Tor.com / Science fiction and fantasy / Current conversations

Grim And Gritty Or Charming, How Do You Like Your Book Covers?

tags: illustration, art, fantasy, science fiction, painting

participants:

orchard joined: Sunday July 20, 2008 posts: 26 location:	Tuesday August 12, 2008 06:23pm EDT \| bookmark I'd really like to know what you're looking for in a book cover. What jumps off the shelf at you? What keeps you turning back to the cover as you read? I find there are divergent attitudes when it comes to book covers, looking at the Hugo nominated ones they were pretty conservative and pretty boring. It made me want to know what people want from their fantasy and science fiction art. I grew up loving Arthur Rackham, Brian Froud, Virgil Finlay and Hannes Bok so my preferences are certainly along the charming lines. I find "grim and gritty" a bit dull. I'd love to know what others think. Do you want your covers to be photo-realistic renderings that immerse you in the world? Do you look for emotional truth? Do you care more about font than painting? Will you not read a book because you don't like the color of the cover? (there's a Graham Greene book that is forever ruined for me because of this...) Do you want to see the main characters depicted or would you rather imagine that yourself? Does it have to be modern? Anyway, I'd love to know everyone's thoughts on this.
Sandikal joined: Thursday July 24, 2008 posts: 30 location:	Tuesday August 12, 2008 08:47pm EDT \| bookmark In general, I like a simple, modern cover. I love the covers of Richard K. Morgan's books. I'm not big on covers with pictures of people on them. If a cover is going to have a picture of something on it, I want it to be unique and creative, not just a rendition of some scene out of a book. It has to be good art. The artwork on the covers of Charles de Lint's books is especially noteworthy.
SpeakerToManagers joined: Tuesday July 08, 2008 posts: 22 location: Portland, OR	Tuesday August 12, 2008 08:55pm EDT \| bookmark I look at the artwork first; for me the design should be about showing off the art, and secondarily displaying the title and author in a readable font that composes well with the art. Of course, I grew up on many of the same artists as you, as well as Maxwell Parish and Kelly Freas. And since then my tastes have followed similar lines: Michael Whelan, Darrel Sweet. It's not so much about color as it is about strong composition, dynamic posing of figures, and good representational drawing. I grew up with the paperbacks of the 1950's and 60's with their abstract (cheap) covers, I didn't like them then, and like them less now.
orchard joined: Sunday July 20, 2008 posts: 26 location:	Tuesday August 12, 2008 08:58pm EDT \| bookmark Thanks Sandikal. That's interesting and quite different from my feelings about covers, although I know what you mean, there's something to be said about being allowed to use your own imagination to conjure up the scenes of a book. I came across this interesting article on the Intergalactic Medicine Show that talks about the difference between American and U.K. book covers. I found it interesting that U.K. readers apparently prefer landscapes without people... www.intergalacticmedicineshow.com/cgi-bin/mag.cgi?do=columns&vol=carol_pinchefsky&article=002 Looking at the Morgan covers they are very evocative of mood, barely suggesting narrative. And i love the de Lint cover too.
orchard joined: Sunday July 20, 2008 posts: 26 location:	Tuesday August 12, 2008 09:04pm EDT \| bookmark I agree with you on all counts, Speakers To Managers, I'm really glad that that tradition of representational narrative art has survived into the 21st century. The only problem I have with classical representational art is that it can sometimes slide into a dull, paint by numbers approach. I really need something extra from a book cover, a spark of originality-for example I find the work of Jon Foster or Rick Berry extremely exciting, and nothing to do with the medium used, it's the way they draw and how dynamic their compositions are.
tlchang joined: Sunday July 20, 2008 posts: 4 location: Kirkland	Tuesday August 12, 2008 10:51pm EDT \| bookmark I thought it very interesting comparing our responses to the Hugo covers - about as opposite as they could be. :-) My favorite covers are visually striking and evocative - either illustratively or graphically, and if the graphic elements also reflect the contents (like they did with the Chabon illustration and the typography on Brasyl) it makes me nearly gleeful. Beyond that very broad generalization however, I don't see alot of commonalities to what appeals to me personally. I'm going to have to think about this some more and see what works for me...
orchard joined: Sunday July 20, 2008 posts: 26 location:	Tuesday August 12, 2008 11:51pm EDT \| bookmark I found them all a little dull Tara, and I really love Stephan Martiniere as well as John Harris and Sophie Toulouse. I suppose all the covers played it safe except for the Will Staehle cover-the Chabon book-but even that struck me as clever and not brilliant. You're making me think harder about this, about what I really love in a book cover. The only thing that comes to mind is that I love the tradition of SFF book covers and I love originality and I hope those things aren't mutually exclusive.
