I was going through adding my latest free Kindle books to Goodreads, and apparently one of them is a re-release of an old romance series. The first edition cover showed up as the default, and my first thought was "Why on earth did I even download that?!" I didn't recognize it until the page loaded and I went to find the Kindle edition.
Cover comparison...
1985:
2010:
I can't believe how much more willing I am to read the book with the new cover compared to the old one. I wonder if someday they'll do away with the stereotypical dime-store romance cover altogether.
Except that there are probably plenty of people who would rather pick up the original cover, because they know what they're getting and are afraid the new version might be a piece of heavy literature.
Now I'm curious to read it to see what it really is! A bad romance dressed as something better? Or a decent book that got stuck under a stupid cover for 25 years?
Post by writingwithheld on Aug 3, 2012 9:34:42 GMT -5
Interesting. FI told me that he heard many "experts" believe that 50SoG is doing really well because the cover is not as provocative. I guess originally people weren't as embarrassed to buy it and be seen with it. Of course, now everyone knows what it is and people are still buying. Then again now it is seen as kind of mainstream even though the content would normally not be considered to be.
I'd definitely be more inclined to read the second version. The first is just so corny!
I read an article that a few classics will have their covers redesigned. I think a lot of people judge their book by the cover. I wouldn't read the book with the first cover just because it looks old fashioned and I automatically assume the content would be too.
Post by taylormillgirl on Aug 13, 2012 10:53:15 GMT -5
I have a small rant, though. It's not enough to redesign the cover when an author or publisher reprints an old release. It needs another editing pass, too!!! Right now I'm reading a romance written by a NYT bestseller, (originally published in '93), and I'm finding so many style issues and little mistakes. I wish the publisher had taken the time to polish it up before charging $7.99 for a 20-year-old title.
This reminds me of the re-branding of Jane Austen et. al. after Twilight:
Though I love many of these books, I can only imagine how disappointed some tweens were after buying these expecting them to be just like Twilight.
Wow. That red-rose one almost makes me want to read Wuthering Heights again, and I kinda hated it the first time around. I was pretty young and I'd probably like it better now, anyway.
I am kind of torn between the two covers. On one hand, I LOVE older romance novels so I would pick it up anyways. But for a person who is not into older ones would more than likey pick up the newer verision. People really do honestly judge books by their covers. So they have to appeal to a "modern" reader.