Uniformity and Blandness: Designing the Body of Work

June 10, 2009 | 12 books mentioned 6 2 min read

If you are a popular and prolific enough author, an interesting thing happens to your books, they all begin to look the same. This is the primary outward manifestation of an author as a brand. As a large oeuvre gets rounded out to perhaps a dozen or two titles, the publisher picks a certain design and rereleases all the titles to have that design. This makes a lot of sense. If you are a fan of Prolific Author A and are working your way through his body of work, you’ll soon be on the lookout for the distinctive style his publisher has chosen for his paperbacks. The problem is that all too often, these uniform designs are ugly. My prescription, however, is to scale back on the shared elements and to try to present each book more uniquely so that it feels like as much effort has gone into packaging each individual book as went into to writing it.

From my days in the bookstore, I know how important, often subconsciously so, book cover design can be. With that in the mind, there are some very well-known authors whose uniformly designed books are doing them a disservice and deserve an overhaul:

covercovercover

The Vintage paperback editions of William Faulkner’s novels have it all: terrible fonts, jarring colors, and strange, bland art. The covers betray none of the complexity of Faulkner’s work and instead promise soft-focus confusion. They feel dated and badly in need of a refresh. Better versions: Check out the prior paperback covers of As I Lay Dying from Penguin and Vintage.

covercovercover

Maybe it’s the frames around the Ballantine John Irving paperback covers, but they remind me of hotel art. Irving’s masterful narratives have been reduced to representative but inanimate objects – a nurse’s uniform, a motorcycle – that occupy the safe middle ground that Irving’s books eschew. Better versions: There is a certain dignity to the text-only designs that once graced Irving’s covers.

covercovercover

For a writer as inventive and unique as Kurt Vonnegut, it sure seems like a shame to just slap a big “V” on all his covers and call it a day. Better versions: They may not offer a uniform look, bit I prefer the energy of the old pocket paperback versions of Vonnegut’s novels.

covercovercover

Far better are the Vintage Murakami paperbacks, which evoke some of the most jarring and surreal qualities of Murakami’s fiction. They also maintain a consistent aesthetic and yet they still vary from title to title. Even better versions: The Chip Kidd-designed British hardcover of Wind-Up Bird Chronicle captures the vivid imagery while hinting at the underlying complexity.

created The Millions and is its publisher. He and his family live in New Jersey.

6 comments:

  1. Yeah, Vintage is–in my book–the biggest sinner in this catagory of just slapping horrid crap on their even flimsier built novels. They did do well with Murakami, but, that's about it. I hate to say it, but a lot of covers keep me from buying a book. Penguin generally does a decent job, but even they mess it up: ie, Lady Chatterley's Lover, Deluxe Edition. I find myself trying to find another edition, sometimes waiting a long time for a completely different version. Keep up the good work, Millions. Maybe write about the horrible binding and acid paper that is still being used in the market.

  2. While the Vintage Faulkner covers are dated, I've always thought they were very appropriate for Faulkner. I definitely don't think the prior covers of Faulkner are better.

    I'm not a big fan of the Vonnegut covers, but it certainly isn't bad for a series. Just a note: it's more cost-effective for a publisher to establish a cover style for a series of titles that are re-issued rather than spend the funds on new unique designs. That's probably a huge factor in the decision in adopting a common style.

    The Murakami covers are spectacular! John Gall & Chip Kidd: hard to go wrong with those guys.

  3. I found the process of cover design a bit perplexing. As an author, you have a distinct sense of what you think evokes, visually, the essence of your work. But you also recognize that you are not "the general reader" and that the design and publicity teams may know better how that general reader chooses a book when browsing at the bookstore. I suppose it's a familiar art vs commerce question; one would hope it needn't be either/or, but still, I found it a complicated thing to navigate.

    Isn't it possible that the designers of these covers know something about consumer habits that we don't, and that these designs contributed positively to the sales of these books?

  4. I'm waiting for the redesign of Margaret Atwood's covers. Her new books don't match each other, and the older ones have an early 1980s-spirituality shoppe look to them.

  5. FWIW, that Chip Kidd design was also used for the US hardcover. It was beautiful, with all its gizmos.

Add Your Comment:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *