I don't think of it as being superficial so much as literately snobby: I don't care if a book cover is old and ugly and tattered, and I love used books because there's so much history in them (whether it's true or not - it might just be my imagination running wild and creating an entire backstory for how a used book was bought and read and cherished and fell off a bookshelf and eventually found its lonely way to a used bookstore but that is, unfortunately, the way that my imagination runs), but hell to the yes I DO care if a book looks tacky.
Examples of tacky include:
- Chick Lit: First of all, I despise this genre even if I didn't find the covers tacky, because it is generic, insipid, and quite frankly insulting to my entire gender. So I don't buy chick lit, or, whether it's chick lit or not, books that have any sassy graphics of lipsticks and high heels and diamonds on the cover. Although I am actually quite fond of sassiness, lipstick, high heels and diamonds in real life, I totally resent the fact that some publisher out there is trying to exploit my love of these fabulously girly things to trick me into buying a shit book.
I say no. Nononononononononono.
- Books with the movie adaptation poster as the cover: The books are always better than the movie, so why reference the lesser? Also, I don't know if there is anyone who actually goes out of their way to actually buy the book WITH the movie cover, but I do know that I specifically go out of my way to AVOID AT ALL COSTS buying the book with the movie cover. If it's between buying the book with the movie cover and not buying the book at all: I won't buy the book at all. So why bother publishing the book with the movie cover, other than as a cheap way to advertise the movie and drum up book sales in anticipation of the movie? (Alright, so that's why. But still! I refuse to play! I may watch the movie and I may read the book, but I reject the industry's trying to mix up the two mediums!)
I also say no. Even though Leonardo DiCaprio is very handsome as Gatsby. I say give me the not-handsome and kinda creepy eyes of the original cover.
Please tell me I'm not the only who's seeing this. I'm not, right?! Even Interview With the Vampire, the grand-daddy of vampire books, has been given a teen-vampire makeover.
But the number one factor that I REALLY judge books by: their titles. I think I've amassed enough books to classify myself a collector of Books with Awesome Titles. Though awesome book titles do not always translate into awesome books, I feel less cheated by a not-awesome book when I know that at least the author had good intentions, and at least put in a lot of effort with their title.
The top 10 best titles so far:
10. The Solitude of Prime Numbers by Paolo Giordano
(But book was meh.)
9. The Elegance of the Hedgehog by Muriel Barbery
(Also meh. Set in Paris, though, if you like books set in Paris.)
8. Special Topics in Calamity Physics by Marisha Pessl
(Loved this; totally lived up to its title expectations. Apparently was supposed to be made into a movie. If it is - BUY THE ORIGINAL COVER.)
7. Super Sad True Love Story by Gary Shteyngart
(Was expecting a dystopian Romeo & Juliet-type affair. Umm. Not what I got. Though it was very dystopic.)
6. The Particular Sadness of Lemon Cake by Aimee Bender
(I remember I bought this book because it had an interesting title, but also because I was hungry and wandered into Kinokuniya during a lunch break in fasting month. The plot has an interesting concept - about a little girl who suddenly develops the ability to taste feelings in food; as in taste what the baker/cook was feeling when they baked/cooked it - but then the author veered into magic realism territory, and failed terribly at it. Terribly.)
5. The History of Love by Nicole Krauss
(One of my favourites; already reviewed here.)
4. The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul by Douglas Adams
(It's Douglas Adams! Of course I loved this. I could probably read his grocery lists and howl with laughter (albeit like a lunatic).)
3. How to Live Safely in a Science Fictional Universe by Charles Yu
(Alas, didn't like the book - it was too metaphysical and new age-y.)
2. An Arsonist's Guide to Writers' Homes in New England by Brock Clarke
(Mehhhh.)
1. The Library of Unrequited Love by Sophie Divry
(A trippy soliloquy of a very lonely librarian, who is ultimately not terribly interesting. But a library! Of unrequited love! Does that not sound like the most magical thing ever?!)
Honourable mentions: The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky; The Woman Who Went to Bed for a Year by Sue Townsend; The Notable Brain of Maximilian Ponder by J.W. Ironmonger; The Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. Le Guin; The Sweetness at the Bottom of the Pie by Alan Bradley; The Inheritance of Loss by Kiran Desai
Looking at the track record above, judging books based on their book titles actually seems like a wildly inaccurately hit-and-miss way of gauging whether a book is worth reading. If it is any consolation (to myself, I mean; I can’t imagine that anyone else is feeling a little put-out or surprised that superficiality/literate snobbishness doesn’t pay in the end) at least I have a library full of interesting titles and no S&M porn.








