesthetically similar is always a plus.
>>7687643
Because I enjoy things that look nice. Books have designed covers for a reason.
>>7685653
I'd love this cover, if it didn't fucking disappear after use.
>>7688042
love the colour of the water in this one
>>7689659
Portrait of as a the artist young James man Joyce?
really solid for my taste
>>7689659
these covers can only be described as atrocities and i'm fairly sure they were only posted as bait
>>7686308
this is better than that famous one
>>7686451
>Don't pretend like you wouldn't choose a different book
that's right; I would most definitely choose a different book
>>7688042
this cover is beautiful
what publisher is this?
>>7689860
Amazon says it's Scribner.
But yeah, these Hemingway covers are great.
>>7687571
The girl's face is aesthetically appealing. Lolita deserves a cover of this sort; the little girl is pretty, it's a good cover for this book. I have yet to see a cover of Lolita that surpasses that one apart from maybe the cover with the photograph of the girl reading the book. On an slightly unrelated note, I think this Balthus painting would make for a great Lolita cover.
>>7686486
This is a slow board, you could have just not made this comment and just posted them when you got home tonight or whatever.
>>7689659
>reddit in charge of designing James Joyce covers
>>7689677
Anon's mother here, anon is in hospital with a broken neck from trying to read your image. Please think before posting.
>>7689922
If you have a little girl on the cover, you've already fucked up.
the funny thing is that this is the only book I bought soleley for it's cover... I was 15 at the time, it really impact me back then... Such an amazing novel and such an amazing cover...
Too bad I can't seem to find any bigger images. I already contacted the editorial here in my country asking for a larger version, a poster maybe, willing to pay for it, but got no response. Shame. And it's only the national cover, unfortunately.
>>7689969
>I bought soleley for it's cover
nigga do you even "never by a book by its cover"? Are you dumb?
WHat are some interesting book covers that where actually on the first edition?
>>7689986
as I said it was a funny story. My sister had just bought twilight, which in my country is published by intrínseca. Along with the book there was a little catalog of the publisher's titles. And there was that book... The synopsis didn't really appeal to me at first, but the cover... I can't explain it properly, but I found it extremely scary. Dreadful, I got frightened by a fucking book cover. It was midday and I was home alone, still I got so fucking scared of that cover... It crawled up my nerves. I thought to myself, I have to buy this book. So I asked my mom to buy it for me. She didn't like the story, about a school shooter, as she always said to live in fear of me doing some sort of columbine-like rampage. So I stole 37 bucks from her wallet and bought it myself. I was prepared to hate the book and pay the price of vanity, but in the end I loved it. Evil children is an amazing subject, how not to love it.
Forgot about this Gogol.
Spanish edition of "Mason & Dixon". It fits Pinecone's story and style in a weird but accurate manner.
>>7689819
Many NYRB have great covers.
>>7686120
If you have anime pictures saved on your computer you don't get to have opinions.
Go back to whatever hole you crawled out of you miserable waste of life.
Awesome cover, awesome book.
>>7691058
awful cover
>>7691062
Why?
>>7685653
my pick
>>7691009
this is like fucking Wordsworth covers
>>7689917
Yeah, I like this one. I have it too.
>>7691009
This is actually crap.
>>7689860
No way, too light, nothing Cuban
>>7689922
while i do agree some of Balthus's work could be used, i disagree with this piece as it is one of the least sexualized images of girls he created and is one that gives a sense of extreme maturity which is contrary to what the MC was craving
>>7687182
fairly obscene
I like this one
>>7692455
"Extreme maturity" is an overstatement. I think there is a mixture of youth and maturity. Dolores is presented as fairly precocious, which I think the painting displays. As for the least sexualized, I'm not sure I agree with you there.
>>7691479
There's something movie poster about this cover.
Comfy as hell, if not a bit childish.
>>7687577
to get rid of all the lewd sexy bits
>>7692468
i love impressionism so so do i, min vän
>>7686378
this is actually better
>>7688042
Got my copy at the Hemingway house in Key West, FL. Comes with commemorative sticker.
>>7690252
That's fresh.
>>7685655
>>7692937
I think that this is cool
>>7692937
gd no, so fucking cheesy
the book is not so great, but the cover gives me the chills...
>>7687182
OH I GET IT A VAGINA
>>7689819
I'm reading this right now, actually. I have no idea what's going on.
>>7692937
This looks like the cover of an 80s porn VHS
>>7693004
>>7687182
>>7686378
>>7692937
>>7685653
>>7692769
I know, that's why I love it.
>>7691450
He he, gaylord.
>>7691479
I've been admiring this copy for ages. The way the light reflects off the silvery curves is elegant; the colours and drawing style are nicely gloomy.