SFReviews.net joined: Sunday July 20, 2008 posts: 10 location: Austin	Wednesday August 13, 2008 01:39am EDT \| bookmark I'm generally happy if the cover art reflects the novel's aesthetic. And what's nice about the state of publishing today is that there are a wider variety of artists working in numerous different styles to accommodate that. Stephan Martiniere's imagery instantly evokes hard SF. Chris McGrath has become the go-to guy for gritty noirish urban fantasy and the occasional military SF blowout. No one conveys high adventure like Todd Lockwood. John Picacio's striking work evokes both familiar genre iconography and the idea that the writer of the book is something of a maverick. It's nice to see we're past the days when it was all Michael Whelan, all the time. (Nothing against Whelan. But when he was on his multi-year Hugo streak in the 80's, it was obvious he wasn't winning over and over again for his work, but because he was the only artist fans knew by name.) I'm not wild about covers that go out of their way to be designy. Tor's art department is exceptional about producing covers in which the typographical and layout choices work harmoniously with the art. I think they are producing the handsomest hardcover dust jackets in all SF/fantasy. Which brings me to the company producing the ugliest covers this side of your local insane asylum, Baen. Seriously, I don't know who their art director is, but he must start work each day by knocking off three cans of Jolt and a pipe of crack. Garish does not begin to describe the assault to the eyes that is the average Baen cover: over-rendered digital drawings "enhanced" by enough foil stamping to insulate a lunar lander. (Oh well, somebody's got to give David Mattingly work.) I've seen Marvel comic books with subtler artwork. The stuff looks more juvenile than what's actually being sold on the young adult racks, and as a 42 year old reader, I simply won't take a Baen title to the register at a bookstore. It's too embarrassing. But to get back to my original point, in a lot of cases, those hideous covers are reflecting the novels' aesthetic. So perhaps I shouldn't complain too much. But I have noticed, with much amusement, that Baen are the only publishers ever to have quote-mined negative reviews I've written on their dust jackets, to make them sound like raves!
LeisureSuitLarry joined: Sunday July 20, 2008 posts: 11 location:	Wednesday August 13, 2008 02:42am EDT \| bookmark SFreviews, I'm not quite there with you on Baen, but I'm in the same neighborhood. I really love a lot of the books I've bought from Baen. I can read and re-read the Honor Harrington series over and over. I've got no problem becoming reacquainted with Prince Roger or the Grantvillers, or seeing Clan O'Neal whip Posleen and Darhel a$$. But the covers they put on those books are just embarrassing. I held off for about a year buying 1632 because the cover looked so STUPID, but it kept drawing me back over and over with it's modern truckfull of hillbillies charging the Germans. Once I got over my fear of the juvenile cover, I was able to comfortably approach any bookseller and dare them to make a comment about my choice of reading material. I just wish they had covers that were as good as the books they're decorating. My take on covers is that they have to have a hook. Even though it was awful, the 1632 cover kept dragging me back until I finally gave in. I love the covers on Terry Goodkind's books, not the original covers they started out with, but the more realistic looking ones they started using a couple of years ago. I'm also a big fan of the more comic book stylings on Brandon Sanderson's books. Speaking of Sanderson, the cover he's scored for Warbreaker is almost as good as the book itself. After I read an author and like him or her for the first time, I stop caring about the cover and just look for the author's name. I read Old Man's War (courtesy of the free book giveaway) without ever seeing the cover for it, and when I did see it I hated it. I know lots of people love them, but I can't stand the covers. Fortunately, Scalzi is a great writer, so I don't mind picking up a butt-ugly book to get a great story.
Eithin joined: Tuesday July 15, 2008 posts: 18 location: London	Wednesday August 13, 2008 08:44am EDT \| bookmark I tend to avoid photorealistic covers generally - I'm not yet sure why, but they give me the classic Sense of Wrongness. It might be the Uncanny Valley opening up, but most is better than that. I suspect I associate it with fluff or trivial books, though I haven't done a survey to work out what I was reading that led me to that strange idea. Saying that, though, photorealism (or anything approaching it) doesn't do anything for me as art generally, except in the ooh, how clever... what's next? sense. The more representational it is (or the more of the book surface the picture takes up) the less it works for me. What'll almost always draw me in is the style I think of as pastoral - early Tolkien/Mirrlees/Eddison covers, for instance. There's almost certainly a proper descriptive term for it. The other is the "we want you to think of this as the grown-up edition" style, with a single icon or piece of line-art on a plain background. There's a related style, done in earth-tones on a vellum-textured cover (eg. Abercrombie, Parker, Duncan - UK editions, at least) which also tends to grab me.
strangebehaviour joined: Wednesday August 13, 2008 posts: 3 location:	Wednesday August 13, 2008 08:46am EDT \| bookmark A cover's never put me off reading a book, except for James Herbert's Creed (the one with the blood red cover and screaming skull face). My pet hate is covers that show the characters. They invariably never match what goes on in my head. Unless it's important to the plot I don't see why I shouldn't stick with my initial impression of a character, even if it turns out to be totally wrong! Other than that I don't mind what's on a cover as long as it suits the mood of the book.
crotchetyoldfan joined: Monday July 21, 2008 posts: 6 location: hillsboro	Wednesday August 13, 2008 09:16am EDT \| bookmark Unless I'm seeking a particular title, I first look for new works by familiar authors. The next step is the cover; I'm easy to please and my tastes are eclectic so just about anything will work for me - from photo composition to abstract - so long as there are two elements present: the combination of title and art tell a story all by themselves (Title - First Men IN The Moon, image - the selenite's caverns, mooncow with intrepid explorers in the background: ah ha - they are IN the moon!) and the composition/imagery has that ever elusive, undefinable 'essence' of SF about it. For example - You could place two McQuarrie illustrations depicting astronauts side by side and immediately recognize that one is an historical image and the other SFnal. Those two elements will make me read the blurb, which may or may not then prompt me to crack the book. I also appreciate additional artwork on the backcover, be it a wraparound of the front, or a different take on the subject.
