I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a cover which did a worse job of communicating its contents.
Once I got my past my initial desire to stab it with my pocket knife for giving me a headache, it occurred to me that this might be an attempt at irony. “Lets design something about clarity in a really obtuse manner in an attempt to make a point.” (Note that the book is about the obfuscation of the electoral process in the US.)
I see no supporting evidence to that effect, though. And even if that was the original intent, it’s way too subtle.
Which isn’t to say its a failure. The treatment is attractive and it grabs your attention from a distance, which is no small feat by any means.
I laughed anyway! It does make the reader work to read the title which might be a problem for the average attention span but common sense itself sometimes requires a longer than average attention span.
It grabs your attention. Contrast, scale and a desire to make out what it says helps, but yeah, this cover I’m sure will garner the spectrum of opinions. It’s not bad. It’s also not good. It just is…another book. It’s slightly edgy, but safe.
I don’t think it’s anymore confusing than the majority of identical text covers inundating the design consciousness these days. Other than ‘it has been done and been done better,’ I’m not sure there’s much to say.
I’ve seen this design a couple of hundred times over. Its very design hipster and a flavor of the moment. It communicates nothing about the contents, and its obvious that the designer was more interested in serving their own aesthetic than the needs of the content.
Why anyone would think breaking up words in unnatural places and think that people would be able to read it is beyond me. Whoever got this approved must have been one hell of a salesman.
i too read “are turn to common sense” then when that didn’t make sense i tried to read it “attcoe uoonn”- I’d love to think i hate it so much because of it’s failure to communicate the content or the typeface but it’s actually because i feel like it somehow out smarted me in it’s ability to hide the title from me.
This design is great, one of the better examples of the “design hipster and a flavour of the moment”—congruent number of letters/ink traps across the cover. I thnk it’s more effective with an image in the background like the covers designed for the whitechapel ‘documents of contemporary art’ series. But this one is great too; a lovely poetic rhythm to the (pseudo)words.
The first three words you see are real and recognizable, though odd for it’s grammar and narrative incoherence. Then the “comm” straddling a familiarity (.com) and oddity (it’s spelled funny). On is a word; but what’s that ‘S’? Ense. Ense?
Ah, I see. “A return to common sense.” The method wasn’t very common sense, now was it? Then again, common sense isn’t so common.
I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a cover which did a worse job of communicating its contents.
Once I got my past my initial desire to stab it with my pocket knife for giving me a headache, it occurred to me that this might be an attempt at irony. “Lets design something about clarity in a really obtuse manner in an attempt to make a point.” (Note that the book is about the obfuscation of the electoral process in the US.)
I see no supporting evidence to that effect, though. And even if that was the original intent, it’s way too subtle.
Which isn’t to say its a failure. The treatment is attractive and it grabs your attention from a distance, which is no small feat by any means.
— Ben Pieratt, 2008-06-19 17:32:00
I laughed anyway! It does make the reader work to read the title which might be a problem for the average attention span but common sense itself sometimes requires a longer than average attention span.
— biblioteckka, 2008-06-19 18:15:00
If it spelled something out on the vertical lines i’d call it clever, otherwise… hmmm. needs something more. or less perhaps.
— t-bone, 2008-06-19 20:44:00
Its perfect, though irony annoys me these days. Who is the designer?
— Chris Papasadero / Fwis, 2008-06-19 21:40:00
It always bothers me when typefaces with inktraps in them (as visible in the Ns) are blown up that large.
— Lester, 2008-06-20 01:51:00
No designer was listed.
— Ben Pieratt, 2008-06-20 07:15:00
don’t care much for the typeface or the layout but i like the concept therein. could have been executed better, but conveyed nonetheless.
i like the red white and blue palette without being actual flag colors, though that orange text looks pretty artifacty here.
— shalls, 2008-06-20 07:19:00
It grabs your attention. Contrast, scale and a desire to make out what it says helps, but yeah, this cover I’m sure will garner the spectrum of opinions. It’s not bad. It’s also not good. It just is…another book. It’s slightly edgy, but safe.
— ian shimkowiak, 2008-06-20 09:35:00
“are turn to common sense”
— anonymous, 2008-06-20 12:18:00
looks lazy and poorly executed
— indie, 2008-06-20 14:54:00
anonymous, I read it the same way—”are turn to common sense”
— shorty, 2008-06-21 13:58:00
I don’t think it’s anymore confusing than the majority of identical text covers inundating the design consciousness these days. Other than ‘it has been done and been done better,’ I’m not sure there’s much to say.
— C-Dog, 2008-06-22 11:41:00
I’ve seen this design a couple of hundred times over. Its very design hipster and a flavor of the moment. It communicates nothing about the contents, and its obvious that the designer was more interested in serving their own aesthetic than the needs of the content.
Why anyone would think breaking up words in unnatural places and think that people would be able to read it is beyond me. Whoever got this approved must have been one hell of a salesman.
— jdoe, 2008-06-22 20:14:00
Ben, if it’s possible to post a better image that would be great, so many of the covers lately have been pretty pixelated. Cheers!
— Auguste, 2008-06-22 20:25:00
All cover images are pulled directly from the Amazon API.
Sorry Auguste!
We’re always happy to replace the image if someone submits a better one, though!
— Ben Pieratt, 2008-06-23 06:35:00
http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/publications/Waldman/Return.home.png
— me, 2008-06-23 06:37:00
i agree with most of what’s said above, but i still kinda like it.
— kellyc, 2008-06-23 14:31:00
http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/publications/Waldman/Return.home.png
Argh my eyes!
— Dom, 2008-06-24 04:15:00
ATTCOE… uh
— rek, 2008-06-24 13:41:00
i too read “are turn to common sense” then when that didn’t make sense i tried to read it “attcoe uoonn”- I’d love to think i hate it so much because of it’s failure to communicate the content or the typeface but it’s actually because i feel like it somehow out smarted me in it’s ability to hide the title from me.
— rosy, 2008-07-01 06:22:00
This design is great, one of the better examples of the “design hipster and a flavour of the moment”—congruent number of letters/ink traps across the cover. I thnk it’s more effective with an image in the background like the covers designed for the whitechapel ‘documents of contemporary art’ series. But this one is great too; a lovely poetic rhythm to the (pseudo)words.
The first three words you see are real and recognizable, though odd for it’s grammar and narrative incoherence. Then the “comm” straddling a familiarity (.com) and oddity (it’s spelled funny). On is a word; but what’s that ‘S’? Ense. Ense?
Ah, I see. “A return to common sense.” The method wasn’t very common sense, now was it? Then again, common sense isn’t so common.
— matt, 2008-07-03 21:52:00
The cover was designed by a “high profile designer” friend of the author – credit is listed on the copyright page.
And from those of us here at Sourcebooks, we have all enjoyed reading your comments.
— greg, 2008-08-01 12:32:00
who is the designer?
— Ian Shimkoviak, 2008-08-04 17:40:00