Illustrator: Lars Leetaru (cover) & Eugene Smith (interior)

title: Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters

Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters

As a follow-up to Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, Irreference (formerly known as Quirk Books) just released the pulp-horror revision of Jane Austen's classic Sense and Sensibility. The rewrite infuses the victorian era romance with "all-new scenes of giant lobsters, rampaging octopi, two-headed sea serpents, and other biological monstrosities."

— Fwis , 2009-07-20 12:50:34 -0400

too rad. I speak mainly about the illustrations. The rest is what it is.

— Ian B. Shimkoviak , 2009-07-20 13:46:46 -0400

Wow, I was wondering if there was gonna be a follow-up, and this has exceeded my wildest expectations. That guy looks like a character from Pirates of the Caribbean - is that a pre-existing mythical character of some sort.? And I I also wonder - the idea of messing with a classic must have been experimented with before these books came out. Even school kids must have tried their hand at this. How is it that this particular series became so popular?

— Tal Goretsky , 2009-07-20 15:12:59 -0400

There is indeed a mythical creature that the octopus guy is based on—the Cthulhu.

— Anonymous Coward , 2009-07-20 15:39:54 -0400

Weee...

Can't top zombies, though. Or the freshness of this book's predecessor. It was teh rock.

— Chad , 2009-07-21 08:00:16 -0400

Am I the only person who thinks these are a tad obvious? - I mean come on the titles are pretty comical- more than half the work is done for you right there.

— Anonymous Coward , 2009-07-21 08:08:42 -0400

Is obvious always a bad thing? For me, an obvious solution can be great in the execution.

— Fwis, 2009-07-21 08:46:22 -0400

Man, they've really upped the ante for this book. Check out the trailer here.

— Fwis, 2009-07-21 08:49:46 -0400

Obvious is okay because the title is so snarky; anything too conceptually layered would be inappropriate and take away from the punchline.

— Anonymous Coward , 2009-07-21 09:51:09 -0400

Bahaha that trailer is AWESOME.

— Anonymous Coward , 2009-07-21 09:54:12 -0400

I'm not suggesting it be conceptually layered, just a little more than a literal interpretation of the title. They are fun- the kudos should go to the author - they are kind of no brainer covers- very little challenge involved. Show me an interesting cover for a book about rocks. The artwork is pretty fab though.

— Anonymous Coward , 2009-07-21 10:19:00 -0400

I see what you're saying, and to an extent, I agree. A lot of the credit here goes to a great book concept and a good title to go along with it. I think the smart design decisions were made on Pride and Prejudice and Zombies — the idea to make the typography and layout feel classic, something you might glance over if you weren't paying attention. For this book, Doogie went with the same concept, and I think it is going to make for a nice series. What is cooler than a set of bizarro horror romance novels hidden among their classic counterparts?

— Fwis, 2009-07-21 10:30:34 -0400

Cthulhu aside, the dude looks exactly like Bill Nighy in Pirates of the Caribbean:

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2006-07-16-pirates-fx_x.htm

— Anne , 2009-07-21 11:26:14 -0400

I think its okay to undesign something when the content is already brilliant. See Sam Potts' Jon Hodgman, for example. My fellow designers, please remember that design isn't always the priority, and sometimes its better to let the content speak louder than your art!

— , 2009-07-21 22:02:01 -0400

Holy crap, that trailer is sweet! lol

— Chad , 2009-07-22 02:40:51 -0400

The trailer is dumb and obvious. As is the cover.

They've spend way too much money on something corny and useless.

It is what it is, I guess.

— Anonymous Coward , 2009-07-22 12:15:16 -0400

I wouldn't disregard parody as 'useless'. Candide is a hilarious parody of Milton's Paradise Lost. Oh Brother, Where Art Thou — a masterful parody of Homer's Odyssey. You never know when a well conceived parody will overtake the original. And its just cool that my little brother can even touch a Jane Austen inspired book and still feel cool.

— Fwis, 2009-07-22 12:35:54 -0400

"The trailer is dumb and obvious. As is the cover. They've spend way too much money on something corny and useless."

Wrong.. You can't make a viewer jump to many times conceptually. Here you've got a mix of two very disparate genres; Jane Austen meets creepy sea monster horror story. Its already ridiculous. Its supposed to be ridiculous. By taking it any farther you're distracting from the inherent humor of the concept itself and very likely confusing the viewer; if a book itself already has a very clear and plainly-stated concept... if the book is ALREADY conceptual... you're just frosting the frosting.

I understand if you don't *like* the humor or perhaps your personal senses and sensibilities are offended, but again, sometimes the author/publisher is smarter, funnier, or more conceptual than you are.

— , 2009-07-22 15:12:53 -0400

"The trailer is dumb and obvious. As is the cover. "

Eh! Mashups are freakin' epic. Get bent!

— Chad , 2009-07-24 03:16:06 -0400

Better to be too obvious than too clever.

Any suggestions for the 3rd in the series?

— , 2009-07-24 06:59:02 -0400

I don't think anyone is arguing that this should be more conceptually complicated- it seems the Anonymous cowards, of which i am one, just think the "design' component of this cover is a little lacking- as
Ian S. said in reference to the type- 'It is what it is'- to some of us the whole cover 'is what it is'- and on a site celebrating book cover design, as opposed to illustration, you gotta wonder if these covers merit posting.

