Book Covers - Eat, Pray, Love

While I love the new trend in manufacturing graphics by hand – surely a rebellion, finally, against the boring ‘ol computer, this doesn’t mean you’ve free license to throw some objects on a field of white and call it a day. That exacerbated by the somewhat cheesy title (which I’m sure by all accounts appeals to the appropriate demo/psychographic – and to the contents of the book) just makes me want to look away. If I had designed it, I likely would have relished the meaty symbolic nature of the story and tried to make lateral moves for each of the three steps, instead of snagging the easiest, most literal images of noodles, prayer beads, and flowers. The script treatment is also far too loopy… the meaningfulness of the story suddenly becomes cheeky and cute.

— , 2007-09-24 17:08:00 -0400

As an aside, we’re sorry we’ve been slow lately; we’re in the process of moving out to NYC as Ben may have mentioned, so we’re a bit behind.

Also, I think we might be going to this tomorrow night, so maybe we’ll see you there?

One last aside – I hope you saw this special report with shots of writers’ work spaces… I love this brand of voyeurism, because it feels like you can absorb some of their genius. There are also interesting anecdotes about the spaces, their working methods, and environment.

The first thing I thought when I saw this for the first time was that it looks way too much like this without the same freshness and enjoyable weirdness. It is all just a bit literal, Just a bit 1:1, although not a poorly designed cover by any means.

I don’t know, I rather like it actually. It is what it is and given the nature of the book I think it does the job well enough.

I really like the way “pray” is introduced. Intriguing book cover, I just don’t think the subject matter would suck me in. How guy of me.

The title of the book matches the 1, 2, 3 nature of the contents. The whole thing is very literal, very spelled out, very transparent.

As such, while normally I’d agree that lateral is always more interesting, it wouldn’t make sense in this case, it wouldn’t match the style of the book. The “1:1” see/say decision behind the chosen graphics makes perfect sense.

I just think there are a few minor refinements that could have really taken it over the top; less conventional shapes for the title, and handwritten or rendered secondary type… I don’t think transparency versus depth are mutually exclusive; with so much available material, there could have been layers of meaning; a first read which is straightforward, a secondary read which is an ‘Ah ha!’ moment for the viewer, and then a subtle twist that really knocks it home… conceptual lagniappe, as Eric would say.

also I wanted to say that I too use other designers’ styles as inspiration, I don’t want to give the impression that I was shocked and appalled to see something that looks like another designer’s work but I do like Sagmeister’s treatment better.

The author had some big breakdown / moment of clarity while in the bathroom at 3 a.m. . . so hence the tiles.

And of course everyone loves Sagmeister’s treatment better blah blah blah. Sagmeister doesn’t do books that sit, quite unexpectedly, on the NYT Best Seller list for 30 weeks. He does quirky stuff that appeals to design dorks (not necessarily a diss, that).

This is a fluffy “spiritual lite” read that appeals to the romantic/romance side of women. For what it is, the cover works wonderfully. Certainly it’s a literal cover. But maybe that’s precisely appropriate for this book. In the end—and of course nobody likes to hear this on this site—the cover is at the service of the book. It is, ultimately, just a wrapper. A small billboard. A come-on. Not a design manifesto.

Very few books, in my experience, need or deserve more than two levels of meaning, if that. You have 2 seconds to grab attention. Maybe 2 seconds, if you’re lucky. And most books are great literature, they’re pretty straight ahead entertainment. This is not to excuse covers that don’t make it to “great art” or whatever, it’s just reality. Where we book designers live. Frankly, it’s hard enough just to get something decent approved half the time, never mind your silly “conceptual lagniappe”. Next time I’ll try selling “conceptual lagniappe” to Sales + Marketing where I work and I’ll let you know how that flies.

I like it. I think it’s aesthetically pleasing and it has several thematic layers. The balance is tight and controlled. I think making the words out of appropriate items is rather genius, actually. I wouldn’t have thought of it.

One of the difficulties of judging a cover by its cover is lack of backstory. I imagine it probably went something like this:

“OK, this is a big book for us. It’s kind of a memoir, travelogue and self help book combo by a woman who’s gone through a mid life crisis and finds herself on the other end. Filled with humor, pathos, spirituality, good food, yadayada. Think women’s reading group material. Oh yeah, we want to get out 250,000 on this.”

