Another one of my “Not much to it but fun to look at” postings.
I will say that the designer did a nice job of communicating a sense of the sinister, despite the limited graphic tool set, (it’s a psychological murder thriller.)
WOW! this one just grips me at first glance. It has the appeal of the “Oh the Glory of it All” cover. It kind of looks like a nervous system/vascular system. Probably would work good in reverse. It’s interesting (like looking up towards the sky when you’re int he woods). There seems to be some eraser type of treatment happening—and while I like the overall effect, the eraser marks bother me a bit—especially between the letters. It’s just a fun design. I agree with Priit—little over done… Bit hard to read. For covers like this it seems photography works better…
My final impression is that this is messy and not well thought out or conceptualized enough to make it strong.
To save it, I would put a bird somewhere (my more is better tendency).
I love the quality and texture of this, but think it’s a bit too literal for me. It looks as if it were the designer’s first idea, instead of being fully explored. I do like that the trees could maybe be read as blood vessels or nerves as well, though.
Also, the ubiquitous “a novel” tag seems to be set in a white box instead of being worked into the illustration—a shame.
Well, I’m liking it, does have a lot of atmosphere to it. What bothers me is that the text is a little hard to read, it would have stood out more if the fogginess began closer to the letters. I’m also not quite sure why the branch in the second “0” in “woods” is shaded so strongly, compared with the otherwise fairly consistent flat look. That, however, is probably one of those things that become more apparent when you’re seeing the printed version instead of on-screen. Oh, and since I’m being picky, the “a novel” looks like it was thrown in as an after thought.
But apart from that: elegant cover, stands apart nicely from the corny stuff one may be used to from thrillers. I like.
I like it a lot. But the hard left justification seems a little too orderly and controlled and saps some of the sinisterness. For a really sinister look, how about white text/branches on black?
I would love to see Marian Bantjes attempt this cover. One of her type solutions would reveal how amateurish this version is. I think if I were doing this cover I would try to carve the title on a Birch tree (aka graffiti tree) and photograph it. If done right that would be beautiful.
i like the justification, it makes sense to me because in my brain it translates as something familiar (left-justified plain black sans) being taken over by nature or some creeping parasitic veins.
but, haven’t read the book, so maybe i’m totally misinterpreting it.
Everybody seems to agree that the concept is very good, but execution somehow does not feel “perfect”. Would the roots of that uneasiness lay in how the image was drawn – technically (composed in Illustrator, with n0 use of photographic material)?
I think it’d be stronger if the image were smaller and there was about one inch of white space on all sides. Regardless, I totally dig it and might even read it.
the design picked up the mode of the book. but the improper distribution of erasures (rep. by the foggy effect) well somehow makes the book looks like a 1960 comedy horror type of layout. or else it would be better.
i don’t like the faded/foggy effect. this is like a first draft of a great idea. i think with a litle work, this would make a really beautiful and strong cover. love the concept.
this is so femenine…the curves the hazy designs, and the layout somehow its kinda weak…i like the concept but i think the designer should be transparent…
i did not mean to offend the sexuality of the designer or whosever/whateverrrrrrrr….
I like this a lot. Only gripe I have is the ‘A Novel’ tag which is so often applied in a ‘pin the tail on the donkey’ sort of fashion. I would like to hear the designer’s thoughts on why the ‘A Novel’ tag is so poorly done.
I think that any jacket that makes it to this site, whether its being shat upon from a great height or praised to the high heavens, is obviously doing its job, i.e. it’s got noticed. I love this jacket, and – by the way – this is a terrible jpeg. Background is white, type is a pretty metallic.
Yes, it’s well crafted, but don’t people think it’s just too obvious? Not as bad as that “Left Wing of a Bird” cover, but still, I don’t feel it is inspiring conceptually. And to me, the cover isn’t pretty enough to be distracted from that fact.
the comments on this re-establish my belief that graphic design blogs should not have comments. add a bird? amateurish? good grief, you people… get real
What bothers me so much about this cover is that I can almost see the entire process of the designer caving to the editor/publisher/marketing person/sales department—in black and white, and some unfortunate shades of gray. I look at the dodged branches and immediately envision someone whining about how it’s “too hard to read”—and someone else suggesting that if only some of those branches were lighter and more “screened back” that maybe it would work. Of course, I could just be reliving my own traumas here. Which, if you’ve read the book, is kind of apropos.
Another one of my “Not much to it but fun to look at” postings.
I will say that the designer did a nice job of communicating a sense of the sinister, despite the limited graphic tool set, (it’s a psychological murder thriller.)
— Ben Pieratt, 2007-05-21 10:14:00
Overdesign? Intricate web on the shadowy background, black strong type on foreground would have been just perfect.
— priit, 2007-05-21 10:20:00
WOW! this one just grips me at first glance. It has the appeal of the “Oh the Glory of it All” cover. It kind of looks like a nervous system/vascular system. Probably would work good in reverse. It’s interesting (like looking up towards the sky when you’re int he woods). There seems to be some eraser type of treatment happening—and while I like the overall effect, the eraser marks bother me a bit—especially between the letters. It’s just a fun design. I agree with Priit—little over done… Bit hard to read. For covers like this it seems photography works better…
My final impression is that this is messy and not well thought out or conceptualized enough to make it strong.
To save it, I would put a bird somewhere (my more is better tendency).
— Ian B. Shimkoviak, 2007-05-21 11:39:00
I love the quality and texture of this, but think it’s a bit too literal for me. It looks as if it were the designer’s first idea, instead of being fully explored. I do like that the trees could maybe be read as blood vessels or nerves as well, though.