orchard joined: Sunday July 20, 2008 posts: 26 location:	Wednesday August 13, 2008 09:20am EDT \| bookmark @SFReviews.net I agree that Tor represents a much higher quality than Baen books, I really associate Baen with war themed SF stories with very little introspection and self awareness. I know what you mean about Mr, Whelan. I quite like his work but I hate it when there is an overly dominant art style in the field. Right now I think it's classical realism and I respond negatively to that to some degree because it's so ubiquitous, like that movie Helvetica-it's so common you stop seeing it, that's what happened to Mr. Whelan's art. I also agree that a book aught to convey a sense of atmosphere or gestalt(is that the right term for this?)or sense of the book. @leisuresuitlarry I find I'm really at odds with your opinions, but I think I'm at odds with many people on this so no worries! @Eithin We're totally on the same page as each other. Photorealism bugs me for the same reason-it looks clever and that's about it, it doesn't speak to me at all doesn't really express much either. However, I can understand the attraction, it's easier to have someone show you the world rather than create it partly in your mind. Did you see the link I posted on the U.S. market covers VS the U.K. market covers? Very interesting and it touches on much of what you have said. @strangebehavior I have to laugh at your description of the Creed cover. It sounds horrible. I'm more ambivalent than you about the characters being on the cover, I'm looking through my books and a little more than half have a character on the cover and I don't recall it ever interfering with my enjoyment of the book, I think I see that as bit of collaboration between the reader and the cover artist, like having a Jon Foster cover that features a character is great because I find it creates a back and forth between myself, the story and the cover.
orchard joined: Sunday July 20, 2008 posts: 26 location:	Wednesday August 13, 2008 09:25am EDT \| bookmark @crotchetyoldfan I really agree with you on the more art work is better thing, I love additional art on the back cover. I'm a slightly different consumer than you, I will buy a book almost entirely on the strength of it's cover, Scott M. Fischer's covers for John C. Wright's The Chronicles Of Chaos books. Thankfully the books live up to Mr. Fischer's art work.
RichR joined: Wednesday July 16, 2008 posts: 43 location: Asheville	Wednesday August 13, 2008 10:59am EDT \| bookmark I'm not quite sure what photo-realism is -- digital pics that strive to show a real scene like a photo, or old-fashioned art that strives to get as close to a photo as possible? Anyway, my general tastes are towards covers that evoke the mood of the book or suggest a scene/milieu rather than show a specific scene. Fantasy seems to do this the most, with SF covers focusing on something abstractly "spacey." The problem is, many SF covers (I'm thinking Ace more than Tor) seem to have gone too far along the futuristic computer type & vague tech illustration road (eg: any of Charlie Stross' Ace books -- great stories, but the covers are nothing special). Fantasy cover art seems, in general, to be much healthier: look at the covers of Un Lun Dun, Elantris, or Good Fairies of New York (either publisher's edition). Epic fantasy, however, suffers from a lot of sameness, and the inherent problem of illustrating characters and "pre-empting" the reader's imagination. For every Wheel of Time or Song of Fire and Ice success, there are a bunch of covers striving to look as similar as possible. I understand the thought behind trying to evoke associations with successful books, but those originals weren't successful because of their covers.
orchard joined: Sunday July 20, 2008 posts: 26 location:	Wednesday August 13, 2008 11:15am EDT \| bookmark @RichR I was just thinking about that prior to reading your comment: epic fantasy suffers from a real homogeneous look. I don't want to name names when referring to overly realistic, paint by numbers type of art that I'm referring to, I guess if it looks like a Heavy metal magazine cover I won't likely buy it-it also goes back to a lot of high Fantasy books copying the Wheel Of Time look. And I bought and loved Un Lun Dun based on August Halls amazing cover. To me he's the type of artist that should really be supported.
Eithin joined: Tuesday July 15, 2008 posts: 18 location: London	Wednesday August 13, 2008 11:52am EDT \| bookmark Orchard: Absolutely, yes! - I keep forgetting that there's a noticeable US/UK distinction between cover preferences like that, and that I'm living in the right country for my preferences. My copy of Un Lun Dun is this one - I like the August Hall one, but it doesn't speak to me as much. RichR: Basically, yes. Art (digital or analogue) that takes realism as its touchstone and ideal. Really good naturalistic CGI work, photocollage work, naturalistic brushwork, all that sort of thing. Possibly I just want my art to look Arty. Then again, I grew up in the Welsh mountains, so I had all the inspiring dramatic landscapes I wanted just outside. (I could look out of a classroom window and see Cader Idris.)
orchard joined: Sunday July 20, 2008 posts: 26 location:	Wednesday August 13, 2008 12:19pm EDT \| bookmark Eithin: That's an amazing cover! I've been trying to google it for the past 20 minutes to figure out who did it. Can you tell me?
Eithin joined: Tuesday July 15, 2008 posts: 18 location: London	Wednesday August 13, 2008 12:25pm EDT \| bookmark I have no idea about the designer, but the illustrations are by China himself. It's published by Pan MacMillan Children's Books.
orchard joined: Sunday July 20, 2008 posts: 26 location:	Wednesday August 13, 2008 12:35pm EDT \| bookmark Ah! So it's probably his illustration with someone else designing the cover. That's another thing entirely, the lack of beautiful illustrated books for adults. I just received Baltimore or The Steadfast Tin Soldier and the Vampire by Mike Mignola and Christopher Golden and it blew me away, gorgeous book. But that's another subject entirely....
orchard joined: Sunday July 20, 2008 posts: 26 location:	Wednesday August 13, 2008 12:54pm EDT \| bookmark I feel I should stress: I think diversity is the key, not my subjective preferences.
