I was hired by designer Michaela Sullivan at Houghton Mifflin to work with her on this cover for a book by Natalie Angier to cover a wide range of basic science for those of us who are interested in science but overwhelmed by our lack of knowledge. Given the breadth of topic, I decided to go with particles, and then alluded to galaxies (astronomy), veins (biology), the double helix (chemistry), etc.
Makes sense! This should be an awesome cover. There's no reason for it to be otherwise.
But between the over-the-top whimsicality of the colors, the forced relationship between the letters and the swirls, and the general lack of visual emphasis and strength, I just really don't care for this. It looks like a talented intern's attempt to mimic the Bantjes style.
Also, the Amazon image is really horrible. The photo from her site is a much better representation:
come on guys, its for the sake of science….can’t u understand on that whirling thingi? its particles, galaxies, veins, double helix etc…
on second thought, this cover is ugly! it doesnt really relate to anything art but science? none either… its looks like a girly-girly art project on where you use silver dust and colored glue..its not even psychedelic!
How many time have you been working for hours on what you think is a great concept and you finally wake up and think “what the hell am I doing?”. This must have taken quite a while to execute but it she should have stopped at about colored dot #345.
I might give it a little more credit if the book is to be marketed to young adults. It’s just so soft and fluffy. Looking at it, I don’t think “Science”, which is weird, because a lot of Bantjes work does strike me that way.
I think it just comes down to an odd choice of technique for this cover. Her overall work is really impressive. I think this approach would have been more appropriate:
http://www.bantjes.com/index.php?id=117
It might be more a problem of bad art direction if she was wearing the illustrator hat on this one.
one thing to always keep in mind, is that we have NO idea what went into this cover.
The publisher, the editors, the authors, the marketing people and the authors sister.
Judging from the work on their website, I think it may be the case
That is a refrain that I keep hearing on this blog and I honestly think it is a red herring. We all have to deal with “the editors, the authors, the marketing people and the authors sister”. The onus on the designer is to make sure they keep coming back for round 2, 3, 4, 5 etc. with something that still passes muster.
That being said I don’t think that is the problem here. As Ben said it sounds great on paper but the execution falls short and that responsibility has to fall squarely on the shoulders of the illustrator/artdirector.
I think the real red herrings are the po-faced, geeks who pontificate about other people’s work, despite the fact that they’ve never even been close to designing a book cover – and hopefully never will.
My dear pamela, you are simply missing the point. As designers we dream of working on projects like these. Book designers sure are the chosen few. A select band of egocentric and awkward geeks who hang on to all the goodstuff, while the rest of us are left sitting around in our underwear waiting for the call.
We have to bring them down, it’s our only source of pleasure.
This is really poor and everyone’s knows it. Don’t start judging covers by the fact that the designer may or may not have done some nice work in the past or that it’s a big book. I liked to know what you’d all have written if this had been designed by an intern.Where’s the Voice of Reason (AKA C-Dog) when he’s needed?
Does that make you a po-faced pontificating geek or are you actually a book cover designer?
Pammy, sounds to me like your headspace is so far up your own, that whatever I said would offend. Guess you must be a cover “designer”, we are your humble servant.
C-Dog is your dog.
Props.
It just looks like it took a while to do (as does most of her amazing line work).
It looks pretty I guess. I wouldn’t say that it connotes science in ANY way at all (Which sucks, because a lot of her stuff could work in that direction). Maybe a good cover for “My Dreamy Day At The Beach”. Nonetheless, in the end, it grabs me. I would pick this baby up if not to just look at it and see how it was done.
I have to agree with the poster above. It looks amatuerish and poorly executed, with minimal ties to the books’ subject matter. Surely there are many more elegant and beautiful ways to allude to galaxies than this illustration/type treatment.
As for tamering, I’d have to agree with another poster that this does reek of interference in a cover meeting ala “What about making the particles part of the type? Yeah! Try that!”
