A Hedonist in the Cellar: Adventures in Wine (Vint
Something interesting done with that circular glass-stain for once. Interestingly, I’ve seen three different versions of this cover, and I like them all, though they’re all variations on the same theme. Anyone care to indicate which one is which, and who started it all?
And for discussion, I think it will be interesting to compare hardcover to softcovers at some point – its a feature we will be adding in the next couple months. Typically the softcover, coming second, emulates the hardcover, and there’s a strange formula that publishers follow. From what I can gather, the publisher re-releases in paperback to gain saturation after those early hardback buyers are through. If they redesign the cover, it usually means it’s because they thought the hardcover jacket wasn’t great for sales, but that isn’t always the case. I’d love to see some if/then statements regarding this from someone who knows, but I bet that’s a secret sauce.
—
, 2008-10-17 16:21:00 -0400
Chris:
Pretty sure the one that’s featured in this post is the US paperback. Variation 1 is the US hardcover, and variation 2 is the UK hardcover. There’s also a UK paperback here: http://tinyurl.com/5a3ljr
As far as redesigning for paperbacks, John Gall said this in Step Inside Design magazine in September ‘07:
“There is definitely more freedom in hardcover design. Hardcover sales are generally review driven, so the cover doesn’t have to come on as strong and, I think, less people buy them on impulse because of their price. They’ll read a review and look for the book. The paperback does not have the fortune of being timed to the review attention, so the cover—we’re talking front list here—has to say something like “Remember me? You were waiting for me to come out in paperback? Remember? I’m the one the New York Times really liked, you know, the one about the guy with narcolepsy who likes the girl in the plaid skirt. …”
This one wins the prize for me. Making grapes out of the wine glass stain is just brilliant.
—
, 2008-10-18 14:09:00 -0400
Sally B. Meadows / Auguste / Spelling Geek – please email me with spelling/grammar corrections instead of clogging up the comments with them. Its embarrassing to me and annoying to readers who want to focus on the discussion at hand.
—
, 2008-10-18 15:16:00 -0400
As far as hardcover/paperback distinctions, you’re right to assume that a paperback cover will be changed if it’s thought that the hardcover jacket didn’t work as well as it “could have”. But sometimes a jacket won’t translate well to the paperback format, and sometimes there’s a goal of putting more of a human element on the cover (especially for fiction). Basically, if it looks a little too esoteric it probably won’t work on a paperback.
paperbacks are also repackaged by other publishers than the original HC in some cases and there needs to be a clear distinction of who put out what edition etc. There must be a good dozen reasons for a new cover for a PB. Format is indeed one of them. I’ve stretched covers a hair to fit them either way, but it’s quite dangerous… and lazy.
I absolutely think this cover is the best of all the variation. Like Ian said:
“It does not get better than this conceptually and execution wise.”
Since I’m not a designer, just a design enthusiast, could I get an opinion on why the text is set with all the words different sizes? Just because it’s visually appealing or am I missing something? Also, It took me a little while to recognize the subtitle as separate from the title. Just the change in font was easy to miss.
—
, 2008-10-20 06:08:00 -0400
I think the type communicates a certain elegant drunkenness… if there is such a thing…
This version is easily my favorite of the three. Best marriage of concept+execution, IMO.
I agree w/ Ian about the different type sizes communicating “elegant drunkenness.” It also says “hedonism” to me, because the words change size based on the designer’s whims instead of being restrained and consistent.
—
, 2008-10-20 07:05:00 -0400
Ian, I speak from experience that indeed there is such a thing as elegant drunkenness, and I call her my name ex-wife now. But this cover is a real beaut — well done, kids.
—
, 2008-10-20 07:15:00 -0400
If the words weren’t different sizes it would be very, very awkward and much less beautiful. Imagine it…
I agree, it wouldn’t look right if the words were the same size and spaced easily. And the seeming randomness of the spacing and sizing definitely conveys the “elegant drunkenness” that Ian so eloquently described.
