What you're seeing is the back cover of the hardcover jacket that I.. covered over a year ago when the paperback came out. I basically trashed it and stated that the hard cover was vastly inferior.
However, this image of the back cover was recently sent to me by its exceedingly gracious designer, Marc Cozza, and I now must acknowledge the error of my ways.
Having seen the full package, I see how masterfully this has been treated. When comparing the two covers alone, I still prefer the paperback. However, to negate the overall effect of the entire package of the hardcover is to completely miss the point.
As such, I tip my hat to Mr. Cozza and humbly apologize. This is an absolutely wonderful treatment.
Yeah, I love the paper it’s printed on and just about everything about it. The kitsch treatment of the back cover and over all quality of the cover illustration. I wonder how many of those back cover ads were custom designed… That’s was fun to do, I’m sure.
I just finished a cover for a book on the history of ‘adult movies’ and was THIS close to using a page of those old “Stag Movies” and “Marital Ad” ads for the cover. Good thing I didn’t because this is excellent.
It’s noteworthy (to me anyway) that Taxali’s and Rebecca Cohen’s illustrative style for the Gall and Cozza versions of these book covers are so similar. The general mood of the two covers becomes similar on that note. While Jon Gray’s take on it was a complete, and fun graphic departure… I have to say I like the bold, frantic and simplistic nature of the Cozza version; and how it breaks into something different but conceptually unexpected on the back cover.
Why don’t people like the hardcover? It’s hard not to like the Taxali one, because it’s a great illustration. However I like the simplicity of the hardcover. Is the type debossed? On uncoated stock?
No, no Auguste, no beads or fancy end papers, BUT, there is a nice off reg treatment of the authors photo on the inside flap—goes nice with the whole “newspaper” quality of the book. So there. A flap is part of the cover design. This site is about book covers—not just the front—but the whole lovely package…
I'd like to eat some crow for a moment.
What you're seeing is the back cover of the hardcover jacket
that I.. covered over a year ago when the paperback came out. I basically trashed it and stated that the hard cover was vastly inferior.
However, this image of the back cover was recently sent to me by its exceedingly gracious designer, Marc Cozza, and I now must acknowledge the error of my ways.
Having seen the full package, I see how masterfully this has been treated. When comparing the two covers alone, I still prefer the paperback. However, to negate the overall effect of the entire package of the hardcover is to completely miss the point.
As such, I tip my hat to Mr. Cozza and humbly apologize. This is an absolutely wonderful treatment.
(this is the front of the jacket)
— Ben Pieratt, 2007-06-21 22:27:00
Front sucks… back owns.
I still prefer the Jon Gray version but i do agree, that back cover is superb.
— Luke Tonge, 2007-06-22 02:13:00
A lovely back cover – but I agree with Luke, the paperback is just an overall improvement.
— GH, 2007-06-22 04:49:00
Yeah, I love the paper it’s printed on and just about everything about it. The kitsch treatment of the back cover and over all quality of the cover illustration. I wonder how many of those back cover ads were custom designed… That’s was fun to do, I’m sure.
— Ian B. Shimkoviak, 2007-06-22 07:38:00
I just finished a cover for a book on the history of ‘adult movies’ and was THIS close to using a page of those old “Stag Movies” and “Marital Ad” ads for the cover. Good thing I didn’t because this is excellent.
— dave, 2007-06-22 08:14:00
It’s noteworthy (to me anyway) that Taxali’s and Rebecca Cohen’s illustrative style for the Gall and Cozza versions of these book covers are so similar. The general mood of the two covers becomes similar on that note. While Jon Gray’s take on it was a complete, and fun graphic departure… I have to say I like the bold, frantic and simplistic nature of the Cozza version; and how it breaks into something different but conceptually unexpected on the back cover.
— Ian B. Shimkoviak, 2007-06-22 09:51:00
im completely biased..
because i looove taxali soo much..
but ..i like this one..just not AS much..
— suicide_blond, 2007-06-22 11:38:00
Why don’t people like the hardcover? It’s hard not to like the Taxali one, because it’s a great illustration. However I like the simplicity of the hardcover. Is the type debossed? On uncoated stock?
— doogie, 2007-06-22 13:49:00
it’s on uncoated stock. No deboss
— Ian B. Shimkoviak, 2007-06-22 13:59:00
Is the headband silk-bead? What about special endpapers?
— Auguste, 2007-06-24 07:30:00
i likebooks
— matt attfield ,age 13 ,littleh, 2007-06-25 04:49:00
No, no Auguste, no beads or fancy end papers, BUT, there is a nice off reg treatment of the authors photo on the inside flap—goes nice with the whole “newspaper” quality of the book. So there. A flap is part of the cover design. This site is about book covers—not just the front—but the whole lovely package…
— Ian B. Shimkoviak, 2007-06-28 13:21:00
I like the cover.
Good thing the back isn’t the cover. I could easily do without the “chaos” on the verso of the book.
— C-Dog, 2007-06-28 15:56:00
How could anyone not like this.
I love the simplicit of the cover and the intricate back cover.
How big of you to apoligize to this designer.
— a2, 2007-07-17 21:05:00