Don't judge a book by its cover
October 6th 2006 11:17
“Don’t judge a book by its cover”
"Don't judge things by their appearance only. Originated in the United States. First attested in the journal 'American Speech' (1929). Has been used in Britain since 1954 (Murder in Haste' by H. Gardiner. Found in varying forms..." "Random House Dictionary of Popular Proverbs and Sayings" (1996) by Gregory Y. Titelman (Random House, New York, 1996).
I’ve been called “superficial” and “judgemental” several times in my life. But am I really so bad? Or just looking after my own interests? There seems to be a line of thought that those who are influenced by pretty appearances are of a lesser moral character than those who don’t. My argument is that we are all influenced by appearances, to varying degrees, and that there is no moral advantage in ignoring them anyway. Yes, it might be, on occasion, more rewarding to invest in something or someone to try to get a deeper perspective. But at worst, this is a crime that only affects oneself, and therefore shouldn’t concern anyone else.
I remember reading an article a while ago about the current state of the music business, how there is an abundance of young Australian bands trying to “make it”. Triple J, in fact, receives so many demos that the music producer is only able to give each one a 30 second listen. If this were the case a couple of centuries ago, we may never have had Beethoven; it’s just not the type of music that rewards a mere single listen. In our highly commercialised society where everything is ultimately evaluated by the amount of financial revenue it brings in, superficiality is rewarded, even it is somewhat lacking in meaning, because it offers an instant hit of pleasure, rather than something more profound which takes a bit of investment before it can be appreciated. Like they say, “a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.”
What I’m getting at is that in our state of crowded anonymity, we are being forced to judge books by their covers, or more accurately, people who do so are more rewarded. The world just will not wait for someone who wants to take a bit longer to get to know a partner, to see past their initial prejudices. There’s simply no time, there are too many people. If there are, say, 50 people at a party, I don’t have time to deeply engage with every one of them. I probably have time to talk to about 10 at the most, and the ones that I happen to interact with will most probably be the ones who have the best “covers”, in reality, probably the people who are most similar to me in terms of age, dress, and even nationality.
Looking at the original quote itself, it would seem to me that a book exists solely in what is written in its pages; that’s all that the author is responsible for, and it’s the publisher who decides what to decorate it with on the cover. Quite frankly, I don’t give a damn what cover they choose to whack on the front of On the Road by Jack Keroauc; it will still be my favourite book of all time. Some covers will be more in line with how I perceive the book than others, but nevertheless, it is not a bonafide part of the book, and therefore should not be judged as part of the package either.
So why do publishers publish the same book with different covers? Why do they employ graphic design graduates to create covers that appeal to the eye? The answer is simple: because the book will sell more copies with a pretty cover. It’s easy to infer from this, then, that people DO judge books by their covers. A lot. Is this a bad thing? Well, if so, it’s a victimless crime. One might say, however, that they might be missing out by simply picking out the book with the best cover. They might be missing out on the masterpiece that has sandpaper as it cover. Is this true though? Who says that the set of books with bland covers has a higher overall quality of books than the set of books with great covers? The good cover is irrelevant, and I don’t blame the buyer for not wanting to read every single book in the joint before making a decision as to what to purchase. Hell, I don’t.
Origin, according to
http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/6/messages/1061.html:"Don't judge things by their appearance only. Originated in the United States. First attested in the journal 'American Speech' (1929). Has been used in Britain since 1954 (Murder in Haste' by H. Gardiner. Found in varying forms..." "Random House Dictionary of Popular Proverbs and Sayings" (1996) by Gregory Y. Titelman (Random House, New York, 1996).
I’ve been called “superficial” and “judgemental” several times in my life. But am I really so bad? Or just looking after my own interests? There seems to be a line of thought that those who are influenced by pretty appearances are of a lesser moral character than those who don’t. My argument is that we are all influenced by appearances, to varying degrees, and that there is no moral advantage in ignoring them anyway. Yes, it might be, on occasion, more rewarding to invest in something or someone to try to get a deeper perspective. But at worst, this is a crime that only affects oneself, and therefore shouldn’t concern anyone else.
