A Tale of Two Crops
Take a look both images of this cover:
The above, from Random House’s “official page,” and the below, from Amazon:
Saw the cover image on Random House’s site, took a closer look, and decided to blog on it — saying that I loved the cover, the typography, arrangement, everything except the crop. I wanted the boy’s eyes to reinforce the message, to add to something already good. (The book’s about an autistic child, by the author of Dying Young.)
So, as I usually do, I headed over to Amazon to see if a larger version of the cover was available for posting here. It was — but there’s the different crop.
I’m going to write Random House in a minute for an answer. In the meantime, anyone know the story? Is it a mistake? Updated image/draft with a different crop? (Note the callout, for instance. Pub date’s this month.) And, of course, which do you prefer?
Comments:
I connect more easily to the eyes cover, but I think the no-eyes is both slightly ominous (thus, interesting) and works better with the subject matter - autism not often giving those without it a clear view of the autistic soul. So to speak.
I agree with Orlando. The Random House cover is far more intriguing. There is a suggestion of struggle - drowning even - as though the boy can’t quite reach the intended mark. Perhaps this goes too far?
Great cover in both instances.
The one w/ the eyes is what is being sold.
Show me the eyes.
The one with the eyes seems a little more emotional and if your Dutch you’ll go with the other..
I like the top one, the one without the eyes. For the reasons discussed in post #2. It is harder, more uncomfortable, which it should be for this subject matter.
The eye’s don’t have it.
It is obvious to me the correct crop is without the eyes. Sometimes it is what is not shown that has the real power.