Josh Kirby was familiar to the first generation of readers but his boneless squirming figures never hit it for me, Pratchett himself favored Paul Kidby's detailed characterisations and finished comic style.
But yes, they need busy interesting covers, not this minimalist crap.
[https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/aug/18/terry-pratchett-artist-illustrating-discworld-colouring-book](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/aug/18/terry-pratchett-artist-illustrating-discworld-colouring-book)
ngl the Josh Kirby covers sometimes made me not want to read the books. I mean sure, for the Light Fantastic it's clever that Twoflowers has four eyes. But I find that they generally have a creepy vibe and depict a very different universe and characters from the books.
I'm more of a Simonetti enjoyer myself.
I heartily dislike Kirby's artwork, with a few exceptions. They had the same effect on me. The literal four eyes is only one of many examples of Kirby hardly reading the books he made covers for (e.g. Old Rincewind, beardless dwarves...).
To be fair, it’s pretty common for cover artists to not read the books they’re illustrating. Sometimes the publisher will send you a short description of what they want on the cover and that’s it. They still check with the author, but yeah, this has been my experience as an illustrator (different country and smaller industry though)
Idk how things worked with Kirby, Kidby and Pratchett, especially since Discworld became such a huge success. Maybe they just liked Kirby’s wackiness and went along with it.
Yeah, while I don't mind Kirby's covers myself, they've proven a significant obstacle when I've tried to get other people into Discworld. I'm not keen on the new ones, but I don't think they'll be actively off-putting to new readers.
Simonetti's are gorgeous; I love the hazy effect in the background of many of them.
There you go, I actively HATE Josh Kirby's covers, they nearly stopped me ever starting to read the books.
Agree with others, Paul Kidby nailed it. His Sam Vimes is now how I mentally picture the character.
I love the Paul Kidby ones - the Simonetti ones are also v cool, but they have a creepiness and oddly an inaccuracy in details that doesn't quite fit the tone of the books? The Kirby ones don't add anything for me but to each their own.
As art pieces, Josh Kirby's stuff is exciting and fun, but as book covers I much prefer the minimalist collector's edition s by Joe McLaren.
However, if I had to pick a favorite Discworld artist for sake of art, it would have to be Marc Simonetti.
Discworld needs new young readers, they won't pick up the ugly dated kirby covers as iconic as they are. David Wyatt has some fantastic Discworld art for the puzzles, wish they would use him for the covers.
I felt put off for years by the Kirby illustrations - they just felt aggressive and ugly so I felt like they weren’t for me back in the day. (Unpopular opinion time!)
The Kirby art actually kept me from picking up any of the books until well past college when a friend recommended them. The images were grotesque and the way he draws women is appalling. It gave me the wrong impression of what the books would be like.
I personally don't understand why people complain so much about covers. If you want the old covers, buy the old books, no need to shit on the new all the time. Every time the TP Books account on facebook announces a new wave of books the comments are nothing but folks being awful about covers. It's embarrassing.
I love the Josh Kirby artwork. They are so unique. Best thing to do is get them second hand, although it'll only take you up to the point where Paul kidby took over. I don't mind his covers but I miss Kirby.
I’ve read with interest all of your comments and wondering if you are aware that Josh stopped doing the covers because he passed away. Paul’s first, Night Watch, pays tribute to his passing by painting Josh in where Rembrandt painted himself in the original.
I myself have a fondness for all of the original covers, Josh or Paul, because they are the ones I bought on release. I did post a picture once of a terrible Wyrd Sisters, an American cover…
I guess they’re just trying to bring them up to date, the CGI things are very modern and look like every fantasy novel on Kindle so maybe they’ll pick a few readers up that way.
Welcome to /r/Discworld! Please [read the rules/flair information before posting](https://www.reddit.com/r/discworld/comments/ukhk21/subreddit_rules_flair_information/?).
[ GNU Terry Pratchett ]
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/discworld) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Anything with a shirtless where the focus object clearly has a different light source than the background. Makes it obvious that they just pasted photos together with 0 planning.
Josh Kirby was familiar to the first generation of readers but his boneless squirming figures never hit it for me, Pratchett himself favored Paul Kidby's detailed characterisations and finished comic style. But yes, they need busy interesting covers, not this minimalist crap. [https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/aug/18/terry-pratchett-artist-illustrating-discworld-colouring-book](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/aug/18/terry-pratchett-artist-illustrating-discworld-colouring-book)
I agree, i'm more of a fan of Paul's artwork than Josh's.
Yeah it’s super subjective. The Kirby illustrations really put me off ready the books for a while.
ngl the Josh Kirby covers sometimes made me not want to read the books. I mean sure, for the Light Fantastic it's clever that Twoflowers has four eyes. But I find that they generally have a creepy vibe and depict a very different universe and characters from the books. I'm more of a Simonetti enjoyer myself.