It’s amazing that get any great cover solutions get through the “group” approval process. This facet of cover design and the amount of pressures that are exerted upon cover designers should not be minimized or discounted.
Not all of us have the kind of rep to bring to the table that will reign over group cover meetings and push obscure concepts or very expensive printing treatments and special effects through the mill.
Also, many of us toil on covers for first time authors, reprints, paperbacks, those books with small budgets for art and design and print runs.
Having said that, we are paid for our expertise, whether other departments like it or not. It is our job and our responsibility to say “No. That won’t work. And here’s why…” by taking control of the dialogue in meeting and leading it, guiding the cover through it’s process at a house. Someone has to protect a books’ integrity. Might as well be us :)
i think no one would post here if he/she doesnt know a thing about designs/art etc….. lets face it, a lot of people dont like the cover aesthetically and rationally.
every book posted here is an envy to other book designers..and yeah we gave credit that they reach this site.. i dont know how but mighty ben post it. but to tell u pammy, not every book is as artistic as the others…
time for ur medication pammy… again u took the words literally… think b4 u blubber!
Yeah, that would be sweet. There is a ton of stuff on her site that would have worked so much better for this. I’m sure she would love to post at least one alternate direction… After all, how often do we really love what the publisher went for anyway?
in Essence, Bantjes is the perfect casting call for this project. Her work has an inherent math-meets-art quality to it, and her handling of type usually plays on that very tension quite masterfully. With this cover, while admittingly a bit heavy on the whimsical, Bantjes does communicate Feminine and Science by uniting them into a unified and elegant decoration.
It conjures bad episodes of My Little Pony and makes me think of birthday cakes and little girls’ and their tea parties. I’m not sure those feelings are what were intended, though.
I just saw the picture and I must say, I like it very much. Could be that I like anything with particles, but nevertheless, the cover attracts to me and I’m buying the book.
I don’t love this design, but the printing, paper stock and gloss coating only adds insult to injury.
I’m surprised that it made it through the “cover approval process” which might have addressed the title among other things.
This just looks like a book I can’t imagine anyone wanting to read —and that’s bad.
I’ve been excited about this book and its cover since I saw it in the publisher’s catalogue, so I’m quite surprised by the negative appraisal of the cover. I find it quite beautiful, and one of the reasons I like it is that it is a departure from the typical science book cover. This cover sends the message that the book will not only be accessible to but actually appeal to those readers who normally shy away from science. The cover also implies that there will be something that feels lacking in the trade science book discourse: beauty and whimsy.
As a big Bantjes fan, it pains me to say that I really dislike this cover.
From her site, you can read the story behind the concept:
Makes sense! This should be an awesome cover. There's no reason for it to be otherwise.
But between the over-the-top whimsicality of the colors, the forced relationship between the letters and the swirls, and the general lack of visual emphasis and strength, I just really don't care for this. It looks like a talented intern's attempt to mimic the Bantjes style.
Also, the Amazon image is really horrible. The photo from her site is a much better representation:
— Ben Pieratt, 2007-06-18 22:46:00
I am with you on this one. The only mitigating factor might be that the word “whirligig” actually appears in the subtitle.
— Martin, 2007-06-18 23:19:00
come on guys, its for the sake of science….can’t u understand on that whirling thingi? its particles, galaxies, veins, double helix etc…
on second thought, this cover is ugly! it doesnt really relate to anything art but science? none either… its looks like a girly-girly art project on where you use silver dust and colored glue..its not even psychedelic!
— supercow, 2007-06-19 01:05:00
How many time have you been working for hours on what you think is a great concept and you finally wake up and think “what the hell am I doing?”. This must have taken quite a while to execute but it she should have stopped at about colored dot #345.
— beauGeste, 2007-06-19 03:09:00
It looks a little like a birthday cake to me.
— GH, 2007-06-19 04:30:00
I might give it a little more credit if the book is to be marketed to young adults. It’s just so soft and fluffy. Looking at it, I don’t think “Science”, which is weird, because a lot of Bantjes work does strike me that way.
