Wasn’t sure what to post today for Muriel Spark reading week until I saw Simon’s post about Spark book covers. It made me go to my shelves and pull down all the Sparks I own to take a look at their covers. Out of the thirteen I own (which aren’t actually the same as the thirteen that I have read) most of them have really bad covers. In some instances there are covers that I don’t particularly like, but they at least capture something about the book or author that makes them seem just right.
I decided to do a side-by-side comparison. (After you are done looking at these, you really should go over to Simon’s blog where he has some much more interesting ones. I particularly like the old Penguin covers from the 1960s.)
|I think both are bad design. I like the image better in mine on the right, but the photo is a bit misleading.|
|I really like Simon’s cover on the left, but I think it is more appropriate for something by PG Wodehouse.|
|I think the one on the left from Simon’s blog wins hands down. Not only is it a million times better
than my lame cop, but it is interesting and evocative in its own right.
|I don’t like the one on the left in general because I tend not to like this kind of photo illustration. Plus this one
makes the book look like chick-lit. The one on the right captures the subversive
quality of Spark like a Blathus painting.
|While this book is pretty amusing, I think it has bite as the cover on the right says.
The one on the left is just too frivolous.
|These are both boring as toast. (Although I love toast, and love books and movies
that have English people buttering toast.)
|I really don’t like my copy on the right in person, but I kind of like it better on the screen. But overall
I would say that Simon’s version is more Sparkian. Although I haven’t read this particular title.