— Anonymous Coward , 2009-07-24 09:21:55 -0400

For me, it is a question of art direction, which at times requires that the AD yields his own creative talents to the writer, illustrator, or photographer he is working with. Doogie tried his hand at illustration for the cover of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (it wasn't perfect, but I would say it was a brave undertaking). What that tells me is that for this book, he decided to art direct and let the talents of the writer and illustrator speak for themselves, while preserving his own conceptual thinking.

That doesn't mean his art direction doesn't play a significant role. The restrained type, the generic layout, the styling of the couple on the front — all decision made to convey the concept. By retaining the classic, even generic and boring feel of the original classics (you know, those flimsy Signet Classic paperbacks), you get the feel that these books have been Zombified themselves, now just a bloodied, half-dead shell of their former selves.

— Fwis, 2009-07-24 09:44:41 -0400

This is Doogie Horner, the designer.

The understated design was chosen to help Seamonsters blend in with the rest of the reissued classics on the shelves. Also, I think a too-clever design or illustration would distract from the clever title and book concept.

Most of the work was done in deciding what the illustration should be. I tried a bunch where the two main sisters in the book were being attacked by seamonsters, or fighting seamonsters, but we felt those illustrations didn't reflect the "mashup" quality of the book. We wanted the book to look like a normal book if you just glanced at it. Or at least to be half normal, half absurd.

As Keenan mentioned, I tried painting this cover myself like I did with zombies—merging an original painting with my new painting—but the old image we chose for Seamonsters was a litho, and I couldn't duplicate the style. Lars Leetaru to the rescue! He did the whole painting from scratch, and it looks incredible.

— Anonymous Coward , 2009-07-24 15:24:18 -0400

Well said, designer.

The fact that this cover (and the other{s} like it) mimic classic reissues in a playful way is concept enough. I love the whole idea. On a design level you are doing a similar, but entirely different thing, than the author is doing with the source material. You're making new concept out of established traditions.

One conflict between the cover and that fancy new trailer is the fact that on the cover we see a lady and a monster in love, whilst in the film we see a monster "devour" her love. Heh... I should hope and expect that conflict of ideas works itself out in the narrative, because as it stands the two concepts are at odds. Are the monsters evil or amorous? We don't know!

— Chad , 2009-07-25 22:58:46 -0400

The guy on the cover isn't a monster. He's a character in the book (Colonel Brandon) who's been cursed by a sea witch. So the monsters are bad, but he's good.

— Anonymous Coward , 2009-07-28 11:00:37 -0400

I think that Sense and Sensibilities and Ninjas would be a better choice, but that's just me.

— Anonymous Coward , 2009-07-28 17:33:44 -0400

The typical Austen crowd will squirm. I think this book will be purchased by only the super curious or designers. Will people really read it, or just giggle at the cover?

— Anonymous Coward , 2009-07-29 11:47:50 -0400

"The typical Austen crowd will squirm. I think this book will be purchased by only the super curious or designers. Will people really read it, or just giggle at the cover?"

Does it matter who if it sells into multiple printings?

— Chad , 2009-07-30 03:53:01 -0400

Mansfield Park Manticore.
That should be next. Don't see many Manticores anymore.

— Anonymous Coward , 2009-08-09 00:05:56 -0400

Godawful. But that probably goes for the story as well.

— boblet , 2009-09-04 13:54:29 -0400

I've bought it already. And I'm a pretty hardcore Austen fan. I'm a third of the way through it (classes are sucking up all of my reading time) and I think it's delightfully ridiculous. What is this nonsense? No idea. But it makes me laugh. It's refreshing to see someone poke so much fun at Jane Austen. I love her books, but sometimes I feel like things get a little too cult-y.

As for the third installment.... I don't know. Emma and Extraterrestrials? Doesn't quite have the same ring. No more ands. :(

— Anonymous Coward , 2009-10-15 02:00:05 -0400

I don't see anything wrong with the cover design - after all, is not the point of the cover to sell the book? Shouldn't that be a consideration when judging the cover design? I think the cover suits the tone of the material, which is what matters most in the case of any book, better than a more 'conceptual' cover would have. It's a silly story, so a silly cover gives the best flavor for it, and I have seen the re-issued classics that it is attempting to immitate, and I have to say that it captures/mocks the flavor quite nicely. I may be an Anonymous Coward, but I'm also an author, and from my side of the mirror getting a cover that conveys in a single image what you took 400+ pages to say is a challenging and frustrating process. The phrase "never judge a book by its cover" is wonderful in a moral sense but does not work very well in practice when it comes to marketing.

— Anonymous Coward , 2009-10-20 19:05:02 -0400

kodomanlar ordeklerle kosarken birden karsilarinda orhan gencebay cikmis sonra muslum b una bozulmus baslamislar kolbasti oynamaya sonra yorulmuslar otururken mum sondu yapmaya karar vermisler acaba niye?

— yapay havuz , 2009-12-03 09:50:57 -0500

garlica

— garlica , 2010-01-20 08:09:09 -0500

biber hapi
fx15
lida
rent a car
magna rx
penis büyütücü
elektronik sigara

— red pepper , 2010-01-28 06:33:11 -0500