>don't judge a book by it's cover >but I absolutely

"Those who do not judge books by covers, are doomed to read a great many bad books"-Martin Huxtably

>>8653798
Virtually everybody does

Absolutely. When you go to the bookstore and see hundreds upon hundreds of titles, you need SOMETHING to catch your attention. A nice spine, or a recognizable name/publisher sets a book apart from the rest

File: cover.jpg.rendition.460.707.png (534KB, 459x698px) Image search: [Google]

534KB, 459x698px

I mean just look at this cover. It's a god tier art piece ffs

File: underworld.jpg (552KB, 791x1200px) Image search: [Google]

552KB, 791x1200px

I am judging this here bad boy by its cover, it's pretty awesome

File: 1454892312438.jpg (3MB, 1820x4348px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1820x4348px

This is lit

If you don't judge books by their cover you are a subhuman retard and deserve to get wiped off the face of this earth

>>8653850
>has a non-sticker sticker on it

absolutely dropped

>>8653798
>don't judge a book by it's cover
>the cover contains information such as title, author, publisher, synopsis, publication year, maybe a quote or two, an image that attempts to convey an idea of content or at least mood, et cetera.
>Ignore all this data when making a snap judgement about whether or not to pursue the book further

Pls.

File: top2016sample.jpg (2MB, 1820x4352px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1820x4352px

>>8653868
No THIS is lit?

>>8653798
I do judge a book by its cover, but the actual typography, layout, paper, how smudgy/shitty the typeface is, etc matter much much much more than the cover.

>reading books that aren't old enough to be public domain and thus have multiple "covers"
Why do you do this to yourself

>>8653798
I research what i read, I only read those huge coffee table books by their cover. Benefits of using an ereader over physical book-smell fetishists.

>it's

>>8653952
Public domain is for retards that like to read shitty translations without annotations on a computer screen

File: 1454517701064.jpg (36KB, 476x353px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 476x353px

>>8653952
You think I don't know?

>>8653963
Are you stupid? Public domain only refers to the copyright status.

>>8653963
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1004

File: 1471454100645.jpg (115KB, 1024x904px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1024x904px

>>8653905
>He's no spring chicken
>He says when talking about a person

What the fuck?

I saw a book with a cover I liked and bought it. I liked the book a lot. Then I saw a different book with the same cover.

>>8653933
At least I can confirm that /lit/ doesn't just like "deep" stuff that no one can get into. That's reassuring.

>>8653798
I think having a good cover is great, since it becomes a complete package, but so many books have multiple covers that I generally only look at sets (if a series or a Special Edition release of some kind that doesn't ruin the text) or first editions. I also own a lot of collections of loads of texts unrelated save being classics of some kind from gifts or thrift shops, so I'm not picky. My collection might evolve as I get older and have bought all the other things I want that will only ever exist in one edition, i.e. DVDs, CDs, games.
>>8653952
>Not reading literature from every country and every era

File: 71s52REUI5L._SL1368_.jpg (149KB, 831x1368px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 831x1368px

>>8653798
I absolutely love this cover

File: 987432301.png (89KB, 265x285px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 265x285px

>Read an amazing novel
>Suggest it to my mom who likes to read
>She refused to even give it a try
>Why?
>"The cover doesn't look very appealing."
>What the fuck does the cover have to do with the contents? It's not like the author drew it himself
>"It's a little hard to take a story seriously, when it depicts people like that (on the cover)."

What kind of brain damage makes a person this way?

>>8656142
but what was the fucking cover though

>>8655839
Only newfags vote in those things.

>>8656142
come on, tell us which one was it.

>>8656142
What kind of brain damage does it take to not recognise your mother is making an excuse and she has other reasons for not wanting to read the shit you are trying to foist on her.

>>8653798
This is why I won't read Jerusalem

File: 7m6UJ.jpg (80KB, 607x451px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 607x451px

>>8653798
>mfw book has a nice cover and it really makes you want to read it
>mfw you don´t judge books by it´s cover and not going to read it

>>8653933
>>8653868
all the covers with the aesthetics are preddy pleb tier

>>8653952
>"covers"
What did he mean by this?

I do try to find the best edition of a certain book, I.e font type, size

Waterstones is selling all these fancy hardbacks of classics, it doesn't appeal to me at all. A beaten up paperback with a murdered spine is more genuine to me, then again I haunt second hand book shops because I'm a poorfag.

I judge books if the title sounds pretentious.

File: Screenshot_2016-10-26-12-03-00-1.png (1MB, 1080x1554px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1080x1554px

>>8656142
Was it a wordsworth classic?

File: elextranjero.jpg (55KB, 405x720px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 405x720px

>>8656365

>>8653933
>Dubliners is STILL higher than Portrait
>Les Fleur du Mal was removed
>Murakami instead of Mishima
>or Akutagawa
>or Ryu Murakami

>>8653933
>every P&V translation

not /lit/

>>8658961
She was right, man. She was really right. That's awful beyond comprehension.

File: top1002k16.jpg (3MB, 1820x4352px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1820x4352px

>>8653933
Nah nah nah, THIS is /lit/

>>8659395
so this is what happened after the /plebbit/ invasion. /lit/ is truly dead.

>>8653834
>you need SOMETHING to catch your attention

At least in more specific sections (e.g., British History) you have less to go through and a better chance that you're going to find something you're interested in. "Fiction" is so fucking broad that when I go to used bookstores I just look for nice editions, or peek into some new authors by seeking out books by publishers I trust and whose books are pretty. Pretty much just modern library, NYRB, and everyman's.

>>8658961
I would not read that shit.

File: the supernaturalists.jpg (28KB, 318x448px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 318x448px

I picked this book up because the shiny cover ten years ago, and I'm still reading it.

>>8659531
good book, but what the hell was up with the gun-wielding paralegals? that's just retarded.

>>8659425
Only like 10 books were replaced

>>8659555
I have no idea, but damn it if didn't make it awesome when I was a teenager. Also, should probably spoil your text next time.

You remember when Mona and Ditto had to drive that car in the race? Oh my god, I would read that scene over and over. Best childhood book I ever found

>>8655726
Did you buy that one also? Did you like it? What were the two books?