NicoleCardiff joined: Monday July 21, 2008 posts: 7 location: Sherman Oaks	Wednesday August 13, 2008 02:06pm EDT \| bookmark Hmmm. I pretty much want to see something relatively representational, yet still artistically interesting. I like Martiniere's techno-scapes, Donato's excellent sense of composition, Scott Fischer's playing with 2D-3D forms, Paul Kidby's cartooning, Raymond Swanland's montage-y movement, etc. etc.... but good lord, am I tired of photomanipulations, vague abstractions, Poser paintovers, and all of that. I think Chris McGrath and Michael Komarck are the only guys who pull off photomanipulations that I like - the rest just tend to be an indistinguishable morass of bad and/or boring art. I tend to prefer covers that have something going on - a conversation, a spell, a fight, something. The covers that are straight portraits of the characters just standing around don't tend to do it for me. In classical illustration, I'm a huge fan of N. C. Wyeth, Dean Cornwell, and Leyendecker. I think Wyeth was the absolute master of creating a mood, Cornwell could compose like no other, and Leyendecker had an unrivaled understanding of form. Orchard: I agree - I wish there were more books being done like that too. Wyeth's Treasure Island is one of my favorites.
orchard joined: Sunday July 20, 2008 posts: 26 location:	Wednesday August 13, 2008 03:00pm EDT \| bookmark NicoleCardiff: I think "artistically interesting" is a really key thing. When I went to art school the motto was "No boring art" although a lot got made anyway. I flipped through Wyeth's Treasure Island and Robin Hood and didn't find a single "posed" picture. Robin was never standing there staring at the viewer doing nothing, there's always a ton of action. Too much of one style is really boring, the same tricks get overused.
sleary joined: Tuesday July 15, 2008 posts: 5 location:	Wednesday August 13, 2008 03:08pm EDT \| bookmark I won't pick up a Baen book, either, unless it's pressed on me by trusted friends. The covers are simply too hideous for words. I often find I prefer British covers. The whimsy appeals to me -- I liked the 8-bit version of Halting State as discussed on the blog here, and the silly iconic creatures on Jasper Fforde's Thursday Next books, for example. Even when the artwork is the same, I like the British versions better in most cases. I think in general they're more subtle with their fonts.
RichR joined: Wednesday July 16, 2008 posts: 43 location: Asheville	Wednesday August 13, 2008 03:28pm EDT \| bookmark I am so regretting buying the US edition of Saturn's Children. I hadn't thought to look at the UK cover, and it's so much better. Maybe there's a market for publishers selling their dustjackets (of course, the trim size of the UK hardcover might be different from the US one), or maybe I should just design my own dustjacket for books I love, but whose dustjackets I can't stand. Hey, wouldn't that be a great website? Customize your own dustjacket! You could choose your own art (naturally, artists would be able to make their art available and get a sliver of whatever proceeds are generated) or create your own artwork, select the type, add little details and then either print out the resulting cover at home if you have a high-def enough printer, or bring your file to Kinkos. Lego has something similar on their site where you can design your own creation and then buy the Lego bricks to build it. Essentially you design your own Lego set. Maybe the nice folks at Tor could do something like this as a promotional tool for some upcoming book? (Hey, I can dream...)
NicoleCardiff joined: Monday July 21, 2008 posts: 7 location: Sherman Oaks	Wednesday August 13, 2008 04:05pm EDT \| bookmark orchard: Where'd you go to school, out of pure nosy curiosity? Yeah, Wyeth was a genius. I'd say Greg Manchess is probably the closest current art (can't believe I left him off my list) in terms of continuing that brushy energy and passion, and I think his draftsmanship is a step up from Wyeth's. Great, great stuff. RichR: Yeah, from what I've read, even the author hates that cover. It's pretty offensive. Sometimes I feel like a lot of covers would be fixed in the planning stages if people did the mental check for "Would I be ashamed to read this in public?" That rainbow-laden Locke Lamora paperback was another prime offender. Ow.
orchard joined: Sunday July 20, 2008 posts: 26 location:	Wednesday August 13, 2008 04:26pm EDT \| bookmark @Sleary I agree. I have only one Baen book in my collection and it's really ugly. I like the term "whimsy" when referring to fantastic art, it's hard to find whimsical art in the U.S. market because of the prevalence of dark realism, I think. Which may be an attempt to attract the video game playing boys in junior high. @RichR I can only assume that that cover was deeply ironic and sorely missed the mark. I like the idea of choose your own cover as long as it doesn't sink into comic book "variant" cover territory.... @NicoleCardiff I went to the Nova Scotia College of At and Design, I'm Canadian from the east so it was an obvious choice for me. It's a good school, although it has no illustration program so I ended up with a fine arts degree with a major in painting an a minor in art history. I'm kind of glad I went that route. I really like your work! Did you go to art school?
SFReviews.net joined: Sunday July 20, 2008 posts: 10 location: Austin	Wednesday August 13, 2008 05:19pm EDT \| bookmark LeisureSuitLarry: Actually, On Basilisk Station was one Baen title I dearly loved, so I agree that sometimes a wretched cover can hide a pretty worthwhile book. (Though the current Baen cover for OBS is one of Mattingly's less obnoxious.)
sleary joined: Tuesday July 15, 2008 posts: 5 location:	Wednesday August 13, 2008 06:10pm EDT \| bookmark Oh, I hated that Locke Lamora cover, and again the Brits get the good stuff.
