Great Book Covers part one

This is a post inspired by the journalist Neil Boorman. Neil Boorman, I should make clear at this point, is an almighty tool. Neil Boorman spent his teenage years and much of his adult life wearing nothing but expensive designer clothing and worrying about what labels he had on his shirts, jeans, trainers, etc.

Then, a couple of years ago, he enjoyed a road to demascus style conversion where he suddenly decided that, hey, guess what? Designer labels aren't all that great after all. So he decided to do without them entirely. Not only would he refuse to buy them in future but he decided to get rid of the ones he already owned. By burning them. Bear in mind, these were still perfectly good items of clothing and if he didn't want them it might've been prudent to try givng them to a charity shop but I suppose burning your own possessions is more likely to result in a book deal.

And what a book it was, full of information like, non brand t-shirts can be just as hard wearing as ones with Adidas sewn on the breast pocket. Truly, the man is a prophet. When it came time to publish the latest paperback edition of this manifesto, very much a little red book of our times, some bright spark at the publishers had an idea. To further strengthen Boorman's anti-brand, anti-corporate stance(which, after all is very in right now) the book would be released with a black cover that bore no title, no author but simply the legend: "No Glossy Front Cover". Brilliant! Except for three salient points.

Firstly, the cover of Boorman's book was actually serving the exact same purpose as a glossy front cover. It hooks people in, it grabs their attention. It probably helped shift a lot of copies of the book to naive sixth formers who genuinely believe Boorman to be this generation's Bill Hicks, or something. Secondly, if Boorman/his publishers genuinely believe that glossy front covers are a bad thing, if they genuinely thought it was time to take a stand, perhaps they should've taken this stance when they first published the hardback edition, rather than releasing that in an attractively glossy front cover.

Thirdly, and most importantly, there is nothing wrong with a glossy front cover on a book. All books have front covers. They convey information. They help you decide if a book is for you. This is not the same thing as branded clothing in any way. For a start, you are not paying over the odds for a front cover. For example, almost all paperback novels cost somewhere in the region of £7.99. So the ones with good front covers cost you no more than the ones with shit covers. I sincerely doubt that Boorman's No Glossy Front Cover approach is going to save anyone any money whatsoever. Taking a morale stance against attractive book covers is pretty embecilic.

Not least because a good front cover can actually improve a book. No, it won't make the story inside any more readable but it can improve the book as an object. It can make the book something to cherish and look after. Make it feel less disposable. The first example I am going to post of this is London Fields by Martin Amis. Almost all of his books are available in a attractive paperback editions on the Vintage imprint but London Fields is a particular favourite of mine. Partly because of the colour, but also because it is one of his longer, thicker novels and the bold, simple design, some blocks of white on a slab of black on two rectangles of red, seem to suit the chunkiness of the book itself.