I really like the design… but I can’t figure out what that thing IS sticking in the map.

but maybe that just me…and maybe it’s just late… maybe.

theodore , May 2, 2006 10:41 PM (#)

Honestly, I’m not sure; I’ve had several opinions on whether this particular fork is used to stick corn, shrimp, or something else.

It was selected purely based on its shape: I wanted two tines (for the “v”) and something cool/ominious about the ends, implying, well, deviltry.

I do need to break the news about the hole to the globe’s owner soon, however…;)

Giles , May 3, 2006 1:28 AM (#)

Interesting. What if you worked it so that the fork is the V, instead of surrounding the V. DE-IL would need to be bigger and closer together, of course, for that to work.

Dan , May 3, 2006 10:11 AM (#)

I love the photo, but I honestly thought it was the legs of a figure “diving” into Iraq up to it’s waist, which to me, still made sense conceptually. I think the depth of field of the photo works beautifully.

Brody , May 3, 2006 12:29 PM (#)

Brody, while I hadn’t seen that image in particular, I had seen something similar in reverse — someone holding up fingers of victory or arms in “score!” (Especially in smaller sizes — thumbnails, for instance.) All worked for me conceptually, just as yours does.

Nice to have multi-level meaning in a photo! Glad you like. Thanks.

Dan, interesting you should mention that. Originally, that was the plan. I’d hoped the shoot the fork sticking out a little more, then use it as the “v,” just as you describe. (Precisely why the fork has two tines, instead of the more traditional three.)

However, once in the actual photo shoot, it became quickly apparent that the proportions were off; in order to get the fork small enough, Iraq was too small or not lit the way I wanted.

When the hole in the globe got big enough from repositioning to no longer support the fork, it fell to that position — and we saw the shadow. And didn’t look back.

I did mess with using just the fork as the “v” after the shoot, but it just didn’t seem to play correctly. This shot, with the larger fork offset (rather than centered) was stronger visually, so I accepted not being able to use the fork exactly the way I wanted in exhange for the overall “look.”

Thanks for your comment!

Giles , May 3, 2006 1:16 PM (#)

Forgive me for asking, but why is there a fork in the first place? I can see that there’s a big scary metal thing sitting on Iraq, maybe it’s an artist’s rendering of one of Hussein’s oversized monuments. It also fits the “V” and has horns, so I get that it’s the Devil in the title. And then there’s the shadow falling across southern Iraq… it all looks great and rich and deep and probably meaningful… but at some point I realize it’s a fork and why is there a fork? And if you’re “sticking a fork in it”, why is it the handle being stuck in? Is Iraq wielding the fork?

The visual component is beautiful, but it boggles me when I try to figure out the story the cover is trying to tell.

Dystopos , May 3, 2006 2:16 PM (#)

So…is the title changing? Obviously, this title is much more in-your-face, which certainly tells the buyer where the author stands in relation to Bush. Is that a good thing in the end for this book? I’m not sure, just asking. The one thing I do miss about this new cover is seeing Bush and/or that sales copy more prominently. It takes a lot longer with this cover to discover the subject matter where as the first cover sells it quickly. Once again, is this a good thing for the book? Just wondering…All in all, though, quite creative and intriguing.

Dean , May 3, 2006 2:23 PM (#)

I’ve been trying to answer this for 24 hours; I’m sorry, the server seems to not be functioning the way it should!

Dystopos, the original concept was a devil’s fork in a tactical map (in place of a push-pin). It grew from there. Literally.

It really, really, works for me that it original concept is all but lost in something much more interesting and dramatic. Kinda fits where we are with our mission in Iraq, right?

Either way, I’m still waiting for approval now, Friday morning — so assuming it’s gonna flop. Oh, well.

Dean: Different project. Two Bush titles in three weeks. Fun!

Giles , May 5, 2006 9:19 AM (#)

Giles, the design is really really beautiful. I would just be concerned that you’re too attached to it to realize there are conceptual problems — it doesn’t ‘read’ that clearly, seems that quite a few agree on this… good luck with it, though. Nice to have a cover development process you obviously feel more passionate about!

This could raise an interesting question: do any other designers feel limited when confronted with a title whose subject you just can’t ‘get behind’? I’ve had that happen to varying degrees over the years. Once to the actual point of quitting the project, since it just wasn’t happening. Anyone else? Would you rather muddle through, or drop it? Anybody have a success story of working through the block?

Diane , May 5, 2006 11:33 AM (#)

Sorry to take so long to get back to you on this comment, Diane — been another week-and-a-half stuffed into a few days.

Could you be more specific about the conceptual problems you have with it, please? I’m not sure what you mean by “doesn’t read clearly.” It’s not supposed to be easily defined, and I maybe didn’t do enough to help people understand that it’s okay to bring their own definition to the table?

And yeah, I do sometimes both get too attached to cover designs and sometimes have problems making them work. (Witness the last Bush cover, for instance.)

I want to feel passionate about every cover. Is that bad? Honestly. I’m worried that if I don’t care about each and every cover, I’m not doing my job the way I should.

Sometimes, as with this title, I prefer the love-hate reactions to the “don’t care”/yawn replies. (I mean, heck, if you’re going to title it A Pact with the Devil, it seems like the cover should be provocative. Lots disagree, however.) At least people are talking about it — and comments like yours, Diane, and the others before you, help me learn to be a better designer.

With all that in mind, here’s the official update: It’s been approved for use in the catalog and will be (heavily, I understand) publicized. However, all that’s done with the caveat that it may be revisited down the road.

I’ve already very seriously offered to redo it if this one doesn’t work. Will let everyone know!

Giles , May 10, 2006 12:13 PM (#)