NicoleCardiff joined: Monday July 21, 2008 posts: 7 location: Sherman Oaks	Wednesday August 13, 2008 06:46pm EDT \| bookmark orchard: I went to SCAD in Savannah, GA, USA. It had something of a wobbly illustration program that was mostly designed to churn out super-stylized editorial illustrators, so I ended up taking a lot of sequential art and foundational drawing classes to offset that. sleary: I think my favorite of the bunch is actually the US hardcover design - I thought that one was very elegant and graphically pleasing, which is why I was so surprised they didn't reuse it.
tianodesign joined: Wednesday August 13, 2008 posts: 1 location:	Wednesday August 13, 2008 07:44pm EDT \| bookmark As a book designer, I see the cover as part of a delicate balance. It should attract potential readers to a book and make them want to open it. Then the author should take over, hooking the reader. At the same time, the interior design should be almost transparent, making continued reading easy on the reader’s eyes and not distracting from the author’s work. The cover shouldn’t even be a memory—if it is, it’s a distraction coming between the author and the reader. That’s not to say the cover shouldn’t be original and attractive. But it’s not doing it’s job if the reader is flipping away from the inside of the book to look at the cover.
orchard joined: Sunday July 20, 2008 posts: 26 location:	Wednesday August 13, 2008 07:57pm EDT \| bookmark @tianodesign As a reader I have to respectfully disagree with your criteria for a successful book cover. I think F+SF differs from other books in that it comes from a pulp tradition, where it's OK to have the art work as a beautiful and compelling part of the package. If everything but the story were to be invisible and forgotten why not have a white book with a white helvetica title on the cover ?
tlchang joined: Sunday July 20, 2008 posts: 4 location: Kirkland	Wednesday August 13, 2008 08:20pm EDT \| bookmark @tianodesign: That's an interesting perspective, and one maybe aimed at general readers? I don't know how differently I look at cover art being an illustrator, however I personally like a cover that I want to keep going back to. Beautiful or complex enough, or so cleverly or satisfyingly designed that it is joy to behold on repeated viewings - especially if the cover content somehow reflects the interior in surprising ways (ways that you discover as you continue to read the book). I'm currently reading more fantasy than scifi and some of the covers that I delight in revisiting have been the Patricia McKillip books with Kinuko Y. Craft covers (figurative and almost abstract in the complexity of elements - but as you read, you discover more and more layers of symbolism). 'Almost any cover by John Jude Palencar (deceptively simplistic in both subject and palette, but visually rich in texture and strong iconology). I loved the style that Scott Fischer used on the latest two de Lint novels - classic, yet edgy, lots of elements that were linked to the stories yet gave nothing away prematurely (I bought hard backs of those two so that I could have the book jacket art). Those are all illustration heavy - I also loved the cover designs of Stephenie Meyer's "Twilight" books - book #1 and #3 especially. (#2 is pretty, but subject-wise seemed to be reaching a bit, and while I know #4 is very symbolic it wasn't as visually interesting to me.) What could have been more 'simple' than a single, splitting red ribbon on a black ground, with very unobtrusive text elements - yet I love that cover - visually striking and graphically interesting whilst managing to be symbolic and encapsulating the main themes of the book at the same time. They are also very striking lined up next to each other. I want to get lost in a gorgeously executed cover. One of the current cover tendencies that leaves me frustrated is an amazing illustration reduced to a narrow 'band' across the front (or wrapped around). The illustration is shown in its entirety that way, but it's so small that I feel cheated. (I am somewhat mollified if is included in a larger, visible format in the interior...) (Sorry to drone on @orchard. I guess I thought about it a little since my last response...)
orchard joined: Sunday July 20, 2008 posts: 26 location:	Wednesday August 13, 2008 09:18pm EDT \| bookmark @tlchang You're not droning! And I agree, I hate the "band" as well! They were doing that to Frank Herbert's Dune books for a while. I love my copy of Dune, which was my dad's, with the lovely wraparound cover.
pablodefendini joined: Friday June 13, 2008 posts: 50 location: Brooklyn	Wednesday August 13, 2008 10:26pm EDT \| bookmark Although I'm very much a fan of illustration (I'm also an 'illustration groupie', as Irene Gallo self-identifies—although I can't possibly expect to claim anywhere near her knowledge and experience...although I'm trying to work on it!), I don't think that illustrations are always the best solutions for a cover design, even in SF/F. As a matter of fact, contemporary editions of some of the SF stuff that is nearest and dearest to my heart, like Asimov's Foundation series and Otomo's Akira, both fail to impress me with their use of illustration (even when, as is the case of Akira, the illustrations are taken directly from the graphic novel inside!). They just don't capture the scope of the works in question. That frustration actually led me to create alternate bindings for hardcover editions of these two works as a senior in art school, and to this day I'm pretty happy with the results of those exercises. Other excellent examples of non-narrative, or non-illustrative covers are Gollancz's Future Classics series, and the Chabon cover we've discussed elsewhere on this site. I'm also strongly drawn to well-executed instances of what Eithin calls the '"we want you to think of this as the grown-up edition" style' above, probably due to my penchant for collecting hardcover, leather-bound editions of books I love. However, this style is very hard to get right without looking like a lazy, phoned-in execution. As far as illustration goes, I'm also pretty much firmly in the expressive and interpretative camp, as opposed to straight-up photorealism (Chris McGrath has already popped up earlier in this thread—and he is indeed an exception. I had the displeasure of pawing through some pre-McGrath Jim Butcher books the other day, and I was instantly reminded of how wonderful McGrath is). As a reader, I don't particularly want a cover to spell out a scene from the book, and I find it jarring when there's a too-real visual description of a