CCBC-Net Archives
cover talk
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Maia Cheli-Colando <maia_at_littlefolktales.org>
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 22:53:28 -0800
I feel that covers & jackets matter a great deal, and I've always found it odd that in this field -- where we are so emphatic about the importance of good illustration -- that the input of the author isn't considered to be highly relevant in the area of book design. Which doesn't mean, of course, that every author is an artist! But the author knows more about the characters involved than anyone else can. Not leaning on that wisdom seems just plain silly to me.
I find the ongoing partnership of Patricia McKillip & Kinuko Craft to be an amazing expression of what is possible in terms of merging art and story. I do recognize that I have a bias, in adoring McKillip's work. But that same bias would hold any illustrator of her work to a *very* high standard... a bar which Craft has climbed easily over and again. Their books hold pride of place on my bookshelf, but also in my mind's eye. Visually, I can love them, and love to look at them when I don't have enough time to read them.
Others:
I very much like Alison Jay's art for Shannon Hale's books - Enna Burning, River Secrets, Goose Girl - but am not as fond of the Forest Born cover by Kolesova. It takes too much away from the sense of "somewhere else" with yet another close up of a modern-looking girl.
I thought the cover art for First Day on Earth was catchy and relevant.
Malinda Lo's Huntress was also nicely done.
I was amused to see this week that the cover art (in ARC form, at least) for the latest Hilary McKay is different yet again. Because of the nature of those books, I can roll with it - they are all over the map as characters, and the family is artistic itself. But it would be interesting to see the whole series as a seamless whole. If that were to be done, I would *definitely* hope for illustration, not photography.
I am a photographer myself, and I am passionate about the form. I guess I just don't generally think photo portraits belong on the front of novels... as they interfere too much with the play of imagination, with one's ability to create a character and place in one's own mind as one will. I can't fathom why publishers are favoring it so heavily these days; it does date the books very quickly, and it creates a sense of intimacy that isn't genuine, which can leave the reader/peruser with a rather sticky feeling.
Contrasting Huntress with Forest Born illuminates the same issue in painterly portraits: one creates distance and mystery (the Huntress is literally blocking your view of her with her own agency, and snow hides the landscape) , one creates over-intimacy and a sense of already knowing the story. I need a little space, in order to become one with the character. If they are already right in my face as their own "real" person, I have no room to identify.
Does that make any sense? :) Maia
Maia Cheli-Colando Arcata, Humboldt Bay, California
Received on Thu 09 Feb 2012 10:53:28 PM CST
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 22:53:28 -0800
I feel that covers & jackets matter a great deal, and I've always found it odd that in this field -- where we are so emphatic about the importance of good illustration -- that the input of the author isn't considered to be highly relevant in the area of book design. Which doesn't mean, of course, that every author is an artist! But the author knows more about the characters involved than anyone else can. Not leaning on that wisdom seems just plain silly to me.
I find the ongoing partnership of Patricia McKillip & Kinuko Craft to be an amazing expression of what is possible in terms of merging art and story. I do recognize that I have a bias, in adoring McKillip's work. But that same bias would hold any illustrator of her work to a *very* high standard... a bar which Craft has climbed easily over and again. Their books hold pride of place on my bookshelf, but also in my mind's eye. Visually, I can love them, and love to look at them when I don't have enough time to read them.
Others:
I very much like Alison Jay's art for Shannon Hale's books - Enna Burning, River Secrets, Goose Girl - but am not as fond of the Forest Born cover by Kolesova. It takes too much away from the sense of "somewhere else" with yet another close up of a modern-looking girl.
I thought the cover art for First Day on Earth was catchy and relevant.
Malinda Lo's Huntress was also nicely done.
I was amused to see this week that the cover art (in ARC form, at least) for the latest Hilary McKay is different yet again. Because of the nature of those books, I can roll with it - they are all over the map as characters, and the family is artistic itself. But it would be interesting to see the whole series as a seamless whole. If that were to be done, I would *definitely* hope for illustration, not photography.
I am a photographer myself, and I am passionate about the form. I guess I just don't generally think photo portraits belong on the front of novels... as they interfere too much with the play of imagination, with one's ability to create a character and place in one's own mind as one will. I can't fathom why publishers are favoring it so heavily these days; it does date the books very quickly, and it creates a sense of intimacy that isn't genuine, which can leave the reader/peruser with a rather sticky feeling.
Contrasting Huntress with Forest Born illuminates the same issue in painterly portraits: one creates distance and mystery (the Huntress is literally blocking your view of her with her own agency, and snow hides the landscape) , one creates over-intimacy and a sense of already knowing the story. I need a little space, in order to become one with the character. If they are already right in my face as their own "real" person, I have no room to identify.
Does that make any sense? :) Maia
Maia Cheli-Colando Arcata, Humboldt Bay, California
Received on Thu 09 Feb 2012 10:53:28 PM CST
