An easy (and completely superficial) one today*:
What is the deal with the covers of these books? How do you feel about them? Do you like them, or do you feel they could be bettered? If you feel they could be bettered, how?
On a related note, how important are covers to you generally?
*I neglected to mention earlier that you should feel free to comment on any of the Menage posts at any time; it's not like the comments section for Monday's post is closed or anything. So feel free to go back and comment on any previous posts!
You may be able to tell from the phrasing of the question, but I'm not wild about either of these covers. Although, the cover for DL does get across something of its vaguely sci-fi-ish nature, as well as what someone else has described as its "50s" feel. But, for whatever reason, it's not a cover that calls out to me.
Ditto with TBM. I love the book in spite of its cover, although the cover does serviceably illustrate what's going on in his first essay.
I honestly can't say how I would better either cover. I'm just not crazy about them the way they are. So picky!
Posted by: Citizen Reader | 01 April 2009 at 09:15 AM
The cover for TBM gave me the heebie jeebies! I think it was pretty effective for the concept of "The Braindead Megaphone" but I somewhat wish they'd chosen to do something with stacks of TVs instead. This was the sort of cover that made me want to cover it with another book.
The cover for "Dangerous Laughter" was really close to a scene from the story of the same name, except that Millhauser spells out that the girl's gums were visible. I stopped and stared at the picture for a while. For some reason it got to me. What, you don't want to paint gums?
Posted by: Jessica | 01 April 2009 at 02:08 PM
I liked the vaguely sci-fi-ish nature of the DL cover. I am a huge fan of scifi art, so this one grabbed me. I can take or leave the Braindead one. I think it fits the essay to which it alludes, but it doesn't thrill.
As for covers in general, I find them to be important for choosing a book, and even of some importance for enjoyment. The cover and the back cover are the first impression and I am more likely to pick up a book with an interesting and/or attractive cover. I also find trade paperbacks to be attractive objects themselves in terms of weight, feel and look. It is less important than the content, of course, but it makes it fun to actually handle the book.
Posted by: Tripp | 01 April 2009 at 02:42 PM
Hm, a stack of TVs. That wouldn't have been bad (cover art for TBM). Although, maybe the designers meant to give us the heebie jeebies; it is a rather disconcerting, jarring image montage.
Yes, I think the cover for DL does actually represent its title story quite well. For some reason, before I got the book, I must just have been expecting something different. When I got it, I didn't really know anything about the book except its author, but upon looking at it my only thought was, "I didn't expect that." Perhaps because I was thinking of it as "literary" and it doesn't really strike me as a "literary" cover?
Posted by: Citizen Reader | 01 April 2009 at 02:45 PM
BTW, Jessica, I am TOTALLY impressed that you were trying to match up the story (and the girl's gums) with the picture. I clearly did not read the Milhauser carefully enough.
Posted by: Citizen Reader | 01 April 2009 at 02:45 PM
Tripp,
Yes, I can see where, if you were an SF fan, the cover of DL would be intriguing. Looking at it, and without knowing anything about the author, would you have guessed, though, that this was a New York Times Notable book? I'm not saying anything about what all that means; I'm just wondering about expectations, covers, and NYT Notable books.
I couldn't agree more about the importance of covers. I am ALL about the covers. (I regularly make book lists for myself of books with related covers--like the big trend lately in historical fiction and nonfiction to show womens' bodies from the neck down--think "Shakespeare's Wife" by Germaine Greer, etc. Yes, I'm a total nerd.) I'm also a big believer in good jacket copy and blurbs from other authors.
The feel of the book is also of tantamount importance. Cover, pages, etc. This is why I don't think I'll ever really become an ebook reader, although someday I may not have much of a choice. I find trade paperbacks attractive to touch and hold too, but if I buy a book, I tend to make it in hardcover so it holds up to Wisconsin humidity a bit better. I was annoyed, frankly, that TBM was only available in PB.
Posted by: Citizen Reader | 01 April 2009 at 02:50 PM
True, the cover of DL is a bit off given the subject matter. It is saved by the NYT notable book tag (which was on my edition). I also had any idea in my head about Millhauser (lit. fiction)going into it, which made the cover all the more interesting. I suppose without an idea it could be offputting, as lit fiction readers often look at sci-fi like it comes with a side of anthrax.
Posted by: Tripp | 01 April 2009 at 07:12 PM
I am not one to pick a book by the cover but neither of these would intrigue me.
Posted by: Care | 02 April 2009 at 11:55 AM
Too much red and orange in these covers. I like green and blue books. Luckily, Saunders book has an interlibrary loan band around it, so I do not have to look at the confusing image on the front.
Posted by: Rick Roche | 02 April 2009 at 10:37 PM
Care,
I'm totally one to pick a book by the cover, and I think you've summed it up best. I picked these up in spite of their covers.
Rick,
Yes, very red/orange. I never really thought of preferring a book cover COLOR; now I'm going to have to watch carefully over the next few weeks to see where my eyes usually gravitate! I might go wander a bookstore just to test that. Fun!
Posted by: Citizen Reader | 02 April 2009 at 11:00 PM