Over at his Discover blog, Carl Zimmer has asked readers to help choose a cover for his new non-majors evolution textbook. If you have a good eye for design, as I'm sure many BioE readers do, go over and help him pick the most appealing cover!
It's a hard choice, as so many design choices are. I'll leave my vote until after the fold so I don't prejudice you.
Okay; so I like all of them, but don't *love* any of them. My problem with the orchid, which I think is the most elegant and subtle design, is that it doesn't say "evolution" to me. It says "botany." Then it says "yawn." The minute I looked at it, I felt a rush of somnolence and had a moment's flashback to high school, when we had two huge (college) textbooks for advanced biology - one had a generic flower on it and it was OH so boring. They were both backbreakingly heavy, enhancing the soporific effect.
The Carl Buell painting designs, on the other hand, play shamelessly into the stereotype of evolution - the whole "red in tooth and claw" thing. For non-majors - who in my experience often are only taking the course for a distribution requirement and are resistant to enjoying it or learning much - is shamelessly exploiting the popular associations with evolution a bad thing or a good thing? Maybe a little of both. It's a good thing if it gets them interested; it's a bad thing if it prejudices them about what evolution is. I love the orchid/wasp twist on evolution as a story, because it's unexpected. But when it comes to grabbing non-majors' attention, I think a toothy prehistoric thing looming out of the mysterious, bloody darkness is a better choice - even if it's a little simplistic compared with the other designs.
I tried not to even think about the fonts. I am hopelessly picky about fonts. But I understand if you made your decision based on the font choices, because they are a very strong element in making these cover designs different from one another.
Oh, and since it's come up in Zimmer's comments section, I happen to think Buell's art is fabulously retro. I love that it doesn't look sterile and slick, as too much digital illustration does (though the very best digital art can achieve astounding, otherworldly patinas). Anyway, Buell's painting makes me think of pulp sci-fi and vintage comic books. Which I seriously doubt is a bad thing among college students.
Your thoughts? And don't forget to share them with Carl Zimmer - it's his book! :)
- Log in to post comments
But... but none of the covers show an illustration of an actual tangled bank...
In the one with the lightless background, I'm pretending there is a tangled bank back there, and the Tiktaalik crawled out of it and down into the water.
I'm feeling a craving to paint a tangled bank myself now.
Jessica, were you just eavesdropping on my phone call with my publisher? We were talking about exactly the same thing.
Thanks for the post.
I voted for Tiktaalik3 (which is currently running in fourth place). It features a greater variety of life than the other covers (multiple plants and animals), there could easily be a bank nearby, and the roots could very easily be tangled.
As for retro, I just did a search for a dinosaur book that I had as a child. Here it is: http://i18.ebayimg.com/06/i/001/15/39/ddb0_1.JPG (wow, I haven't seen that cover in decades, and had only the vaguest recollection of what it looked like, but as soon as I saw the image the sense of recognition hit me with great force.)
I voted for the action whale shot #2. The second font design felt more current without being ostentatious. It might be a bit aggressive for a textbook, but the bold curve of the creature's body is gripping.
I also thought the expression (if you can call it that) on the Tiktaalik goofy. :D