Yeah, this type-driven cover must have been a balancing act. It’s definitely a great art piece. I’m not clear on the AAAAAAAAAAAA, OOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! stuff at all.
I would pick this up but have NO clue what it’s about. But I do love it.
saw this in a bookstore window the other day… the only quip i’d have is the overprinting of the letters/nubmers in area above the R in RICH… the’re a layered look above the E in NATHANIEL that would have worked.
I always knew those type projects in school had some value. I almost bought this just for the cover alone. OHAAOAOAOA! ! ! !! !! ! O O O
Even though I love the tongue, what I think I like most is the different type faces that are used in the title and author’s name. Each letter works so well.
There is definitely a reference to Dadaist and Futurist styles. Even the yellowing edges exudes a sense that this cover is a graphic artifact from the past.
The book design uses Dadaist’s and Futurist’s onomatopoeic typography and vibrating compositions, as well as their juxtapositions of small and large type. Some of the larger letters subtly suggest the look of squirming tongues, and the small “ooh’s” and “aah’s” are clear manifestations of bouncing sound.
However, this design doesn’t seem chaotic or confusing, marking it as different that your usual Dadaist piece. There is almost a narrative to the composition that makes me think of a Marinetti “words in freedom” piece. But I have yet to see any theoretical basis that would classify this design as belonging to—or being in actual dialogue with—either camp. (Though I haven’t read the book.)
Furthermore, there is an underlying structure to the design (you can still read it from left to right and up to down), which seems to make it much tamer that the styles it mimics. I suppose that allows is to satisfy its requisite of commercial appeal.
A beautiful, well-executed pastiche, but not so revolutionary in this century.
Yes, those OOOO and AAAA sounds the doctor told me to make when he asked me to stick out my tongue. I just want to make sure we’re on the same page so no one is like that tailor on Friends that cupped Chandler’s balls.
I dunno much about “onomatopoeic” and all that jazz, but I can say this… this cover is a fun, but pointless play on typography and nothing more. It alludes to nothing in the book and is simply put a cover for and by a designer with little regard for it’s audience. It’s merit is more in the artistic energy it evokes and not in any effort to communicate or paint a picture of it’s content. Which begs to ask: Is a cover for a novel simply meant to be weird looking and have that be it’s main impetus to be picked up, or should it communicate the nature of the book???
Perhaps I am being too forthcoming, because I DO love this cover, but I cannot get my head around the random lettering which looks otherwise very deliberate and planned in contrast to the overall mood of the piece.
That then, as a designer, makes me ponder weather it is really doing a good job communicating anything other than art. Oh and a title…
I guess what I am saying is that I am made to feel like I am about to read a book set in the 20s about a French or Russian propagandist. That is what this type, composition and colors make me feel like. I don’t think that’s what it’s about. Aside from that it makes me feel like I am about to read a comedy, a humorous piece.
Again, I personally, as a designer, love this cover. It has many components and aspects of it that make me giddy that it passed and other aspects of it that make me question what a book cover is meant to do and what our responsibility is to the book.
And I must reiterate, I love the work of Jon Gray. This is more of a broader observation stimulated by this cover. A wonderful and fun looking cover.
As a book designer for a period in my career, I confess that there were times when I didn’t care about the content or the underlying message of the book. Sure, there were some designs that uniquely and creatively portrayed the story. There were also many that did so in a formulaic, commercial way. Blah! And then there were just a few, here and there, that said nothing about the book at all—they were little rebellious expressions that I got away with. Fun, sometimes experimental, but unrelated to the content, really. Designers are only human, after all. And editors, tired and and troubled by so much stress and crap, are likely to let some designs slide if they just look pretty enough.
Some pretty amazing things going on with this cover, including user-submitted designs. Read up on it here.
— Ben Pieratt, 2008-05-09 07:17:00
What makes this cover remarkable is that he makes it look so easy to pull off – it isn’t.
A perfect cover!
— David, 2008-05-09 07:55:00
Great link Ben.
Yeah, this type-driven cover must have been a balancing act. It’s definitely a great art piece. I’m not clear on the AAAAAAAAAAAA, OOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! stuff at all.
I would pick this up but have NO clue what it’s about. But I do love it.
— ian shimkoviak, 2008-05-09 09:45:00
This is amazing. LOVE IT!
I want to lick this cover…
— C-Dog, 2008-05-09 10:39:00
saw this in a bookstore window the other day… the only quip i’d have is the overprinting of the letters/nubmers in area above the R in RICH… the’re a layered look above the E in NATHANIEL that would have worked.
— mark, 2008-05-09 11:32:00
Everything about this is great.
