Cringe-tacular book Covers

Top 5 Wednesday is a weekly meme created by GingerReadsLainey and now hosted by ThoughtsOnTomes, featuring topics that prompt bloggers and youtubers to list some of their favorite (and sometimes non-so-favorite) bookish things. This week's topic is: inaccurate covers. 

Ask any reader: Book covers are the bane of our existence. Either they are amazing and we buy them all. Or they are terrible, ugly creatures of the night that we are forced to buy. Or they are changed in the middle of the series so that one of the three looks like the ugly stepsister. Recently, we've been #blessed with fantastic covers, many of them closely related to what's promised inside. But that doesn't erase those book covers. You know the ones I'm talking about. Those inaccurate covers that make little sense as to what's inside them. I've listed five but goodness knows there's plenty more where they came from.

Lux by Jennifer L. Armentrout

Covers with people, especially faces, on them will never win with me. Just why? I do really like the colors of the bind-ups and the floppiness of them, but then they slapped a face - no a half of a face - on it. Not to mention, the original covers were full body models posing awkwardly on them. And neither cover has very much to do with the plot? Why is he upside down? Is that a moon? So you rebranded the novels in hopes of increasing sales and went from cringe to slightly less so? Okay. Seems fake but okay.  

City of Bones by Cassandra Clare

Most Cringeworthy Book Cover. I try not to judge it though because it was published in 2007. I feel like most book covers were either boring or terrible back then. Honestly, the cover isn't all that inaccurate. There is a shiny-ish blonde boy (although I imagine him much more attractive) and the Manhattan skyline and graveyard. Technically it is an accurate representation. But boy is it cheesy. It's like the YA Fabio. Had I seen it in the bookstore I would've skipped right over it as "one of those" books.  

Attachments by Rainbow Rowell

The book cover for Attachments isn't bad, but it is inaccurate. Sure, the paperclip and the chairs are related to an office and yes, the novel predominately takes place in an office setting. But like that's it. I get zero characterization from it, zero plot clues. Nothing. It does a disservice to a novel about falling in love with the essence of a person and finding yourself at a time when they say you already should have. If you are in your twenties and have this book on your shelves, do NOT be dissuaded by the cover! 

Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky

Perks of Being a Wallflower sports another cover that isn't bad but I'm 'meh' about. I think part of it is because I'm not exactly sure that the point is. WHAT ARE YOUUUU?!?!!! What is awkwardly-sized, strangely-textured and green all over? THIS BOOK. I've read the book twice and I just. don't. get. it. And the weird little picture in the corner? Just none of it vaguely represents the heart-wrenching, beautiful story on the inside.

My Life Next Door by Huntley Fitzpatrick

It's no secret that I love this book, right? I've only spoken about it like 5,471 times. But the cover? *shakes head solemnly* Listen. It's not a bad cover. Hell, I didn't think anything negative of it when I bought it on recommendation from booktube. But then I read it and well, that sweet-as-pie couple on the front gazing dreamily into each other's eyes by that nice little picket fence? What book are they even from? I mean, I suppose in the simplest terms this two basic love birds represent the main characters of the story. But this story is SO MUCH MORE. It's a relationship yes, but it's also friendship and family and finding yourself. All those f's, man, so who the f is it boiled it down to this boring, basic ass cover? 


What covers do you think are the most inaccurate?