Better, worse, the same or just different?

Over at The Ebook Test, Mike Cane wrote an interesting post comparing the print edition covers with the e-edition covers of various books. He says:

One of the few things I haven’t complained about with print publishing is the design of book covers.  This is because it’s an art that stretches back for decades and there have been some seriously great covers (see The Book Design blog for some samples).

There is even a science to book covers!

But with print publishing turning to eBooks, all of that learning is being flushed down the eToilet.

I have to admit that for most of these comparisons he has a very good point. There was no need to change the Richard Branson cover, which works perfectly well as it is. The new version certainly isn’t an improvement, the text is nearly illegible in thumbnail and the image is dull. It’s frustrating that the replacement is worse than the original.

cover004b1   77904   ecover0041

Mike would like to see all the original covers reformatted and used on the ebooks, but I disagree. The problem really is that the replacements are bad, not that the originals are good. The Branson cover could work better in thumbnail if the photograph was closer cropped and the text was slightly larger. Many of the other covers, such as The Civil War, Lincoln Unmasked and Black Boy do not work well in greyscale thumbnails. The photograph in The Civil War is lost and much of the text is too small to read. The red banner across Lincoln’s eyes, which was an effective play on the theme of ‘masking’ in colour, looks like bad design in greyscale. Much of the text is too small to read in thumbnail and clutters the image. The contrasting colours of Black Boy are lost in greyscale, destroying much of the effect and the allusion to abstract expressionist art.

55004   86293   74770

These books would be best served by creating covers that work both in large and small, both in colour and in greyscale.

I was interested to discover that there are different covers for e-versions of books. I poked around on Amazon and discovered an interesting fact. Some books on Amazon.com have different covers for the physical copy and the kindle copy. However, those same books on Amazon.co.uk have only one cover for both the physical copy and the kindle copy. For example, Jasper Fforde’s Shades of Grey has one cover for the paperback on Amazon.com, and another cover for the kindle edition. On Amazon.co.uk, it is the same cover for both editions. The first colour image below is the American edition, the second is the British. They both use the British edition for the kindle. Is the British edition a better cover for an e-edition? I honestly don’t think so. The American version is clearer in thumbnail and greyscale, although the British version is more eye-catching in colour.

9780143118589H   21821   shades-of-grey-pbk   27924

The Way Of Kings is the same on Amazon. It has one cover for paperback on Amazon.com, and another cover for British paperbacks and all kindle editions. In this case, it seems clear to me that the British version is much better suited to being a kindle cover. The American version is inadequate for reasons discussed here.

09 The Way of Kings   09wayofkings   09a The Way of Kings UK   1955

Looking at other fantasy books I saw that Sword of Shannara and Lord of Chaos both had American covers for the paperback on Amazon.com and British covers for the kindle edition. It seems that the trend on Amazon is not the choose the cover that works best as an e-cover, but to simply use British covers across the board, regardless of whether they are better or worse.

It is my opinion that the British fantasy covers generally work better as e-covers and I’ll be discussing that in my next post.

Advertisements