character on a cover. However, that's when an illustrator with a distinctive style comes into play. An illustrator's style can be a wonderful prism through which to glimpse a version of the events or characters in a book, and the more distinctive or unique that style is, the more successful the illustration is, in my opinion. It's what catches your eye, makes you stop and say "Hm, this is teh shiny". Jon Foster's covers for Sanderson's Mistborn trilogy immediately spring to mind: his expressive, slightly cartoonish style gives the characters and scenes depicted on the covers life, but the fact that they are so distinctively Foster makes it easy for me to slip out of that particular pair of spectacles and develop my own, internal depictions of those characters once I actually get into reading the thing. While it's been mentioned above a bit, I don't think that typography can be mentioned enough within the context of this discussion. Typographic treatment can make or break a cover, regardless of the quality of the illustration. You could have a great painting, but if the type laid out on top of it is ham-fisted, it will throw the whole thing off. The same works in the inverse: a so-so illustration can be elevated by great type, or a great layout treatment in general. Sometimes, part of our job as designers is to solve this kind of problem: how to take disparate elements and make them into something that is greater than the sum of its parts. That can actually be a lot of fun, actually, and occasionally very rewarding. @RichR- Penguin is doing something akin to what you describe with their 'My Penguin' program: books bound in blank covers, where the reader is encouraged to create their own cover and send it into a gallery. @tianodesign: I think that particularly in SF/F, there is a much richer interplay between author and artist than in other genres. This relationship informs the reader, complements the book, and sometimes even inspires the author! I know of at least one particular instance where events in later books in a series have been influenced by elements on the covers for the previous books. Even if the cover shouldn't even be a particular memory, it should certainly act as a mnemonic device. As for the interiors, I find that typographically speaking—strictly text block-wise— you're right: a well-typeset book should get out of the way and grease the wheels of legibility, so to speak. However, there is something to be said for a beautifully and ideosyncratically designed page. Distinctive running heads, alluring and unique chapter pages (possibly with illustrations?), and the occasional easter egg thrown in (if appropriate to the book, of course) can enrich the reading experience, and not be detrimental to the flow of reading. Man, what a rant. tlchang, ya ain't got nothin' on me!
tlchang joined: Sunday July 20, 2008 posts: 4 location: Kirkland	Thursday August 14, 2008 03:37am EDT \| bookmark @pablodefendini - rant away. It's great and thought-provoking stuff. I also say - let there be more illustrative interiors in 'grown-up' books! At least chapter headings, if not more, when appropriate. I've loved the fantasy collections edited by Terri Windling and Ellen Datlow: "The Faery Reel", "The Greenman", "Coyote Road", which have color covers and black and white chapter headers by Charles Vess. More of that! And you are a tease - I want to see your alternate "Foundation" and "Akira" now.
Eithin joined: Tuesday July 15, 2008 posts: 18 location: London	Thursday August 14, 2008 04:40am EDT \| bookmark One of the things I particularly love about my edition of Un Lun Dun are China's line-art illustrations scattered through it in odd corners (do the editions aimed at adults have those?). Whilst I miss the frequent full-page illustrations we used to get, I'm always pleased to watch the text flowing around the intrusions, and it's a wonderful metaphor for the story itself. We've got a wonderful adaptive ability to appreciate good recurring elements, assimilate then, and then relegate them to the background as we read - cf. Pablo's comment about running heads and chapter headings, for instance. They don't obtrude, but they're always there. The best example for chapter-headings that springs to mind is the Wheel of Time series - the varied icons that head up each chapter are artistically interesting and related to the text. I'm also a fan of decorative flourishes - we all need more Superfluous Victoriana, or possibly Unexpected Graff. There's one problem I find with chapter headings, though - when (as so often happens) the sections are timestamped, I find myself classifying that as "design element, don't need to remember it" rather than part of the story, and have to make a conscious effort to think "OK, we're in 1614 now, there's a four-year gap between those..." Having taken a quick look over my bookshelves, I'm beginning to suspect I was tilting at a windmill with the grouching against photorealism - the closest to that in my collection are unexceptionably realistic-looking people in fantastic or SFnal settings. I don't find those interesting or memorable either, but they don't offend my eye like photorealism or Poser art does. Is this a UK bias, or are (large) publishers genuinely not doing this any more? I've dabbled in design, but never produced covers. I'm tempted to try some mockups now, though. Who's for a New Cover Challenge thread?
Koldo_Barroso joined: Thursday July 24, 2008 posts: 2 location: Bellingham	Thursday August 14, 2008 05:26am EDT \| bookmark For me it depends very much in the type of project, like is not the same a children's book than for older people. If is not for children, I prefer covers that doesn't unveil too much what is inside. I think covers should be more focused to design rather than illustration. It is nice to use a little illustration but it makes no sense to me when editors decide to fit a big piece of illustration or art in a cover. I think it's all about a presentation and -just like in poster art- it should be something simple and well thought in the concept rather than a demostration of the artist's skills. Here is an interesting link to this subject: http://www.book-by-its-cover.com Personally, I think that 70's was the golden age of book cover design. This is what I mean: http://seenbooks.blogspot.com/
andyl joined: Tuesday July 22, 2008 posts: 7 location: Peterborough	Thursday August 14, 2008 05:50am EDT \| bookmark sleary The UK hardcover for The Lies Of Locke Lamora looked very different to the paperback that you linked to. It is very stark in comparison to both the US and UK paperback covers.
