Design-wise, its a bit of a non-entity. (Which isn’t to say it doesn’t have a certain appeal.)
What I like about this is the explanatory diagram on the cover. “Just in case the title and subtitle don’t catch your interest, here’s a supporting illustration!”
And no, I haven’t read the book, so I can’t explain the fact that lettuce was apparently called “meat” back in the day. A brief Google search yielded no results, though it did send me to this bizarre site.
From dictionary.com: O.E. mete “food, item of food” (contrasted with drink)... Narrower sense of “flesh used as food” is first attested c.1300. Dictionary.com also notes that “meat” used to mean “the edible part of anything.”
Looks like cabbage, which is definitely meatier than lettuce. But not so odd considering we still use the words flesh and meat to refer to parts of the coconut and other fruits and vegetables.
I like the ilo but the italicized title makes me think of the superfluous quotation marks you see on hand-made signs – why the added emphasis?
The cover is floaty. The italics, the small images, parenthesis around the phrases and italic “and” are all working against each other. There is no cohesive and focused idea here.
On a side note, apparently the word that is translated as “meat” in the bible was actually simply a reference to food in general or honey comb.
Dictionary.com gives these definitions of the words: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/meat
All that said, it seems that the images chosen for this cover end up being a weak example of word evolution/history/semantics.
I want the book – it sounds fascinating. However, I’m really not drawn in any way graphically to this cover. It’s really very average in many respects.
On the subject of food history, check out this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Movable-Feast-Millennia-Food-Globalization/dp/052179353X/
Now that’s a cover I can sink my teeth into… harharhar.
I like that cover C-dog, but boy does it seem like a book on the pineapple trade in the Caribbean… But undeniably a better looking cover than this. I think that the ilos just could have been a bit bigger on this one and even that would have helped a tad.
I am bothered by the italicized “and” in the title. That seems to me like a misplaced emphasis. Had the authored meant to emphasize a word, italicizing the word “why” or perhaps even “and why” might have made some sense. That the italic d is somewhat cute doesn’t hold up as a proper excuse.
I’d like to believe this cover looks better in a store because here it just seems boring.
Well, i’m always a sucker for diagrams, but what strikes me is that it actually has a very playful title in “Semantic Antics” – but it wasn’t until looking at the cover for a minute or two that I could see the “humor” in that. If the title was just “how and why words change meaning” I could definitely see scraping around to see what you could spice up the cover with. It just seems like they had an eye catching title and didn’t really do anything with it.
Design-wise, its a bit of a non-entity. (Which isn’t to say it doesn’t have a certain appeal.)
What I like about this is the explanatory diagram on the cover. “Just in case the title and subtitle don’t catch your interest, here’s a supporting illustration!”
And no, I haven’t read the book, so I can’t explain the fact that lettuce was apparently called “meat” back in the day. A brief Google search yielded no results, though it did send me to this bizarre site.
— Ben Pieratt, 2008-05-05 08:53:00
The cover is adorable and the book itself looks awesome.
And the Lettuce Meat site? Just plain BIZARRE.
— Suzie, 2008-05-05 09:15:00
From dictionary.com: O.E. mete “food, item of food” (contrasted with drink)... Narrower sense of “flesh used as food” is first attested c.1300. Dictionary.com also notes that “meat” used to mean “the edible part of anything.”
— Joseph, 2008-05-05 09:44:00
Looks like cabbage, which is definitely meatier than lettuce. But not so odd considering we still use the words flesh and meat to refer to parts of the coconut and other fruits and vegetables.
I like the ilo but the italicized title makes me think of the superfluous quotation marks you see on hand-made signs – why the added emphasis?
— will, 2008-05-05 10:52:00
The cover is floaty. The italics, the small images, parenthesis around the phrases and italic “and” are all working against each other. There is no cohesive and focused idea here.
On a side note, apparently the word that is translated as “meat” in the bible was actually simply a reference to food in general or honey comb.
Dictionary.com gives these definitions of the words: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/meat
All that said, it seems that the images chosen for this cover end up being a weak example of word evolution/history/semantics.
— ian shimkoviak, 2008-05-05 13:01:00
I want the book – it sounds fascinating. However, I’m really not drawn in any way graphically to this cover. It’s really very average in many respects.
On the subject of food history, check out this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Movable-Feast-Millennia-Food-Globalization/dp/052179353X/
Now that’s a cover I can sink my teeth into… harharhar.
— C-Dog, 2008-05-05 14:08:00
I like that cover C-dog, but boy does it seem like a book on the pineapple trade in the Caribbean… But undeniably a better looking cover than this. I think that the ilos just could have been a bit bigger on this one and even that would have helped a tad.
— ian shimkoviak, 2008-05-05 18:35:00
This cover is a title page with color.
Are consumers programmed to accept/expect yawn-inducing design in the reference dept of bookstores?
— Tom McKeveny, 2008-05-06 03:41:00
I am bothered by the italicized “and” in the title. That seems to me like a misplaced emphasis. Had the authored meant to emphasize a word, italicizing the word “why” or perhaps even “and why” might have made some sense. That the italic d is somewhat cute doesn’t hold up as a proper excuse.
I’d like to believe this cover looks better in a store because here it just seems boring.
— chris pc, 2008-05-08 07:41:00
Well, i’m always a sucker for diagrams, but what strikes me is that it actually has a very playful title in “Semantic Antics” – but it wasn’t until looking at the cover for a minute or two that I could see the “humor” in that. If the title was just “how and why words change meaning” I could definitely see scraping around to see what you could spice up the cover with. It just seems like they had an eye catching title and didn’t really do anything with it.
— Connal, 2008-05-16 11:25:00