— brian, 2007-06-19 06:04:00
Looks like a “Chick-Lit” cover to me…
— Dean, 2007-06-19 06:27:00
I think it just comes down to an odd choice of technique for this cover. Her overall work is really impressive. I think this approach would have been more appropriate:
http://www.bantjes.com/index.php?id=117
It might be more a problem of bad art direction if she was wearing the illustrator hat on this one.
— beauGeste, 2007-06-19 06:37:00
one thing to always keep in mind, is that we have NO idea what went into this cover.
The publisher, the editors, the authors, the marketing people and the authors sister.
Judging from the work on their website, I think it may be the case
— gk, 2007-06-19 07:31:00
gk,
That is a refrain that I keep hearing on this blog and I honestly think it is a red herring. We all have to deal with “the editors, the authors, the marketing people and the authors sister”. The onus on the designer is to make sure they keep coming back for round 2, 3, 4, 5 etc. with something that still passes muster.
That being said I don’t think that is the problem here. As Ben said it sounds great on paper but the execution falls short and that responsibility has to fall squarely on the shoulders of the illustrator/artdirector.
— beauGeste, 2007-06-19 07:46:00
I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a whimsical, colourful science cover before so, nice job.
— dave, 2007-06-19 08:20:00
I think the real red herrings are the po-faced, geeks who pontificate about other people’s work, despite the fact that they’ve never even been close to designing a book cover – and hopefully never will.
— Pammy Melstein, 2007-06-19 09:16:00
My dear pamela, you are simply missing the point. As designers we dream of working on projects like these. Book designers sure are the chosen few. A select band of egocentric and awkward geeks who hang on to all the goodstuff, while the rest of us are left sitting around in our underwear waiting for the call.
We have to bring them down, it’s our only source of pleasure.
— gooney, 2007-06-19 09:29:00
To quote Pammy on the Gore book
Wake up
This is really poor and everyone’s knows it. Don’t start judging covers by the fact that the designer may or may not have done some nice work in the past or that it’s a big book. I liked to know what you’d all have written if this had been designed by an intern.Where’s the Voice of Reason (AKA C-Dog) when he’s needed?
Does that make you a po-faced pontificating geek or are you actually a book cover designer?
— sinkfish, 2007-06-19 10:41:00
Gooney (lovely name)
Please don’t invade my headspace with images of geeks in their underwear.
Gross.
Is there anyone out there who wasn’t bullied at high school and has something nice to say?
— Pammy Melstein, 2007-06-19 10:42:00
Yes. I like it.
— dave, 2007-06-19 10:58:00
Pammy, sounds to me like your headspace is so far up your own, that whatever I said would offend. Guess you must be a cover “designer”, we are your humble servant.
C-Dog is your dog.
Props.
— gooney, 2007-06-19 10:59:00
It would look nicer if the author name wasn’t so large. It competes with the title.
— Doogie, 2007-06-19 11:41:00
Hey folks, lets keep personal comments to a minimal and stick to critiquing the design itself.
— Chris Papasadero / Fwis, 2007-06-19 12:20:00
It just looks like it took a while to do (as does most of her amazing line work).
It looks pretty I guess. I wouldn’t say that it connotes science in ANY way at all (Which sucks, because a lot of her stuff could work in that direction). Maybe a good cover for “My Dreamy Day At The Beach”. Nonetheless, in the end, it grabs me. I would pick this baby up if not to just look at it and see how it was done.
— Ian B. Shimkoviak, 2007-06-19 12:44:00
It looks like something a stoner would draw in art class with better lettering. It is fine but not great should have been much better.
— jdog, 2007-06-19 14:16:00
I have to agree with the poster above. It looks amatuerish and poorly executed, with minimal ties to the books’ subject matter. Surely there are many more elegant and beautiful ways to allude to galaxies than this illustration/type treatment.
As for tamering, I’d have to agree with another poster that this does reek of interference in a cover meeting ala “What about making the particles part of the type? Yeah! Try that!”