orchard joined: Sunday July 20, 2008 posts: 26 location:	Thursday August 14, 2008 07:28am EDT \| bookmark @PabloDefendini I really don't want to sound like an ungrateful artist at odds with designers, my first book is a good example of the importance of design. It was so sloppy that I barely look at it now, despite it having some paintings in it that I'm really proud of. It's a Christmas book and they really made it look schmaltzy, with flowing script and Christmas colours... I really like your characterization of Jon Foster, that's how I feel about his work . It's not so realistic or overly descriptive that it negates interpretation. There is so much room for interplay between the imaginations of the reader, the writer and the artist. Irene Gallo has an amazing ability to find these people. Fantasy art has been so much richer for her being here. @TLChang I really think Stardust is one the most beautiful books in recent years and was surprised to see an unillustrated version, presumably for adults too embarrassed to be seen on the subway with a book with pictures...Are the Harry Potter books illustrated in the U.S.? We get the U.K. versions here and I much prefer the American Versions. @Eithin I love some decoration in books, maybe not a full book of hours but maybe something along the lines of Kelmscott Press...I love seeing how the designer deals with more elements. That's interesting as it runs so contrary to the modernist aesthetic. @Koldo_Barroso I don't mind a big piece of art! I know what you mean though, that can look unsophisticated. I really think my tastes can run toward the child-like sometimes. Interesting links, using Op Art for book covers is such a crazy idea!
ChrisC joined: Thursday August 14, 2008 posts: 1 location: Ventura County	Thursday August 14, 2008 08:34am EDT \| bookmark While I enjoy some graphic cover designs, I collect original cover art so my preference is for a narrative illustration. I enjoy visiting my local bookstore, picking up a paperback and trying to guess the artist responsible for the cover (OK, I don't get out much). I've purchased the cover art of books I've really enjoyed but also just for the sake of the art itself. Unfortunately, with so many artists now producing digital art (and some entirely now digital), there is sometimes no painting to collect.
Eithin joined: Tuesday July 15, 2008 posts: 18 location: London	Thursday August 14, 2008 11:10am EDT \| bookmark @orchard: Kelmscott books are lovely artifacts, but I find most of Morris's typefaces a headache to read. I do use True Golden quite a bit when I'm designing, though. I'm lucky enough to live a short bus ride from the William Morris Gallery, so I have plenty of Passionate Design to go and look at. (There's a Kelmscott Press example, their Chaucer, linked from that page. It's really gorgeous.) @Koldo Barroso: That second link is just amazing! I'm a big fan of that design aesthetic, probably because those were what I inherited from my father and found in second-hand shops when I was just getting into reading in a big way.
tlchang joined: Sunday July 20, 2008 posts: 4 location: Kirkland	Thursday August 14, 2008 01:10pm EDT \| bookmark Eric - I agree about Stardust (I bought the big, beautiful, hardback version cuz it was so purty). Charles Vess again. Somehow they let him bridge the SFF/graphic novel expanse and bring his illustrations inside books. The US versions of Harry Potter also have illustrated chapter headers (Mary Gran Pre got quite a gig there!). I do see this more often in young reader and YA books (look at the series I'm working on now!) - just wish it could happen more in adult reading. Even if it is just really cool typographical elements or dingbats. Not every book needs this, the harder the scifi the less I seem to want visual augmentation, but some of the more fantastical stories....?
orchard joined: Sunday July 20, 2008 posts: 26 location:	Thursday August 14, 2008 01:54pm EDT \| bookmark @ChrisC The fact of there being no physical object can be a real problem sometimes, it affects the art collectors market and when I was recently involved in a charity art auction there was some confusion over the auctioning of digital works. I haven't talked to any artists about this, I wonder how it affects their income as opposed to having a finished piece to sell? Perhaps more people are turning to a limited edition print market? @Eithin Yeah, I said Kelmscott as an extreme example of luxurious, refined book making to make a statement about the deliberate use of ornamentation. They really don't stack up as far as readability goes! That Chaucer page is beautiful though! @Tara Yeah, I agree. Not every book should be illustrated but some stuff it would really suit, like an illustrated Newford book from deLint or even Cory Doctorow's work. As far as illustrated SF goes I can think of two illustrated SF books off the top of my head that I really love( both out of print, I believe..) One is an edition of Bradbury's Dinosaur Tales with a variety of artists like Moebius and William Stout. The other is the Greg Bear book Dinosaur Summer with amazing illustrations by tony Diterlizzi. I think the later was aimed at younger audiences but I thought it really worked well.
NicoleCardiff joined: Monday July 21, 2008 posts: 7 location: Sherman Oaks	Thursday August 14, 2008 04:46pm EDT \| bookmark orchard: At least in my case, it's a heck of a lot cheaper/faster for me to turn work around digitally. If I had to buy canvas, oils, etc. for every piece, and deal with drying time and so on, I'd be running in the red right now. Whether or not you can get collectors to buy originals is an iffy proposition, unless you're a name artist. (Heck, most of the people I know at best make a marginal profit on prints.) I love the work of the few remaining traditionalists (Manchess, Donato, and so on) and maybe one day I'll get to play with oils... but I doubt it'll be for anything but personal experimentation.