This cover is very appealing and clearly communicates its intentions to its intended audience. And, I believe, the book has done well on the sales end. Judging within this context, success or no?

“You have 2 seconds to grab attention. Maybe 2 seconds, if you’re lucky.”

We’ve done this debate before, but I don’t mind reiterating some of my stonger points.
The relegation of jacket design to sales, and the idea that we are ONLY grabbing the attention of a reader… as opposed to giving them a gift to chew on… is a terrestrial goal, and resting upon it as a platform from which to launch justification for ‘meh’ is the realm of the mediocre and the jaded. The reason we created this blog, and not a blog about cereal boxes, was because over the past several years, there are designers who are smoothly breezing past the old ‘marketing made me do it’ excuse and on into showing how consumers don’t necessarily need a 2-second hit, loud type, and – in some cases – basic cover elements like the author’s name, or the title.

I recall going to a Mark Danielewski reading of Revolutions, and asking him, flat out, how he managed to get them to put the barcode on the spine. After going so far into the design, and having everyone on board and loving the book’s concept so much, nobody had a problem at all putting it on the spine. Preposterous! But he pulled it off, primarily because it made sense to do so. Granted, this is Danielewski, but I look at stuff that even Helen Yentus has done for Random House… and I know for a fact that conceptual strength is something she can pull off elegantly and, if I recall, no epic battle with the marketing department. Hopefully she’ll be able to answer all these questions in the interview I’ve been trying to set up with her!

Anyway, don’t be a ‘notme’ designer. No odds are insurmountable and if you keep mashing the control panel, eventually you’ll hit the right button.

(It should be noted, all things considered, that this book is a NY Times bestseller. Heh)

Christian: I have been admiring your work for Milkweed for several years, not knowing it was yours! Wonderful covers. Furia and Atlas both are favorites of mine. Plus, you did the cover for James St. James’ latest book! I’m suddenly having an “It’s a Small World After All” moment.

This cover is nice. The “eat” is spaghetti. The “Pray” is Indian prayer beads, and the “love” is Indonesian flower art. All very conceptual and evocative and pleasing in total. Hand made or not, this is clever and so pleasing to look at that the whole design to sales thing just melts together and means very little.

It is appropriate and well executed. Playful and elegant. And while I am sure a bunch of cooks were in the kitchen on this one, they cooked up a pleasant dish. You can say it’s a bit too sweet, to salty, to this or to that—don’t be a philosopher about it—just enjoy the flavors!

You really don’t have even 2 seconds to appeal to anyone (nothing has that luxury). You have your target audience. You have the people you know WILL buy the book and then you have the fraction that will approach it for it’s cover. They’ll read the synopsis, consider spending $6-14 on it and then remember why they actually went to the book store in the first place… to buy that ugly covered novel their cousin’s husband recommended

You have to work with a certain type of client(s) to put a bar code on the spine of your book. Not to mention that the whole book industry will hate you and there was no real good reason for it other than your own ego.

Danielewski—you were not the first to pitch a bar code on a spin—but you will be the last… My point is that you can work your way up to that place—but is it worth it? Not every book that is published deserves or warrants an amazing concept or approach. Just as not every cover that has been posted here has contributed to a better grasp of our industry and what should and should not be explored. Just like not every client pays you enough to give them a cover worthy of a NY bestseller. There is a time and place for everything: A great design, a great designer, a great book, a great author, a great publisher. Not every book RH carries is striking. Not every cover Kidd does is his best try (nor are they heavily conceptual). That does not mean he did not try his best.

Interestingly, the paperback cover of the book doesn’t have the tile element. It’s all white.

This conversation on Eat Pray Love has been one of the most engaging and thoughtful exchanges I’ve read on this blog. Nicely played.

“You really don’t have even 2 seconds to appeal to anyone (nothing has that luxury)”

Preposterous. There is a distinct separation of that which catches our initial attention, and that which creates appeal.

For typical folks an Authors name catches my attention and creates appeal (or a title)—while the book cover is disturbing (mostly to us folks). Appeal is generated on too many levels to say that you have 1 or 2 seconds to appeal. Appeal is irrespective of time or common perceptions of what sells. It just happens. And even when it happens it is not successful if say, the book is too expensive, the subject does not interest you etc etc. So you don’t have any time to appeal to anyone. All you have is the job of creating something that is more or less likely to reach the audience it needs to. The rest is not a matter of time in as much as it is a matter of destiny, quantum mechanics—shit that happens at a fraction of a millisecond… If the variables are in place (an audience that in all probability will read a type of book) the book will simply appeal.

