My good friend recently bought me a book. Recently meaning about an hour ago. And this book just happens to be "The Thirteen and a Half Lives of Captain Bluebear" by Walter Moers. How awesome can ya get? So anyways, I have not started this book yet, nor should I until I finish this post, but I'm going to take this time to state a few points.
I judge books by their covers. AHHHH! But who doesn't? The way I see it, everyone who has seen a friend say, "That book looks weird.", has said "Don't judge a book by it's cover." in cheery tones. But then those people just turn around and judge books! By their covers! Over and over and over again!
The Thirteen and a Half Lives of Captain Bluebear is a pretty book. It has a yellow and blue cover: color scheme, check. It has a comical, cartoon picture of a unusual mythical animal: a Bluebear. Check. It has flowing script in dark, brooding blue tones. Check. The back cover describes an adventure in which a mythical creature finds love, loses it, finds it again, and slaughters innocent monsters. Check. The reviews plastered on the back cover have slight drug references and little-known connections. Check.
Yay. But really, what's so bad about judging a book by it's art? What's so horrible about stating the horrible? If you go to a museum, most likely you will find a piece or two of art you dislike. But do you speak out against the Mona Lisa? The Starry Night? An Andy Warhol? Okay, maybe and Andy Warhol, but I really don't get why (One) cover art is horrible, or (Two) why it is socially acceptable to praise terrible artwork.
And that is mon avis.