Felicity joined: Tuesday August 12, 2008 posts: 1 location:	Thursday August 14, 2008 04:47pm EDT \| bookmark Lou Anders from Pyr SF was on a recent Adventures in Sci-Fi Publishing talking about covers, and it really made me think. He talked about aiming for a sense of wonder and world, and said that's why they have a lot of landscapes like this one: River of Gods. I like those a great deal sometimes (I have been trying to remember where I recently saw a cover with a two-tone city viewed by two divers in foreground - that was lovely.) I like the atmosphere they evoke and the appeal to imagination they make. I also like that they don't show characters' faces. I second everyone who's said they don't want the characters imagined for them on the cover. I find this particularly jarring for fantasy covers, where it's common to see ridiculously prettified versions of characters. As a child, used to the representational but faceless covers of my mom's Prydain books: I threw away the dustjacket to the Sci-Fi Book Club collected Chronicles: and made my own.
orchard joined: Sunday July 20, 2008 posts: 26 location:	Thursday August 14, 2008 06:54pm EDT \| bookmark @NicoleCardiff Well, I work on paper with gouache, which lasts forever, so it does seem cheaper than the $1000.00 it costs for Photo shop, at least in the short run. And selling originals isn't that hard, there always a gallery around open to the idea hanging genre art, or even better is selling online. @Felicity Great interview! Thanks for pointing that out! I took a few notes from it because i felt they were good, thought provoking opinions that could add to this discussion. These are points Lou Anders at Pyr made about genre book covers: 1. The art does not have to fully represent the book(meaning the full narrative). Sometimes the artist will only be given a short out line and be asked to deliver something based on that. For example Stephan Martiniere produced the cover to Brasyl with only an out line. Consequently Ian McDonald pasted the image up over his writing desk to help him complete the book. Cool! 2."The product should look like the product," meaning it aught to look like a genre book. which leads into: 3. Photoshopped photography like the stuff commonly used in the mainstream market for book covers is a bad thing for SF&F. It's misleading to the consumer and ( I like this part) "illustration is a core value" of SF&F. Although: 4. The cover should do better than a "chick with a bikini riding a dragon" Felicity left the link above, the whole podcast is worth listening to.
strangebehaviour joined: Wednesday August 13, 2008 posts: 3 location:	Friday August 15, 2008 10:36am EDT \| bookmark orchard "I'm more ambivalent than you about the characters being on the cover, I'm looking through my books and a little more than half have a character on the cover and I don't recall it ever interfering with my enjoyment of the book, I think I see that as bit of collaboration between the reader and the cover artist," The problem I have is that sometimes the people on the cover look very little like the people in the book. Even worse is when they look mostly like the people in the book but obviously not "warts and all". An example is Sarah Monette's "Doctrine of Labyrinths" series. The first volume, Melusine, has on the cover a red-headed man with no shirt and garish tattoos up his forearms. And in the book Felix looks exactly like that - except that his back is covered in scars. It just seems a bit silly to me.
nightengail joined: Saturday August 16, 2008 posts: 1 location: L.A.	Saturday August 16, 2008 01:27am EDT \| bookmark I really liked reading all the comments posted by everyone. I join this conversation with opposing internal viewpoints: The illustrator (and lifetime fantasy fan) in me LOVES 90% of all illustrated covers and have been known to buy a book for its cover whether or not I actually read the book in the end. I have favorite artists in the SFF genre (Brom, Todd Lockwood, Jody Lee, Palencar, etc) and sometimes can recall the cover artist better then the author of the book. Yet sometimes even illustrated covers turn me off of a book (particularly ones like Lackey and Edghill's Music to My Sorrow cover) The graphic designer in me (to further clarify, the book designer in me, although I only design textbooks currently) enjoys seeing the recent evolution in SFF covers. I love some of the photo-composite covers for the skill and quality of their work, the use of cleaner, modern (or rough and grungy) typography, and moving away from the "genre look". Still, I have no desire to see the illustrated covers fade into oblivion. I have only been designing textbook covers for a short time, yet sometimes I feel I have more room for experimentation and play AS a designer then I imagine some SFF designers have, or have had in the past. Until recently, this genre has had a very formulaic look to book covers; Fantasy covers usually have calligraphic or gothic typography at the top of the book and illustration below... etc, repeat. That being said, I also know from personal experience how frustrating it can be as a designer to try to come up with 'new and never been done before breathtaking cover design' for every book cover, particularly when covers have to be approved by a group of editors/authors who may or may not like the direction the designer has taken with the book cover. Or they think that they can design better then the designer who has had training...ok, that's a different topic altogether...moving on. All in all, I say continue expansion of unique and unusual cover design but not at the cost of working with master illustrators. This post was slightly rambling, but I wanted to at least put my random thoughts out there...
orchard joined: Sunday July 20, 2008 posts: 26 location:	Saturday August 16, 2008 09:51am EDT \| bookmark @ strangebehavior I was looking at that cover and you're right, I find that way too specific to have the " collaboration " I spoke about in my post. That may as well be a photograph because of it's specificness. When I said I'm ambivalent about portraying a character's face on the cover, that's an example of what I don't like to see on . I think in that case the cover was treated as a typical romance book, which are super specific in their portrayal of characters, often using photographed models. Some examples of character portrayals I don't mind are Scott Fischer's cover to Fugitives of Chaos and Jon Foster's cover for Orvis. There are a lot more. I really think it can be well done. Scott McCloud in Understanding Comics talks about a phenomenon in interpreting faces in art, he says that the less specific the portrayal is the easier it is for the viewer to identify with the character being portrayed. A smiley-happy face, for example, is very easy to project our own interpretation onto but a photographic image has to much specificity to allow from much of the interplay I was talking about. ( This is discussed in chapter 2 pages 24 to 59 in Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics, The Invisible Art. This is a fascinating discussion and I really recommend it.)
‹12›