Dating an artist has its ups and downs. Sometimes she’ll drag you to a Leonardo Da Vinci exhibit, which is great. Other times she’ll make you watch the Next Great Artist reality programme. But I actually got sucked into that big time because they asked the artists to design a book cover.
And I was left very confused.
I’ll say it plain: I don’t like John Parot’s cover for The Time Machine. I can’t see that it’s got anything to do with the book. It’s a colour pattern. Yet it won where others, more relevant and less colourful efforts were left by the wayside. The reasoning seemed to be that you could see the cover across the book shop.
Is that the only criteria for a good book cover these days?
Consider this sampling of covers.
These are some of my favourite covers. None of them leap screaming off the shelf in a multi-coloured assault on the eyeball. Are they bad covers? I don’t think so. I think they’re arresting images, beautiful even, that tie into the book and give you an idea of what you’ll find on the pages.
My initial reaction to Parot’s cover is that it’s a Shiny Thing tactic: it’s only meant to draw the attention. But should a book cover be more than that? Is it part and parcel of the whole reading experience? Or is just pretty packaging?
Personally I think it’s the former. But perhaps I’m just a rank amateur. What do you think? What makes a book cover a good book cover?