Book Covers

My first impression of this cover was one of immense satisfaction. A well done call back to russian constructivism without the usual cheese that comes with it. I especially like the fold in the ribbon of the white NOBEL PRIZE bar.

After having stewed on this for a couple days, though, I have to say that I’m not quite as thrilled.

Graphically, there’s no question of its merits. But The Gulag Archipelago is an exhausting work, both in the story it tells and the effect it has on its reader. I get no sense of its hardship or insight. I don’t wonder if something more akin to Chip Kidd’s cover for The English Patient would have been more appropriate. Something that speaks to the reasons why this is such an amazing book, as opposed to the era it speaks from.

— Ben Pieratt, 2007-07-26 18:47:00

I think you make an excellent point Ben, looking at the Kidd cover, I want to see the 3/4 circle on the lower right filled with an image that commands me to open the book, but I think the typography is good.

Re: color I heard someone mention the other day that internationally orange is the least offensive color across nations.

As long as the cover doesn’t make the book look zany and wacky – and I don’t think this one does – I don’t mind that it doesn’t have the “gravitas” of the book. In fact, a cover that screamed “THIS IS A TOUGH READ” would necessarily unnerve any marketing department. And it does take some effort to read all the cover copy, so in that sense I’m satisfied.

I think this is actually an really elegant solution to a problem that often crops up in front cover design – how to negotiate a vast amount of copy. Look at the lines that probably had to appear here:

“The Gulag Archipelago”
“An Experiment in Literary Investigation”
“Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn”
“Abridged: Authorized by the Author”
”’Best Nonfiction Book of the Twentieth Century.’ – Time”
“Winner of the Nobel Prize”
“Foreword by Anne Applebaum”
“HarperPerennial Modern Classics”

When you look at it that way, this is a great acheivement. Eight different type elements and still it doesn’t seem bogged down.

Hmmm….I think it could’ve done without that “P.S.” dot in the lower right hand corner.

The P.S. device in the bottom right is a series conceit, so designer rather shackled there. I guess it stands out more on this one because the black and white sits so comfortably with the rest of the design that it looks as though it was designed for this cover.

I think the design is quite strong: the type elements are heirarchied well, with Title and Author coming at you stronger than the other elements.

I get Ben’s point re. something that nods to the ‘weightiness’ of the book (though I really quite dislike the Kidd cover—I finished The English Patient a while ago and feel Kidd’s treatment fails completely to register the complex notes of love, separation and loss from within that story). This Gulag cover does lack something that alludes to the clout the book caused on publication, its canonical importance and its significant content and achievements.

P.S.
Nice to see everyone back here for comments: felt weird going elsewhere for a chat on the latest Gray 318 cover—which was fantastic, by the way.

Maybe I’m just being a type geek, but I’m really diggin it. Plus my favorite color combo is red/black/white. But this is a sudden-glance interpretation.

Nice type play and overall graphic impact. I don’t know what it’s about though, so i cannot say if this treatment is definitive of the writing in any way.

There is a strong, almost “I” looking line to the right of the word “Archipelago”. It bothers me. I know it’s meant to ground things to the left as is done in constructivist art and typesetting, but it could have been treated differently.

I honestly like the other covers for this book that Kulick features on his website. There is a energetic order. Here we have everything dumped in the middle. For the reader to sort out…

Don’t worry about reposting my comment Ben. This is basically what my 2 cents was about.

Is it me or does the Harper Perennial bug look like a cocktail olive? Even clearer on the web site: http://tinyurl.com/2lmuha

But here we are with the orange, black, and white color scheme again aren’t we? That seems to be what the kids are designing with these days. That’s not a criticism any more than an observation.

I’m going to have to disagree with you there. The very nature of the cover is difficult and “hard” to read. It takes a good deal of effort on the viewer’s part to decipher the title of the book. I have no familiarity with this work, so I had a difficult time deciphering the title and understanding what this is all about.

The only this that cool “English Patient” cover has over this one is that it’s more straight-forward and facile.

I would have liked to see if occupy or use more of the space; the type is not static, but becomes because of the constraint it is in (if that makes sense). I also don’t like the placement of the “Abridged” portion – it seems stuck on and ill placed within the context of how you are supposed to read it. Otherwise, I think this is pretty cool.

This cover is a mess. It lacks typographic rigor. Russian constructivism has been done to death but if you are going to do it, at least do it well.

Just by way of illustration the copy “An Experiment in Literary Investigation” has the first three words on the first line kerned tightly and the next two lines with more open kerning but nothing lines up properly. It just seem sloppy overall.

I’m with beauGeste on this one, but I will take it even further—this is design kitch, the automatic, lazy response to anything Russian themed, akin to flipping the “E”s to create a fake Cyrillic. And poorly done, to boot.

The fact is, constructivism as a design style was long dead in Russia by the time Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn began to work on his masterpiece, replaced in official circles by Social Realism. Many of it’s practitioners emigrated to the west, though others like Lissitzky continued to produce experimental Soviet propaganda through the 1930’s.

This is not to say that styles need always to be historically accurate—witness the revival of constructivisim in the 1980’s. It’s a question of context: when Neville Brody brought constructivist typography to The Face, he was synthesising a new graphical idiom. The way Kulick uses the style in this cover makes it feel tired, generic, and, ultimately, false.

That’s “its practitioners,” not “it’s…” I hate making that mistake…

“An Experiment in Literary Investigation” beauGeste is right what’s going on there is summer intern typography at best.

there is a history in the era of russian contuctivism. when artist’ brought their art in the streets of moscow. the communist government simply bulldoze the crap out of it.

coz its an eye sore and anti soviet..! the common people cant read this stuff…or simply they took to much time figuring the message they forgot to work…. work…work…work..

I dunno, it has shelf presence. And i know you guys hate that word(s), but it all kind of boils down to that. Because of the disorder there is a desire to pick it up and make order of it. The color pairings and type are energetic and speak of something monumental, yet the loose graphic approach, makes it accessible to a younger audience.

Poor craft skills. I agree with the typographic rigor comment. Noisy chaff.
Doesn’t mean it’s not effective though.
Do editorial planners exist?