I remember reading an article a while ago about the current state of the music business, how there is an abundance of young Australian bands trying to “make it”. Triple J, in fact, receives so many demos that the music producer is only able to give each one a 30 second listen. If this were the case a couple of centuries ago, we may never have had Beethoven; it’s just not the type of music that rewards a mere single listen. In our highly commercialised society where everything is ultimately evaluated by the amount of financial revenue it brings in, superficiality is rewarded, even it is somewhat lacking in meaning, because it offers an instant hit of pleasure, rather than something more profound which takes a bit of investment before it can be appreciated. Like they say, “a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.”
What I’m getting at is that in our state of crowded anonymity, we are being forced to judge books by their covers, or more accurately, people who do so are more rewarded. The world just will not wait for someone who wants to take a bit longer to get to know a partner, to see past their initial prejudices. There’s simply no time, there are too many people. If there are, say, 50 people at a party, I don’t have time to deeply engage with every one of them. I probably have time to talk to about 10 at the most, and the ones that I happen to interact with will most probably be the ones who have the best “covers”, in reality, probably the people who are most similar to me in terms of age, dress, and even nationality.
Looking at the original quote itself, it would seem to me that a book exists solely in what is written in its pages; that’s all that the author is responsible for, and it’s the publisher who decides what to decorate it with on the cover. Quite frankly, I don’t give a damn what cover they choose to whack on the front of On the Road by Jack Keroauc; it will still be my favourite book of all time. Some covers will be more in line with how I perceive the book than others, but nevertheless, it is not a bonafide part of the book, and therefore should not be judged as part of the package either.
So why do publishers publish the same book with different covers? Why do they employ graphic design graduates to create covers that appeal to the eye? The answer is simple: because the book will sell more copies with a pretty cover. It’s easy to infer from this, then, that people DO judge books by their covers. A lot. Is this a bad thing? Well, if so, it’s a victimless crime. One might say, however, that they might be missing out by simply picking out the book with the best cover. They might be missing out on the masterpiece that has sandpaper as it cover. Is this true though? Who says that the set of books with bland covers has a higher overall quality of books than the set of books with great covers? The good cover is irrelevant, and I don’t blame the buyer for not wanting to read every single book in the joint before making a decision as to what to purchase. Hell, I don’t.
| 204 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Will
Just because things are the way they are.. does not mean they are the way we should be... if you only read the books with the flash covers you will be stuck reading Maeve Binchey and Dan Brown.... and will miss out on Dostoyevsky and Hunter S. Thompson...
A large part of modern and less-contemporary literary classics were underappreciated or undiscovered during their lifetime... simply because their 'covers' were not seen to sell...
One of the most important points is that what sells and what is good are not the same thing.. and are often opposites... 50 Cent sells... despite the fact that his lyrics have the depth of a kiddy pool and yet artists like Lupe Fiasco and Talib Kweli continue to have very modest record sales, despite the obvious poetry of most of their songs...
I'm bordering on repetition.. but I will state it again, just because things are the way they are, does not mean they are the way things should be, superficiality is not a victimless crime... think of all those that fall despite greatness... simply because they didnt have the right packaging... Socrates was one ugly m'fucker!
Comment by Kris
Quotable Quips
Banana and Mango
Comment by Will
In regards to music, the early Roots stuff was great in that it was basically improv and had the feel of a jam session.. pure unbridled creativity.. at the same time, ther more recent stuff, more structured as it is, gives Blackthought more of a chance to showcase his lyrical talent, they lose some of their improv feel, but gain a good structure at the same time.. I like both equally.. umm.. i forgot what my point was...
oh well.
salaam bro
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by Anomynous Poet