You Might Also Like

6 Comments

  • Reply Andrew April 15, 2010 at 9:38 pm

    They realized there aren’t any “pretty, lacey” portraits from the 1400’s and just said, “Oh, to hell with it!”

  • Reply Maggie April 15, 2010 at 10:38 pm

    I’m so with you on this! It irritates me too. I started reading one book thinking it was set in a completely different time than it actually was because of it! I guess I really shouldn’t take cover art so literally!

  • Reply Hana Marmota April 16, 2010 at 12:56 pm

    Phew, sure you should take cover art literally, what else is it for than telling you what the book is like?
    Not that all cover arts succeed at that. But they should.

  • Reply Trixi April 16, 2010 at 7:05 pm

    Isn’t that called false advertising? The cover representing what should or could be inside..

  • Reply Sarah G April 16, 2010 at 8:55 pm

    I thought I was the only one this bothers! I am also particularly annoyed by a book called “The Commoner,” which is about the mother of the Emperor of Japan, but has picture of a geisha on the cover.

  • Reply Ava April 17, 2010 at 3:40 am

    That drives me crazy! I’m taking a 19th century literature course this semester, which involves a bunch of Broadview editions of texts, all of which have photographs on their covers – completely irrelevant photographs from completely the wrong times and places, for no apparent reason. The theming for the photographs doesn’t even make sense! Observe: http://www.amazon.com/Mansfield-Park-Broadview-Literary-Texts/dp/1551110989/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271475620&sr=8-1

    What?!

  • Leave a Reply to Sarah G Cancel Reply