Also, the ubiquitous “a novel” tag seems to be set in a white box instead of being worked into the illustration—a shame.
— Jonas, 2007-05-21 12:53:00
Well, I’m liking it, does have a lot of atmosphere to it. What bothers me is that the text is a little hard to read, it would have stood out more if the fogginess began closer to the letters. I’m also not quite sure why the branch in the second “0” in “woods” is shaded so strongly, compared with the otherwise fairly consistent flat look. That, however, is probably one of those things that become more apparent when you’re seeing the printed version instead of on-screen. Oh, and since I’m being picky, the “a novel” looks like it was thrown in as an after thought.
But apart from that: elegant cover, stands apart nicely from the corny stuff one may be used to from thrillers. I like.
— Jerome Dahdah, 2007-05-21 13:06:00
I like it a lot. But the hard left justification seems a little too orderly and controlled and saps some of the sinisterness. For a really sinister look, how about white text/branches on black?
— gutman, 2007-05-21 16:30:00
I would love to see Marian Bantjes attempt this cover. One of her type solutions would reveal how amateurish this version is. I think if I were doing this cover I would try to carve the title on a Birch tree (aka graffiti tree) and photograph it. If done right that would be beautiful.
— Auguste, 2007-05-21 16:57:00
i like the justification, it makes sense to me because in my brain it translates as something familiar (left-justified plain black sans) being taken over by nature or some creeping parasitic veins.
but, haven’t read the book, so maybe i’m totally misinterpreting it.
— jac, 2007-05-21 17:25:00
Everybody seems to agree that the concept is very good, but execution somehow does not feel “perfect”. Would the roots of that uneasiness lay in how the image was drawn – technically (composed in Illustrator, with n0 use of photographic material)?
— priit, 2007-05-21 18:24:00
I think it’d be stronger if the image were smaller and there was about one inch of white space on all sides. Regardless, I totally dig it and might even read it.
— Eric Jacobsen, 2007-05-21 18:32:00
No, I don’t mind that it was illustrated. In fact, I much, much more prefer illustrations over photographic material.
— Jerome Dahdah, 2007-05-21 18:41:00
the design picked up the mode of the book. but the improper distribution of erasures (rep. by the foggy effect) well somehow makes the book looks like a 1960 comedy horror type of layout. or else it would be better.
— ongoy, 2007-05-21 19:03:00
i don’t like the faded/foggy effect. this is like a first draft of a great idea. i think with a litle work, this would make a really beautiful and strong cover. love the concept.
— karen c., 2007-05-21 20:40:00
this is so femenine…the curves the hazy designs, and the layout somehow its kinda weak…i like the concept but i think the designer should be transparent…
i did not mean to offend the sexuality of the designer or whosever/whateverrrrrrrr….
— k-bone, 2007-05-22 02:23:00
I like it. If I’d designed this I would be very happy.
— gray318, 2007-05-22 03:18:00
I like this a lot. Only gripe I have is the ‘A Novel’ tag which is so often applied in a ‘pin the tail on the donkey’ sort of fashion. I would like to hear the designer’s thoughts on why the ‘A Novel’ tag is so poorly done.
— Matt, 2007-05-22 04:25:00
One colour done very nicely.
— dave, 2007-05-22 05:58:00
I am big fan of one color solutions right now and this one is pretty cool.
— David Drummond, 2007-05-22 07:03:00
I think that any jacket that makes it to this site, whether its being shat upon from a great height or praised to the high heavens, is obviously doing its job, i.e. it’s got noticed. I love this jacket, and – by the way – this is a terrible jpeg. Background is white, type is a pretty metallic.
— Glossy, 2007-05-22 07:48:00
“I think the designer should be transparent”
Any other superpowers you’d like Jennifer to gain?
Medication time Mr. k-bone.
This is a great cover.
— Pammy Melstein, 2007-05-22 07:50:00
Really, is it using metallic inks on the trees Glossy? That ads a very interesting quality to it all…
— Ian B. Shimkoviak, 2007-05-22 07:53:00
Yes, it’s well crafted, but don’t people think it’s just too obvious? Not as bad as that “Left Wing of a Bird” cover, but still, I don’t feel it is inspiring conceptually. And to me, the cover isn’t pretty enough to be distracted from that fact.
— dylan, 2007-05-22 11:04:00
pammy u took it literally.. grow up! or grow old!
— k-bone, 2007-05-22 18:14:00
It looks better at 150×200 pixels.
I don’t love the way the designer went about the branch effect. It could have been more detailed, delicate, and thereby more effective.
— C-Dog, 2007-05-25 11:49:00
Very dissapointing! I didn’t like either the concept and the grphics too.
— Sunil Sil, 2007-07-29 10:14:00
good
— gates, 2007-11-01 12:15:00
the comments on this re-establish my belief that graphic design blogs should not have comments. add a bird? amateurish? good grief, you people… get real
— theghosts, 2007-11-15 07:39:00
Believe me, it has been debated.
— Eric J, 2007-11-17 19:02:00
What bothers me so much about this cover is that I can almost see the entire process of the designer caving to the editor/publisher/marketing person/sales department—in black and white, and some unfortunate shades of gray. I look at the dodged branches and immediately envision someone whining about how it’s “too hard to read”—and someone else suggesting that if only some of those branches were lighter and more “screened back” that maybe it would work. Of course, I could just be reliving my own traumas here. Which, if you’ve read the book, is kind of apropos.
— Melissa, 2007-12-10 16:13:00