I believe that the “AAAAAAAAAAAA, OOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” stuff is the mayor’s tongue.
— dave, 2008-05-09 11:38:00
The tongue reminds me of how adult’s speaking was represented in old charlie brown cartoons. Noise, no substance.
— Courtney, 2008-05-09 12:06:00
I always knew those type projects in school had some value. I almost bought this just for the cover alone. OHAAOAOAOA! ! ! !! !! ! O O O
Even though I love the tongue, what I think I like most is the different type faces that are used in the title and author’s name. Each letter works so well.
— Arthur, 2008-05-09 14:52:00
A whiff of 1920’s Dada, especially in the crazy title letters!
— terry bigham, 2008-05-09 14:54:00
I loved it till I noticed that awful cats bum hole mouth thingy- just terrible. The type is fab though.
— Josh, 2008-05-09 19:46:00
A cats bum hole? I was thinking that it reminds me of another orifice much more inviting. But that’s not for here.
It doesn’t bother me…
— C-Dog, 2008-05-10 04:53:00
There is definitely a reference to Dadaist and Futurist styles. Even the yellowing edges exudes a sense that this cover is a graphic artifact from the past.
The book design uses Dadaist’s and Futurist’s onomatopoeic typography and vibrating compositions, as well as their juxtapositions of small and large type. Some of the larger letters subtly suggest the look of squirming tongues, and the small “ooh’s” and “aah’s” are clear manifestations of bouncing sound.
However, this design doesn’t seem chaotic or confusing, marking it as different that your usual Dadaist piece. There is almost a narrative to the composition that makes me think of a Marinetti “words in freedom” piece. But I have yet to see any theoretical basis that would classify this design as belonging to—or being in actual dialogue with—either camp. (Though I haven’t read the book.)
Furthermore, there is an underlying structure to the design (you can still read it from left to right and up to down), which seems to make it much tamer that the styles it mimics. I suppose that allows is to satisfy its requisite of commercial appeal.
A beautiful, well-executed pastiche, but not so revolutionary in this century.
— d-man, 2008-05-10 15:33:00
Yes, those OOOO and AAAA sounds the doctor told me to make when he asked me to stick out my tongue. I just want to make sure we’re on the same page so no one is like that tailor on Friends that cupped Chandler’s balls.
— Auguste, 2008-05-12 20:53:00
c dog don’t c cat- but another sort of pussy
j
— josh, 2008-05-13 23:18:00
a very well credentialled book designer friend of mine said ’ who buys books that look like this anyway?’- made me think- brings it all back home.
— josh, 2008-05-13 23:21:00
its a tape worm leaking out of a cats backside isnt it?
— pogo, 2008-05-15 01:49:00
I dunno much about “onomatopoeic” and all that jazz, but I can say this… this cover is a fun, but pointless play on typography and nothing more. It alludes to nothing in the book and is simply put a cover for and by a designer with little regard for it’s audience. It’s merit is more in the artistic energy it evokes and not in any effort to communicate or paint a picture of it’s content. Which begs to ask: Is a cover for a novel simply meant to be weird looking and have that be it’s main impetus to be picked up, or should it communicate the nature of the book???
Perhaps I am being too forthcoming, because I DO love this cover, but I cannot get my head around the random lettering which looks otherwise very deliberate and planned in contrast to the overall mood of the piece.
That then, as a designer, makes me ponder weather it is really doing a good job communicating anything other than art. Oh and a title…
I guess what I am saying is that I am made to feel like I am about to read a book set in the 20s about a French or Russian propagandist. That is what this type, composition and colors make me feel like. I don’t think that’s what it’s about. Aside from that it makes me feel like I am about to read a comedy, a humorous piece.
Again, I personally, as a designer, love this cover. It has many components and aspects of it that make me giddy that it passed and other aspects of it that make me question what a book cover is meant to do and what our responsibility is to the book.
And I must reiterate, I love the work of Jon Gray. This is more of a broader observation stimulated by this cover. A wonderful and fun looking cover.
— ian shimkoviak, 2008-05-15 09:17:00
As a book designer for a period in my career, I confess that there were times when I didn’t care about the content or the underlying message of the book. Sure, there were some designs that uniquely and creatively portrayed the story. There were also many that did so in a formulaic, commercial way. Blah! And then there were just a few, here and there, that said nothing about the book at all—they were little rebellious expressions that I got away with. Fun, sometimes experimental, but unrelated to the content, really. Designers are only human, after all. And editors, tired and and troubled by so much stress and crap, are likely to let some designs slide if they just look pretty enough.
— d-man, 2008-05-15 20:47:00