Book design has been all the rage for a while now. I think it’s completely reasonable to trace the trajectory of that rage along with the rise of the design-obsessed McSweeney’s over the past decade. Professionals might disagree. In any case, new design projects have been legion so far this century: There’s Penguin’s graphic-art covers for classics; Penguin’s Great Ideas series; Harper Perennial’s Olive Editions; and the lovely unity of the NYRB Classics. Among many others.
Given all this, I’m wondering why no one has reimagined The Great Gatsby. The cover has thrived since it was created in the mid-1920s by Francis Cugat, who was commissioned to make it for the book. Fitzgerald loved it, and I’m sure many designers do, too. I just think it’s tacky. The deep red and blue, the green tear falling, the nude figures reflected in the eyes. Especially uninviting is the most prominent current edition, which features a white border around the original image
Does anyone else think this American classic could use a new look? Any other books that are overdue for a makeover?
It’s soooo tacky! Thank the Sonny Bono copyright act, for this as for so many other atrocities. Some of the early Fitzgerald titles escaped the clutches of Sonny Bono’s cold dead hand, and have been freshened up by the designer Megan Wilson:
http://www.amazon.com/Flappers-Philosophers-Vintage-Classics-Fitzgerald/dp/0307474526/
In the U.K., Fitzgerald is out of copyright, so Penguin has given even Gatsby a new look, which is clean but I think fails the legibility test:
http://www.penguin.co.uk/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9780141913414,00.html?/The_Great_Gatsby_F._Scott_Fitzgerald#
The newly redesigned Oxford World’s Classics edition is pretty slick:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Great-Gatsby-Oxford-Worlds-Classics/dp/0199536406
The current white-bordered edition is the one we used when I read the book in high school. I think the cover’s longevity owes in part to the fact that it’s still widely taught in high schools - we spent a non-trivial amount of instruction time discussing how it mirrors the novel’s images and (ham-handedly) relates to its themes.
http://www.librarything.com/work/2964/covers/32099307
Tons of covers.
I learned about this when I read this in high school, but at the time of its first publication, an agreement was made that that would be the only cover that the book would ever have. You could probably find the specifics online somewhere, but it was meant to never change.
Oh, I soooo agree. Hate this cover with a PASSION. It makes me think Fitzgerald actually had no taste.
I am also sick of all the Lolita covers out there. Girl lying on lawn, little girl’s legs wearing saddle shoes, big pair of lips. Is that the extent of publishers’ imagination?
One reason that the publishers may be reluctant to cast the cover aside is that the cover itself inspired a key image in the book - the eyes of Dr. TJ Eckleburg overlooking the ash heaps. Maxwell Perkins sent Fitzgerald a proof of the cover for his approval, and Fitzgerald wrote back:
‘For Christ’s sake, don’t give anyone that jacket you’re saving for me. I’ve written it into the book.’
As for Fitzgerald having ‘no taste,’ I think it’s fair to say that the illustration style was very much in vogue when published… and like anything high fashion, it’s apt to age more drastically eventually because of that.
Personally, I like the cover, but only in the way I like The Beatles - which is to say, I never need to hear their music again. Finally, it’s hard to think of another dust jacket cover that’s survived 75 years of publishing taste.