—
, 2008-10-20 10:24:00 -0400
This blog is crying out for a keenan feature! The man is a genius!!
As a book editor, I can only agree with dom and Ian: Choosing a different design for the PB edition is not always because of bad sales of the HC edition, though sometimes it is. If I counted up the possible reasons I can think of, it would look a lot like this:
Different design for PB = Yes, because …
... it’s another publisher with their own graphic agencies and style and such,
... the publishers want to attract new readers, i.e. the “I usually don’t like SF”-reader,
... HC sales were bad indeed,
... HC jacket design cannot always be ‘scaled down’ easily to the PB format. If you say: “Now it just looks more like a PB”, you probably mean you can now imagine the book standing on a shabby shelf in the corner shop. Or so… ,
... PBs are cheaper—and you can’t make your cover embossed with neon Pantone colours and special cut-outs, if you want so sell that damn thing for $ 5,99 instead of $ 17,95.
And last, but not least: Different design = No, because …
... the HC version just looks so unbelievably beautiful
... you want the PB readers to remember the HC edition
... the cover artist was really expensive, so you use the imagery as often as you can
... and so on.
A Hedonist in the Cellar: Adventures in Wine (Vint
Something interesting done with that circular glass-stain for once. Interestingly, I’ve seen three different versions of this cover, and I like them all, though they’re all variations on the same theme. Anyone care to indicate which one is which, and who started it all?
Variation 1
Variation 2.
And for discussion, I think it will be interesting to compare hardcover to softcovers at some point – its a feature we will be adding in the next couple months. Typically the softcover, coming second, emulates the hardcover, and there’s a strange formula that publishers follow. From what I can gather, the publisher re-releases in paperback to gain saturation after those early hardback buyers are through. If they redesign the cover, it usually means it’s because they thought the hardcover jacket wasn’t great for sales, but that isn’t always the case. I’d love to see some if/then statements regarding this from someone who knows, but I bet that’s a secret sauce.
— , 2008-10-17 16:21:00 -0400
Chris:
Pretty sure the one that’s featured in this post is the US paperback. Variation 1 is the US hardcover, and variation 2 is the UK hardcover. There’s also a UK paperback here: http://tinyurl.com/5a3ljr
As far as redesigning for paperbacks, John Gall said this in Step Inside Design magazine in September ‘07:
“There is definitely more freedom in hardcover design. Hardcover sales are generally review driven, so the cover doesn’t have to come on as strong and, I think, less people buy them on impulse because of their price. They’ll read a review and look for the book. The paperback does not have the fortune of being timed to the review attention, so the cover—we’re talking front list here—has to say something like “Remember me? You were waiting for me to come out in paperback? Remember? I’m the one the New York Times really liked, you know, the one about the guy with narcolepsy who likes the girl in the plaid skirt. …”
— Joseph , 2008-10-17 17:00:00 -0400
all very very tasty… absolutely love the type treatment in this one.
jeezus, what a terrific idea. It does not get better than this conceptually and execution wise.
— Ian Shimkoviak , 2008-10-17 18:34:00 -0400
go figure. Jamie Keenan did this one. Just brilliant…
— Ian Shimkoviak , 2008-10-17 18:41:00 -0400
The US version was designed by Jamie Keenan.
— , 2008-10-17 18:44:00 -0400
oops….someone already said that.
— , 2008-10-17 18:45:00 -0400
These are superb… I quite enjoy the one posted here, but I think I favor Variation 1. Variation 2 I’m not too thrilled by.
Fantastic stuff.
— C-Dog , 2008-10-18 12:28:00 -0400
This one wins the prize for me. Making grapes out of the wine glass stain is just brilliant.
— , 2008-10-18 14:09:00 -0400
Sally B. Meadows / Auguste / Spelling Geek – please email me with spelling/grammar corrections instead of clogging up the comments with them. Its embarrassing to me and annoying to readers who want to focus on the discussion at hand.
