Book Cover C - A compromise.
- Thread starter RustyVanReeves
- Start date
- Status
I still like cover A better. Cover C seems too crowded and the tree isn't as prominent (I like the tree!).
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2005
- Messages
- 12,560
- Reaction score
- 5,326
- Age
- 50
- Location
- Alabama -my home sweet home.
A, the tree definitely. The kids seem...depressing, maybe. When I shop for books, I'm drawn first to the title, then to the cover art. Only if the book passes both those tests (though what criteria I use, I'm not even sure 
), then do I read the blurb on the back cover.
I love the title of your book, and I would definitely pick it up for more information. However, the kids are a turn off to me. And I like kids, but still, these boys suck the life outta me just by looking at them.
Definitely A.
), then do I read the blurb on the back cover.I love the title of your book, and I would definitely pick it up for more information. However, the kids are a turn off to me. And I like kids, but still, these boys suck the life outta me just by looking at them.
Definitely A.
Cover
I like C. The tree and the kid, both with a story to tell. A or C both work for me, but I like C a little better than A.
I like C. The tree and the kid, both with a story to tell. A or C both work for me, but I like C a little better than A.
I voted for C, not because I liked it more than A (my orginal choice) but because it has a concept imbedded in it I think might be very interesting.
My suggestion: What if you made the picture of the kid part of the background - like watermark imagery - behind the tree (or vice versa, depnding on taste). That way, the focus would still be on the tree, while incorporating the child's image. It would make the over-all cover less visually cluttered, IMO.
Good luck!
- bwf
My suggestion: What if you made the picture of the kid part of the background - like watermark imagery - behind the tree (or vice versa, depnding on taste). That way, the focus would still be on the tree, while incorporating the child's image. It would make the over-all cover less visually cluttered, IMO.
Good luck!
- bwf
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2005
- Messages
- 2,376
- Reaction score
- 539
- Location
- Seattle, WA
- Website
- www.mattdinniman.com
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Messages
- 270
- Reaction score
- 33
- Location
- United States
- Website
- folklorefanatic.blogspot.com
Personally, I'd go wth something between A and C, with a more prominent tree and only an outline of the figure.
[In general, the title strikes me as more respectable when the background is less noisy and has no 'sharpened' parts in it. Think of photoshop when I say sharpened--the background should flow together in one piece. Cheap trade paperbacks can get away with having loud backgrounds, but not serious lit.]
Usually, when I see a book with an tearful/upset/gritty/poverty-stricken face on the cover, I prejudge the book to be a depressing one and skip it. Mind you, this is not because I don't READ sad stories, but I don't like starting out with a happy plot summary that descends into a Frederick Douglass redemption-and-loss narrative. If Forrest Gump hadn't had funny parts in the trailer, I never would have watched it, and now I love it (though I can't watch it more than once a year). I like the representation of the tree because I know the book isn't going to be 500 pages on the texture of a fern in my backyard. There is more to the story than a literal tree. I hate having obvious melodrama stamped on the front cover.
This is all without knowing the slightest bit about your book, mind you--I'm simply trying to recreate the criteria I use when browsing B&N or Borders.
[In general, the title strikes me as more respectable when the background is less noisy and has no 'sharpened' parts in it. Think of photoshop when I say sharpened--the background should flow together in one piece. Cheap trade paperbacks can get away with having loud backgrounds, but not serious lit.]
Usually, when I see a book with an tearful/upset/gritty/poverty-stricken face on the cover, I prejudge the book to be a depressing one and skip it. Mind you, this is not because I don't READ sad stories, but I don't like starting out with a happy plot summary that descends into a Frederick Douglass redemption-and-loss narrative. If Forrest Gump hadn't had funny parts in the trailer, I never would have watched it, and now I love it (though I can't watch it more than once a year). I like the representation of the tree because I know the book isn't going to be 500 pages on the texture of a fern in my backyard. There is more to the story than a literal tree. I hate having obvious melodrama stamped on the front cover.
This is all without knowing the slightest bit about your book, mind you--I'm simply trying to recreate the criteria I use when browsing B&N or Borders.
I like C. The layout of the title is better too. I wouldn't have thought of that first time around. It fills out the cover. At first glance, I thought the kid in this cover was making it all too busy. Now as I get used to it, he seems to fit in just fine.
- Joined
- May 14, 2005
- Messages
- 12,862
- Reaction score
- 2,846
- Location
- A Small Town in Germany
- Website
- www.sharonmaas.co.uk
You know, I'd still have to go for B. It seems more evocative, more powerful- I love the boy, I love the reeds, and these seem to fit together better geographically and draw me into this place where the story unfolds. I'd use B and get rid of everything but the title and name. It really reminds me of the books in my old uni bookshop- literary fiction/ drama. That said, it looks like I am going to be totally out voted lol!
I went for C, too. Nice job! I'm kinda-sorta-a little iffy on the way the top of the tree is cut off by the title, but not so much that it would stop me from buying the book.
RustyVanReeves said:
C is an Awesome cover. That makes such a difference.
XThe NavigatorX said:
My friend Leilani took the tree picture - I bought the old picture of the child on ebay for $3.00 - I used Photoshop and Paint Shop Pro.
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 563
- Reaction score
- 67
- Location
- Norwich, UK
- Website
- www.scarrow.dsnet.co.uk
nope, none of the above.
I think C is now a confusing cover. The tree and the child just don't feel related in any way....they look like two random images shoved together. Lose the child. Without it, I'd say the composition now works. But I'd also lose that weird embossed effect on the tree.
ahhh...Photoshop filters, a dangerous tool in the wrong hands ;-)
I think C is now a confusing cover. The tree and the child just don't feel related in any way....they look like two random images shoved together. Lose the child. Without it, I'd say the composition now works. But I'd also lose that weird embossed effect on the tree.
ahhh...Photoshop filters, a dangerous tool in the wrong hands ;-)
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2005
- Messages
- 2,594
- Reaction score
- 358
- Location
- Connecticut, USA
- Website
- www.pjcopy.com
I do have one question: is the subtitle that reads "Clay, Mississippi" really critical to have there? For some reason, it gives me the impression that this is a nonfiction book, but then the line below that reads "Book One of the Such and Such Trilogy" says fiction to me. It keeps throwing me off.
Also, it seems to be infringing on the main title's space, making it weaker.
Just my 2¢.
Also, it seems to be infringing on the main title's space, making it weaker.
Just my 2¢.
I agree with Kelker11. The kid puts me off too. I like the tree. The mystery of it. But the child, to me, is depressing. Go with A!!kelker11 said:A, the tree definitely. The kids seem...depressing, maybe. When I shop for books, I'm drawn first to the title, then to the cover art. Only if the book passes both those tests (though what criteria I use, I'm not even sure
I love the title of your book, and I would definitely pick it up for more information. However, the kids are a turn off to me. And I like kids, but still, these boys suck the life outta me just by looking at them.
Definitely A.
- Status