Top is the new 50th Anniversary Edition from Vintage. Bottom is the first edition from Random House. Designer info to come. There is something very Paul Rand-ish about the script in the new edition. Maybe the ripping apart of the black is supposed to evoke Holly Golightly's power to transform seemingly nothing into something grand. Or allude to her exposure.
22 comments:
The new cover clearly aims for a chick lit audience.
The original one is great.
The new cover on the Vintage edition was designed by Megan Wilson. I don't read it as chick lit (which almost never uses so much black) - seems more like the pop of effervescence that Holly represents
Chick lit: a term that the nonfiction reading homo sapien applies to any work of fiction that depicts a woman or part of a woman.
Hi Megan - was the bejeweled hand a commisioned photograph?
The photograph was taken by Horst P. Horst for Condé Nast, c.1942. It's easy to forget that the book was set during WWII, unlike the movie. Sadly, the jewels are by Cartier, not Tiffany.
Wow - it's an amazing photo. Did you colorize it? I love that this cover looks like advertising from the 50s.
or should I say 40s? Either way, Mad Men would be proud.
is that a black pencil drawing white on a wall?
This would catch my eye in a store. I like it. It feels retro—almost like a clip from the movie...
Looks like a red pencil tip writing white...funny. I like the design quite a bit, this would get my attention. Simple and effective.
I guess I'm the only one (anonymously) who thinks this 'concept' makes no sense whatsoever with the contents of the book itself.
No you're not the only one :-))
It could be an hommage to Horst...
Sorry, I'm trying to see it as more than a chick-lit cover - there are more sophisticated elements to it than you'd find on chick-lit - but it just keeps grabbing me as a less-than-literary title. Nice design, though. When I look closely, I can see that it is a retro photo, which is a good touch. Perhaps it looks better in person. Is it a matte lamination? That would carry it better.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51RfOJddr0L._SS500_.jpg
:-))
In my opinion, this cover doesn't really look like chick lit. It appeals to anyone who likes the playful homage to 40s/50s advertising. It's charming.
what NY mag thinks about it :
http://ccrison.free.fr/BCA/NYMagNov24thissue.JPG
alright, Gould, alright. Way to be persistant. You know what? I did hear about this in New York mag. Still, for a book cover to make it to the Approval Matrix is pretty rare, and any publicity can be good publicity. I figured this would make for an interesting argument, and it did.
Tal, I am not trying to make a point here or sound lousy. It's just funny the magazine also mentioned it.
Megan is probably a talented designer, but I still think it's a cheap cover. Probably based on the client's requirement. It would be interesting to see alternate covers.
dude, she's definitely a talented designer.
That's why I wrote this, because I wouldn't want to offend her.
That's sweet of you.
Megan, your covers for Dashiel Hammett's are just perfect by the way!
Megan has a great website : ancientindustries.com
Post a Comment