— , 2008-10-18 15:16:00 -0400
As far as hardcover/paperback distinctions, you’re right to assume that a paperback cover will be changed if it’s thought that the hardcover jacket didn’t work as well as it “could have”. But sometimes a jacket won’t translate well to the paperback format, and sometimes there’s a goal of putting more of a human element on the cover (especially for fiction). Basically, if it looks a little too esoteric it probably won’t work on a paperback.
— asdf , 2008-10-18 16:39:00 -0400
paperbacks are also repackaged by other publishers than the original HC in some cases and there needs to be a clear distinction of who put out what edition etc. There must be a good dozen reasons for a new cover for a PB. Format is indeed one of them. I’ve stretched covers a hair to fit them either way, but it’s quite dangerous… and lazy.
— Ian Shimkoviak , 2008-10-19 12:22:00 -0400
paperback and hardback buyers are seen as distinct demographics, what appeals to one won’t necessarily appeal to the other.
— dom , 2008-10-19 21:47:00 -0400
I absolutely think this cover is the best of all the variation. Like Ian said:
“It does not get better than this conceptually and execution wise.”
Since I’m not a designer, just a design enthusiast, could I get an opinion on why the text is set with all the words different sizes? Just because it’s visually appealing or am I missing something? Also, It took me a little while to recognize the subtitle as separate from the title. Just the change in font was easy to miss.
— , 2008-10-20 06:08:00 -0400
I think the type communicates a certain elegant drunkenness… if there is such a thing…
— Ian Shimkoviak , 2008-10-20 06:35:00 -0400
This version is easily my favorite of the three. Best marriage of concept+execution, IMO.
I agree w/ Ian about the different type sizes communicating “elegant drunkenness.” It also says “hedonism” to me, because the words change size based on the designer’s whims instead of being restrained and consistent.
— , 2008-10-20 07:05:00 -0400
Ian, I speak from experience that indeed there is such a thing as elegant drunkenness, and I call her my name ex-wife now. But this cover is a real beaut — well done, kids.
— , 2008-10-20 07:15:00 -0400
If the words weren’t different sizes it would be very, very awkward and much less beautiful. Imagine it…
— C-Dog , 2008-10-20 10:12:00 -0400
I agree, it wouldn’t look right if the words were the same size and spaced easily. And the seeming randomness of the spacing and sizing definitely conveys the “elegant drunkenness” that Ian so eloquently described.
— , 2008-10-20 10:24:00 -0400
This blog is crying out for a keenan feature! The man is a genius!!
— pete lwrence , 2008-10-21 11:39:00 -0400
Here here!
— Sally B. Meadows , 2008-10-21 12:42:00 -0400
Brilliant. Simply brilliant.
— boblet , 2008-10-29 11:10:00 -0400
As a book editor, I can only agree with dom and Ian: Choosing a different design for the PB edition is not always because of bad sales of the HC edition, though sometimes it is. If I counted up the possible reasons I can think of, it would look a lot like this:
Different design for PB = Yes, because …
... it’s another publisher with their own graphic agencies and style and such,
... the publishers want to attract new readers, i.e. the “I usually don’t like SF”-reader,
... HC sales were bad indeed,
... HC jacket design cannot always be ‘scaled down’ easily to the PB format. If you say: “Now it just looks more like a PB”, you probably mean you can now imagine the book standing on a shabby shelf in the corner shop. Or so… ,
... PBs are cheaper—and you can’t make your cover embossed with neon Pantone colours and special cut-outs, if you want so sell that damn thing for $ 5,99 instead of $ 17,95.
And last, but not least: Different design = No, because …
... the HC version just looks so unbelievably beautiful
... you want the PB readers to remember the HC edition
... the cover artist was really expensive, so you use the imagery as often as you can
... and so on.
— Sebastian Pirling , 2008-11-05 23:33:00 -0500