The inner half-sleeve has a few quoted passages with more drawn scenes. Really nice.
Alas, I already own a copy. Maybe once she's left I can be joined with this one.
>>7687182
pretty nice cover
>>7693509
>20 something year old posing as a 12 year old girl.
Pathetic imo
>>7694646
MODS
>>7686120
Penguin publishes a lot of its classic under the plain 'orange classics' design, for only ten dollars a piece. They were just trying to be cheeky cunts with this one cover.
I like this one.
>>7696212
image didn't post
>>7686378
Is it hardcover?
Please tell me its hardcover. I'm dying for a decent Lolita edition
>>7688042
Good way to make Hemingway look boring.
>>7696222
How retarded could he be to choose that as the cover for the greatest album of all time.
Thankfully there's dozens of much better fan album art out there.
>>7689969
Oh, anon, I love this one too.
Intrínseca usually have really nice one, I wish they'd do hardcovers.
>>7696221
Love this one.
Also, pic related. Has a nice matte finish.
>>7691053
says the guy on 4chan
yep, go on, anon
I really like this one, it looks great on my shelf
>>7693004
the idea of this one is cool, but I hate that font.
and maybe using offwhite would be a better choice
>>7693054
why the fuck are these nabokov editions so expensive? they're £12 and it's not like they're limited edition because you see them everywhere and they don't have an introduction/explanatory notes or anything of the sort. it's infuriating because the covers look so nice
Out of print, of course.
I have bad taste.
>>7685653
>penguin classics
hell ye
>>7692468
I'd like to know the name of that painting
>>7696889
or at the very least the painter
>>7691062
Awful book too
>>7696889
>>7696911
It's a (flipped) detail from Eglise et ferme d'Eragny by Pissarro. I didn't know that, I just figured it out by doing a reverse image search of the image with the title cut off.
>>7696942
thanks, tried reverse but didn't try your method
Pissarro is a great painter
>>7696952
Yeah, if you leave the title on it only returns the book's cover on loads of useless Swedish sites that don't tell you the name of the illustrator even in translation. The original publisher has a new edition with a different cover so they have no information on that one.
>>7696857
I got dracula and frankenstein from the penguin classics series.
Also these
>>7697115
Jesus christ those are gaudy.
>>7697118
A bit less so in reality than they look in that picture.
Got great illustrations and design on the inside though, so I like them as collected works.
>>7697118
Some of them arent the worse. The Iliad, Odyssey, Arabian Nights, and Huckleberry Finn all look ok.
>>7694734
It's Hamiltons photography, you soft sod.
>>7686335
Can you take pic without dust jacket?
>>7697115
Got Poe's complete works and American Gods. Beautiful editions. Ordered Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and the Stoker and Hemingway books a week ago.
>>7697205
Already got Poe's works from that barnes and noble collection. I'll check out AG though.
Was thinking of getting the pratchett books from Folio.
http://www.foliosociety.com/book/HGG/hitchhikers-guide-to-the-galaxy
>>7697118
Come on man. Gaudy has been the exact word used since early september for these editions.
Try with some eloquence instead of regurgitation.
I actually quite like their edition of The Count of Monte Cristo. Though I'll concede that a lot of them are kitsch, tawdry, gaudy if you insist, etc.
>>7697237
Garish is a good word as well.
For a board that ought to pride itself on eloquence and independent thought, there's just as much mindless meme repetition here as any other board.
>>7697238
>muh elite club
Never been to reddit in my life, friendster.
I like these >>7697235
>>7697241
It used to be an elite club until the imgur toxic event.
>>7697238
I also read sandman.
How much does this trigger you?
>>7697254
'no'
I've been a 4chan user since 2006 I'm sorry to say and it has never been the good kind of exclusive.
That is to say 'selective'.
>>7697191
>GREEEN
>>7697347
>Toxic waste green.
>>7697411
That's lime.
>>7697433
It's actually Goblin Green, it's just the lighting that makes it look lime.
>>7697237
Perhaps everyone independently arrives at the same word because it's the one that most accurately describes those covers?
>>7697237
it wouldn't even be so bad if the quality wasn't total shit, i mean the look good when u see a pic of them on ebay or sth, but like once u see one irl they're just total shit...but even then the covers remind me of some awful book club collection of shit ur granny ordered off an infomercial in 1975...bad all around
>>7697546
The books are fine. It's your taste that's shit. Much like your grammar.
Also Tage Törnings takes on the covers for The Idiot I & II.
>>7697439
Nope it's lighter then Goblin green, definitely lime territory. I will get a shot with a Pantone color card for you.
The first story is about working as a mortician and hate fucking Bukowski's corpse's asshole, it always reminded me of /lit/
>>7696248
>tomando suquinhos com soja
Quer ficar com tetinha, anão?
