Sometimes, while we’re browsing through book catalogues, or idly pulling things off the shelves in bookstores, as we often do, we are suddenly struck with a sense of deja vu. Haven’t we, um, seen this book before? Of course, there are thousands of examples of different books using the same clip art, which, while lazy, is probably unavoidable, but what about the more nebulous resemblances? After the jump, a few book covers and their suspiciously similar (we won’t say rip-offs, but we sometimes might imply it) pairs. Let us know what you think (or if we missed a particularly egregious one) in the comments!
We admit that we might not have noticed this, except for the word “Fields” — but then there’s fact that the cover for The Art of Fielding is just so good, and at this point, a little iconic. The Fields is a forthcoming novel, also a coming of age, also a debut from a promising author — but we don’t think it has anything to do with baseball.
Oh, my. This is so brazen that it’s almost admirable. What do we think — is this an attempt to pick up readers who’ve already shot through everything Martin has to offer (his name is even on the cover of the other book!), or is it a trap for people who can’t quite remember the name of the book they’re looking for?
Again, in a few years, we probably wouldn’t have noticed this — but you can’t publish even a black and white facsimile of a super-lauded cover and not expect people to make the connection.
There’s a story behind this one. Apparently, HarperCollins liked the artwork on Rigel’s self-published book so much that they went to the artist and asked to buy the rights to the same image. The artist, Nathalie Suellen, refused. Some time later, the cover for Bewitching appeared. It has since been changed.
Yikes. Just what is the C.S. Lewis estate up to? There have been tons of Twilight cover copycats since the book hit it big, but this is a little, um, blatant.
Okay, so this one is just a case of reused art, but still. The Virgin Suicides is too famous a book to have its art — even the art from a reprint, and not the original paperback — re-appropriated. Someone did not do their research.
It was Carolyn Kellog who pointed this similarity out to us a few years ago, and it’s always stuck in our minds. The shoes! The gold textured background! The one element of whimsy (laces tied together, red smoke)! All we can say is: huh.
It’s not like the piggy bank is a new icon or anything, but the two books, published within a year of each other, still have more than your average resemblance. Or so thinks Piper Terrett, who told The Telegraph , “The two covers are almost identical. I suppose I should think it as flattering, but perhaps he should retitle his book: Pinch – How David Willetts stole my book cover and why he should give it back.’
Both of these are reprints, so we don’t think this is a case of one artist ripping off the other (though the John Gall cover of Lolita is pretty iconic in its own right). Seems that the luscious lips of youth are just too good to ignore. [via Vintage & Anchor]
Well, we suppose it’s only fitting that a Fifty Shades of Grey ripoff book would have a Fifty Shades of Grey ripoff cover.