Why is it, then, that so many book covers fail in both regards? Ultimately, a book cover should do two things: tell you what kind of book you’re going to be reading, and look good. No matter the when, though, the focus of book covers is always on the what and the why.īook covers are supposed to tell you what the book is about designers and publishers are supposed to approach cover design by asking why they’re making certain choices. Some covers are so timeless they haven’t changed much at all, as is the case with The Great Gatsby, while others are re-released and updated again and again and again, like most Stephen King books. It’s easy to tell from looking at a book when it was printed. The ’70s ushered in vibrant graphics, while the ’80s brought back the prominent text and made it bigger and bolder. Then, in the ’60s, the illustrations went away in favor of prominent text and minimalism. Think Catcher in the Rye or The Lord of the Rings. In the 1950s, book cover design focused on illustrations done in a vintage style. Go back far enough and you’ll find book covers that were purely functional: they protected the words inscribed within them and bound them together. The design language of books has evolved over the years just as everything else in the world has.

“Hey,” they say, “recognize me from that ad on YouTube?” It’s why, when a show or film is released, publishers release tie-in versions of book covers. Publishers hire artists to represent the ideas of a book at a glance - a picture, after all, is worth a thousand words - and shoppers rely on that initial impression to draw their attention and pique interest. Traditionally, book covers have been the predominant form of marketing a book. Most of them, I’m afraid, have terrible covers. I spend 35 hours a week working in a used bookstore.

There there book cover