RE: Are Designers Over Designing?

I read the full article by Emily Keeler and reached the same consensus -- that she feels these classic books should exist purely on the merits of their contents.

“Does the world need more cute classics? If we're talking about cultural capital--and these conspicuously designed editions imply that we are--surely Emma, The Secret Garden, and Tender is the Night already carry enough significance on title alone. They've permeated culture to the point that they can signify a pretty love of history, or at the very least a fascination with the vintage literary glamor of a more romantic era. Do they really need to be so gussied up, so fetishized, to stay relevant?”

The answer is yes. As much as it pains me to say so, and as much as I wish it weren’t so, yes, these books need to be “gussied up.” Look at what they are competing with in terms of distractions––tablets and computers and phones and social media. At the risk of beginning a diatribe on how young folks don’t read enough anymore, it’s true. If a publisher can remake the cover of a book more appealing, then more power to them. And if people buy these “gussied up, fetishized” covers for the sole purpose of decoration, than at least the hope exists that one day, someone will pick it up and actually read it. None of this will matter anyway in 20 years when paper books all but become obsolete. (Except old, rare books and these special edition re-designs which will be made solely for the purpose of decoration and display).

All design is the re-design of something that came before it. And if the re-design makes it more appealing to more people, than it’s a good thing.