Re: Keep it Simple

Generally, yes, like most everyone has said, I'm drawn more to a simple cover than an overdone one. But keeping it simple is far easier said than done. And it always depends on what is best for the book. Complex or overdone might be appropriate for some books. But, as a guideline for just about all design, yes, simple is usually best, more memorable, more likely to allow for multiple meanings/understandings. I especially like when I can look back at a cover after reading and it means something new. I'm not sure I completely agree with this writer--I think symbols in the novel may be the best source for a simple cover, provided you choose one that resonates, which is the whole purpose of symbolism. For me, the [main] problem [among many] with the covers you've picked, Erin, isn't that they're based on symbolism so much as they don't seem to relate much to the content of the book at all. That crazy image of the snake/skulls/eagle/woman might have been perfect for another book, but doesn't make any sense for the tone or the imagery or the concept of The Princess Bride, and while I guess I can understand how Faber's intention might have made sense to them initially, I cannot believe how tone-deaf it is to use these chick-lit markers for a novel like The Bell Jar. [To be honest, I can't really stand anything about chick-lit markers for any novel, as it always seems to be tone-deaf at best and belittling of the writing/interests/stories of women at worst, but that's a different blog topic...]

But simple is hard. And that's why simple stays with us because simple design makes more and more sense the more we think about it, the more we ask questions of it, the more we engage with it, the more we can be engaged. I don't necessarily think that simple means fewer design elements, though. I think it means a clear, driving concept that rings true. And while yes, I believe in subtraction as a design process, that design, like visual art or writing, is complete when there isn't anything left that can be taken away without changing the meaning rather than there being nothing left to add...it's that part about changing the meaning that matters most to me.

In terms of considering few elements v. many, I like to look at different editions of the same book. I think it helps to compare different visions of the same work because they're solutions to the same problem, in service of the same text, so it's easier to say whether less is more for that particular work. For example, I find this fan website for Michael Chabon's The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay and a website of different covers for Lolita from around the world are good comparison sites.

The original American hardcover and trade paperback from Random House in 2000 and 2001:

Editions from other countries:

(Netherlands, 2003)

(France, 2003)

A repackage done in 2012, I think:

And two of the other comps submitted by the same designer, Will Staehle:

The original trade paperback with its indication of a well-loved set of comics is in many ways perfect for the novel and audience. For me, the foreign designs and the two comps that the publisher didn't go with are more simplified in terms of elements than the original covers or the redesign. But for a gripping novel about comic book artists, especially with the humorous but quite empathetic quality of the writing, the photographic covers just seem wrong, impersonal, boring. And while I think the blue passed-over comp by Staehle is beautiful and simple and quieter, ultimately the chosen redesign makes more sense with the novel. And even though there are more elements on the cover--in fact, this cover hits pretty much all the symbols in the novel--the illustration style and color palette maintain a clean aesthetic in which I don't think anything could be subtracted without changing the effect.