It’s just probablistic. Nothing more. The fact is that this book has a very feminal appeal—and in all probability will land in a womans hands: Ages 30-45, dreamer, shortly after a relationship split… on and on. And I gotta say—It fits those criteria—at a glance.

I think the main duty we have as designers to our customers and the public is to create a work that works for what it needs to and do our utter best. And obviously there is time issues, types of clients, monetary concerns, the subject that you are designing for and, not least, your god-given talent (or amazingly, singlehandedly, evolved skills!).

Your first fallacy is to build your logic on what you believe to be ‘typical folks’. There is no typical folk in publishing; market segments, psychographic and demographic personae, etc. all contribute to the great marketing engine rife with complexities and differentiation. You say yourself that there is a ‘target audience’ and then go on to apply general rules to all book consumers. And in your previous statement, you said that “You really don’t have even 2 seconds to appeal to anyone (nothing has that luxury).” ...and I find that to not only be patently untrue, but provably untrue. My time at Sandstrom proved to me that the creation and inclusion of broad and deep content – not just wham-bam visual appeal and a slapstick concept – can have an enormous primary, secondary, and tertiary effect on the relationship a viewer has with any given piece of design or art. Furthermore, the idea that designers must “create a work that works for what it needs to” and that design is “just probablistic. Nothing more” probably the most horrific, defeatist philosophy I’ve ever heard. Of course, this isn’t the first time I’ve heard it, and ultimately turns into a crutch for those designers that use it… but I would hope that we’re well past the need to pacify ‘needs’ and we’ve moved on, as a profession, to ‘enrichment’ and ‘experience’ and ‘interaction’. I can tell you that my utter best is never ‘lets fulfill the needs of the client and their customer’ but always ‘lets challenge them both, lets invite them to think and chew on something, and lets create something that makes a lasting impression which the audience will cherish for more than 2 seconds.’

You’re right. On the upside we had a good talk. I guess what got me initially was your comment on “over the past several years, there are designers who are smoothly breezing past the old ‘marketing made me do it’ excuse and on into showing how consumers don’t necessarily need a 2-second hit, loud type, and – in some cases – basic cover elements like the author’s name, or the title.”

I agree that when you sit down for a new job and through the life of it you define yourself and your work by pushing the limits. But I also know the practical realities of the field and that you are ultimately subject to the rules of the game. That is why I show comps. Because I am not always happy with what a client has chosen. And I was not able to push and challenge them to see anything more because they had their ideas and their money on the line. And I respect that. Because even I don’t want to be sold on “the goods” every time. Sometimes my utter best is making the best use of a bad bargain—for my sake and my customers sake. That does not mean that within that scope I don’t continue to try to present and challenge their views: Hence all the comps. You guys do great work too.

All I am saying is that everything is relative (as the comments/opinions on this site prove) and we have little control to do anything more than our best—with what we have. You cannot create, and in my opinion should not create, or draw out deep meaning and content out of everything—we have to be honest. Not everything warrants it. Take this latest post for example: It’s a book that pleasantly communicates the title and it’s content in a pretty clever way (not original perhaps). There was probably a host of covers generated for this piece. Some simpler, some more engaging and others just not evocative of the subject at all but great to look at. My point is that what may be broad and deep for you will not have that appeal and meaning in your clients eye—let alone to the world. That’s just the way it is. There is nothing more probablistic than design. Look at nature. Look at the books on your shelf. Do all of them have visual appeal to you. Are some of those the best books you have ever read? Do they have the same visual appeal to you today as they did when you acquired them? If you were raised on a hefty diet of helvetica—do you think that you will use that in your design more often? Were you a fan of David Carson and you can’t stand his work now? Does Martin Vanezky’s stuff make you drool—but you can’t see yourself every attempting to do that type of work? But I hear you loud and clear…

You also don’t want to create something SO conceptual and deep that it gets lost on people. I’ve seen a few of those kinds of things—even in my own work—and it’s funny seeing it years later and saying, “That would have been a trip if they printed that one…”. Concept is great—as long as it is accessible and tangible by the people that you are looking to attract it with.