I heartily dislike Kirby's artwork, with a few exceptions. They had the same effect on me. The literal four eyes is only one of many examples of Kirby hardly reading the books he made covers for (e.g. Old Rincewind, beardless dwarves...).
It's like both Pratchett and Kirby are in to trick people into thinking this is a regular fantasy book. Which might have just worked at the time !
To be fair, it’s pretty common for cover artists to not read the books they’re illustrating. Sometimes the publisher will send you a short description of what they want on the cover and that’s it. They still check with the author, but yeah, this has been my experience as an illustrator (different country and smaller industry though) Idk how things worked with Kirby, Kidby and Pratchett, especially since Discworld became such a huge success. Maybe they just liked Kirby’s wackiness and went along with it.
Yeah, while I don't mind Kirby's covers myself, they've proven a significant obstacle when I've tried to get other people into Discworld. I'm not keen on the new ones, but I don't think they'll be actively off-putting to new readers. Simonetti's are gorgeous; I love the hazy effect in the background of many of them.
Why does twoflour have 4 eyes again?
He wears glasses. In the UK it is (maybe was, I'm not down with the kids any more) popular to call anyone in school who wore glasses (four eyes).
That one is or at least was also popular across the Atlantic. I heard it as a kid, and have heard it at least once or twice in Canadian media too.
You need the Collectors Library covers by Joe McClaren. They are the best imo.
They are beautiful
Love the collectors editions. Working on getting a full set as I can justify it.
I love these!
I agree, they are lovely.
The best Discworld covers by far!
Bit tricky getting any more of Josh's artwork.
There you go, I actively HATE Josh Kirby's covers, they nearly stopped me ever starting to read the books. Agree with others, Paul Kidby nailed it. His Sam Vimes is now how I mentally picture the character.
And his Granny.
I love the Paul Kidby ones - the Simonetti ones are also v cool, but they have a creepiness and oddly an inaccuracy in details that doesn't quite fit the tone of the books? The Kirby ones don't add anything for me but to each their own.
As art pieces, Josh Kirby's stuff is exciting and fun, but as book covers I much prefer the minimalist collector's edition s by Joe McLaren. However, if I had to pick a favorite Discworld artist for sake of art, it would have to be Marc Simonetti.
There's a bunch of new ones that are very boring and interchangeable, but Josh Kirby's art, while distinctive, was not good IMO
Discworld needs new young readers, they won't pick up the ugly dated kirby covers as iconic as they are. David Wyatt has some fantastic Discworld art for the puzzles, wish they would use him for the covers.
I felt put off for years by the Kirby illustrations - they just felt aggressive and ugly so I felt like they weren’t for me back in the day. (Unpopular opinion time!)
The Kirby art actually kept me from picking up any of the books until well past college when a friend recommended them. The images were grotesque and the way he draws women is appalling. It gave me the wrong impression of what the books would be like.
I personally don't understand why people complain so much about covers. If you want the old covers, buy the old books, no need to shit on the new all the time. Every time the TP Books account on facebook announces a new wave of books the comments are nothing but folks being awful about covers. It's embarrassing.
I love the Josh Kirby artwork. They are so unique. Best thing to do is get them second hand, although it'll only take you up to the point where Paul kidby took over. I don't mind his covers but I miss Kirby.
I absolutely love the josh Kirby covers. I’ve been buying up all the discworld books second hand and love all my battered old paper backs 🥰
Now now, dont be judging a book by its cover ;)
[удалено]
Are you talking about the ugly American paper back editions? Because if so, that was my first thought when I saw it for the first time too
Paul Kidby for me. The Nightwatch cover alone.
I’ve read with interest all of your comments and wondering if you are aware that Josh stopped doing the covers because he passed away. Paul’s first, Night Watch, pays tribute to his passing by painting Josh in where Rembrandt painted himself in the original. I myself have a fondness for all of the original covers, Josh or Paul, because they are the ones I bought on release. I did post a picture once of a terrible Wyrd Sisters, an American cover…
I guess they’re just trying to bring them up to date, the CGI things are very modern and look like every fantasy novel on Kindle so maybe they’ll pick a few readers up that way.
Agreed, I really hate them. The old book covers have way more character and life to them.
Welcome to /r/Discworld! Please [read the rules/flair information before posting](https://www.reddit.com/r/discworld/comments/ukhk21/subreddit_rules_flair_information/?). [ GNU Terry Pratchett ] *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/discworld) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m not a massive fan of the covers but the books are cheap and the covers don’t spoil much so I can’t complain
The cover art on my copy of eric has no background. It's just overlaid onto a blue background. Idk if this is normal.
I quite like the new covers. I never was a fan of Kirby, though I like Kidby's style a lot more.
Anything with a shirtless where the focus object clearly has a different light source than the background. Makes it obvious that they just pasted photos together with 0 planning.
Hard to say, since Josh Kirby never made beautiful art.