Outstanding. The challenge of making a cover for Lolita is certainly formidable. We are told when we are kids that we should not judge a book by its cover, yet we do this all day long.
If I had to pick one that I saw in your newsletter, it would have to be the Lolita’s name in the Coca-Cola font. That’s just perfect.
Side note: I did a study of book covers of Flannery O’Connor‘s work, and it really made me appreciate the artistry of the whole endeavor. Great stuff!
Thanks Daniel, and thanks for the coffee! It’s much appreciated. I’m glad you enjoyed this overview of the book—it’s certainly a thorny design problem. I too love that Coca-Cola cover. So unexpected!
That study of O’Connor’s covers sounds fascinating.
I haven't finished Lolita — the copy I found in a free box was a misprint, skipped from page 50 something to page 120 something, then repeated page 120 something til the end. I looked it up and the misprint was not valuable, so I recycled the damn thing, like the person who put it in a free box should have.
I have seen the Kubrick movie, but all I remember about it is that Peter Sellers was fucking terrifying and Kubrick should have never aged up Lolita, though it's completely understandable why he'd be too uncomfortable to keep her a 'nymphet.'
What I did get from both, however, is that the concept of households and domestic spaces is important in a way that literally none of these covers other than the one with the picture of the corner molding and pick walls even bother trying. Behind Lolita is a lot of fear about who you're inviting into your house, and what they have in mind to do there.
Before reading your post, I would have answered the question with a picture of a man and girl entering a dark house through the front door, holding hands. The man would have his back to us, the girl would be looking over her shoulder at the camera: implicate the viewer sort of thing. Black and white, or muted color tones.
But reading Nabokov's "no girl" instruction, say no more. The man, hulking in foreframe with a cheap jacket and hat, holding some wildflowers in a bundle, waiting at the door. The flowers show romantic intention but whom are they for? But they're also drooping, in disarray: something is off. The man is only using the flowers, he actually doesn't respect their worth. Will the door open? Who is he waiting for to open it?
Beautifully written. I'm going to look for this book, very curious about Soviet / Russian covers. In terms of book covers, I think a cover should enhance, not influence the perception and experience of the book reading for the first time reader. It was unnecessary to sexualize the cover.
Outstanding. The challenge of making a cover for Lolita is certainly formidable. We are told when we are kids that we should not judge a book by its cover, yet we do this all day long.
If I had to pick one that I saw in your newsletter, it would have to be the Lolita’s name in the Coca-Cola font. That’s just perfect.
Side note: I did a study of book covers of Flannery O’Connor‘s work, and it really made me appreciate the artistry of the whole endeavor. Great stuff!
Thanks Daniel, and thanks for the coffee! It’s much appreciated. I’m glad you enjoyed this overview of the book—it’s certainly a thorny design problem. I too love that Coca-Cola cover. So unexpected!
That study of O’Connor’s covers sounds fascinating.
Wonder how a pictorial history of
covers for Thomas Mann’s Death in Venice would compare. Nothing nearly so erotically charged, I’d guess.
I haven't finished Lolita — the copy I found in a free box was a misprint, skipped from page 50 something to page 120 something, then repeated page 120 something til the end. I looked it up and the misprint was not valuable, so I recycled the damn thing, like the person who put it in a free box should have.
I have seen the Kubrick movie, but all I remember about it is that Peter Sellers was fucking terrifying and Kubrick should have never aged up Lolita, though it's completely understandable why he'd be too uncomfortable to keep her a 'nymphet.'
What I did get from both, however, is that the concept of households and domestic spaces is important in a way that literally none of these covers other than the one with the picture of the corner molding and pick walls even bother trying. Behind Lolita is a lot of fear about who you're inviting into your house, and what they have in mind to do there.
Before reading your post, I would have answered the question with a picture of a man and girl entering a dark house through the front door, holding hands. The man would have his back to us, the girl would be looking over her shoulder at the camera: implicate the viewer sort of thing. Black and white, or muted color tones.
But reading Nabokov's "no girl" instruction, say no more. The man, hulking in foreframe with a cheap jacket and hat, holding some wildflowers in a bundle, waiting at the door. The flowers show romantic intention but whom are they for? But they're also drooping, in disarray: something is off. The man is only using the flowers, he actually doesn't respect their worth. Will the door open? Who is he waiting for to open it?
I love this interpretation.
I actually haven’t read it yet, either 🤫 it’s on the shelf, I just haven’t been in the mood to read about the abuse of a 12-year-old.
Side note: that’s a crazy misprint
I have this book and I love it!!! Sooo interesting to see how different artists approach the task!
Isn’t it? I love that a book like this exists.
I’m all about the one that’s just the title written all over the cover because it’s a direct reference to something in the book. Smart.
I love that one too!
Beautifully written. I'm going to look for this book, very curious about Soviet / Russian covers. In terms of book covers, I think a cover should enhance, not influence the perception and experience of the book reading for the first time reader. It was unnecessary to sexualize the cover.
Sex outside of holy Matrimony is gross