It’s amazing that get any great cover solutions get through the “group” approval process. This facet of cover design and the amount of pressures that are exerted upon cover designers should not be minimized or discounted.
Not all of us have the kind of rep to bring to the table that will reign over group cover meetings and push obscure concepts or very expensive printing treatments and special effects through the mill.
Also, many of us toil on covers for first time authors, reprints, paperbacks, those books with small budgets for art and design and print runs.
Having said that, we are paid for our expertise, whether other departments like it or not. It is our job and our responsibility to say “No. That won’t work. And here’s why…” by taking control of the dialogue in meeting and leading it, guiding the cover through it’s process at a house. Someone has to protect a books’ integrity. Might as well be us :)
— bababoory, 2007-06-19 14:39:00
dear pammy…....
i think no one would post here if he/she doesnt know a thing about designs/art etc….. lets face it, a lot of people dont like the cover aesthetically and rationally.
every book posted here is an envy to other book designers..and yeah we gave credit that they reach this site.. i dont know how but mighty ben post it. but to tell u pammy, not every book is as artistic as the others…
time for ur medication pammy… again u took the words literally… think b4 u blubber!
— k-bone, 2007-06-19 18:16:00
Can we stop the personal attacks please? They’re a waste of space on a book cover design blog and a waste of time to read.
— Nick, 2007-06-19 18:54:00
Ben, could you see if Marian could share some earlier concepts or earlier drafts of this cover, possibly?
— Auguste, 2007-06-19 20:01:00
Yeah, that would be sweet. There is a ton of stuff on her site that would have worked so much better for this. I’m sure she would love to post at least one alternate direction… After all, how often do we really love what the publisher went for anyway?
— Ian B. Shimkoviak, 2007-06-19 22:05:00
Also, if anybody’s in Canada, specifically near Galiano Island, BC around mid August; Marian is helping host a type camp. Details can be found here
— Nick, 2007-06-20 00:42:00
Sorry, my bad, tried to be clever, try this: www.typecamp.org/
— Nick, 2007-06-20 00:44:00
Hey guys, she put the cover up on her website so she must have been pleased with the final result.
— sinkfish, 2007-06-20 03:20:00
in Essence, Bantjes is the perfect casting call for this project. Her work has an inherent math-meets-art quality to it, and her handling of type usually plays on that very tension quite masterfully. With this cover, while admittingly a bit heavy on the whimsical, Bantjes does communicate Feminine and Science by uniting them into a unified and elegant decoration.
— Clara, 2007-06-20 05:56:00
It conjures bad episodes of My Little Pony and makes me think of birthday cakes and little girls’ and their tea parties. I’m not sure those feelings are what were intended, though.
— C-Dog, 2007-06-28 20:30:00
I just saw the picture and I must say, I like it very much. Could be that I like anything with particles, but nevertheless, the cover attracts to me and I’m buying the book.
— Planeten Paultje, 2007-07-01 12:11:00
Looks like a self-help book. Yuck.
m welch
— m welch, 2007-07-16 00:24:00
I don’t love this design, but the printing, paper stock and gloss coating only adds insult to injury.
I’m surprised that it made it through the “cover approval process” which might have addressed the title among other things.
This just looks like a book I can’t imagine anyone wanting to read —and that’s bad.
— a2, 2007-07-17 20:41:00
that’s a bit harsh people… harsh I say! Harsh!
— Ian B. Shimkoviak, 2007-07-20 13:46:00
I’ve been excited about this book and its cover since I saw it in the publisher’s catalogue, so I’m quite surprised by the negative appraisal of the cover. I find it quite beautiful, and one of the reasons I like it is that it is a departure from the typical science book cover. This cover sends the message that the book will not only be accessible to but actually appeal to those readers who normally shy away from science. The cover also implies that there will be something that feels lacking in the trade science book discourse: beauty and whimsy.
— Mary Hu, 2007-08-12 09:04:00