“Typical folks” are the ones that drive a car, take the bus, drink coffee or green tea and have a 9-5. Oh, and buy books…

no beau. just stuff that appeals to me… We are undergoing a much needed overhaul of work and presentation…
joey, come on…

IAN IS ON CRACK. Showing a million BS comps is a terrible idea, 3 tops and only show in your book what gets used unless the other design is stellar and worth fighting for or you are a student…but those are not issues for you.

yeah, a new cover would help. So much for trying to discuss stuff. Everything in here turns into a personal rant instead of an nice, on going discussion. There is no right or wrong way here people—we are dealing with art. The art of the cover. And beyond that, primarily—the Novel.

As a side note, 123, I totally agree with you. Showing a bunch of shit is not as powerful and intelligent as showing a bunch of crap (or nice stuff). However, I am also of the school of inspiration. I like seeing images, textures, ideas. Minimalism is great to refine focus. So perhaps as a business move it is not smart. But as an artist I get a kick out of mu work—and I love seeing what other folk are doing—not some of it—all of it. Perhaps as I mature as a designer and focus my efforts towards a specific discipline—so too will my work refine and evolve into something worthy of your respect. In the meantime, I have life to balance.

Navigating around, editors, authors and sales not to mention book buyers at B&N adds to the challenges of designing covers. Your work should reflect the best idea, your unique talents and pleasing your client and not every artistic impulse, get a sketchbook for that. Good Luck.

hmmm. I agree with you. BUT, I also feel there is a merit in todays world to offer up a little more than a single idea. To say some, one, singular idea is your utmost best is to rob your client of the truth: There is alway more than one way to solve a problem.

For someone with such a rigid view of how to do stuff (and I appreciate your point of view), it would be swell to see how you organize your work and show yourself to the world…

There is a lot of folks up in here ready to dunk the working man—but don’t have much to back up their words.

It’s easy to say a bunch of stuff when you work for a great company, or have a set job with a good publisher—but for the rest of the world there is the practicality of day to day business. It’s not always easy to say what your best work is. What job deserves your keen ability to do your magic and what needs to be a stepping stone to the next project. Sometimes posting your sketchbook online is not a bad idea either—it depends on your approach to design and your methodology in getting new clients.

Book covers, like art, are meant to engage the viewer. But that engagement is not that different from viewing a piece of art. It is a creation of interpretation and it is further subject to the interpretation of the viewer. Information is not always equally accessible by everyone. There are so many barriers in our languages—both literal and visual. The reality is that good cover design is a result of a seasoned marriage of content and context. You can use any typeface and image and composition. If you have that marriage—you have a good cover.

On a final note. I do believe that there is a merit in showing a client that there are many ways to solve one problem—and that that is what you will be giving them—that level of commitment and collaboration and absorbtion of the content. There is merit to it. It is not the ONLY way. There are many ways…

IAN- shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up

I eat flowers, pray to satan and love the Banana Splits! this cover is not for me.

Not impressed upon first reaction, but maybe I’m missing something. It reminds me of a less interesting Sagmeister design, but maybe that suits the book. Though they did a really good job of arranging the flowers.

I Love this cover. This book is a book that every woman I know read. It is a sensual cover and perfect for the book. None of you guys would ever read this book or find it very engaging so why would you like this cover. Ms Gilbert has the uncany gift of being smart, self depricating yet profound.
Ms. Yentus is a very sensitive and gifted designer. Her cover helped drive the sales of this book ( I’m sure the publisher noticed) and Ms Gilbert delivered.

This cover made the book look so uninteresting to me, I decided not to read it, until a friend insisted it was very good. It is, indeed a good book, full of fascinating material, but I think the cover is a turn-off.

I’m a dude (a straight dude, if any of you were curious) and I had never heard of the author or her previous work. I was browsing the shelves, carelessly, not looking to spend any money or purchase anything. I saw this cover, among the others that mostly consisted of dark landscapes with the titles printed in Times New and I picked this book up and took a closer look at the cover.
OK – so, I’m interested in photography and food and Italy, India, Indonesia (who isn’t?) AND Buddhism/meditation and so forth. I’m majoring in English Writing. But there I was, judging this unknown book by its cover, I flipped it over and skimmed the back, studied the photo again, read the first page and then I purchased the book. In a week, after finishing it, I mailed it off to a friend that I thought would enjoy it also. For what it’s worth here, Eat, Love, Pray involves some very good, personal writing. And the cover is very straightforward and focused – like the content of the book. Nicely done all.