Ned Drew

Yikes. It's the rare book where I think "this could use less text," but the writing was so tiresome I would have been thrilled to exchange this for some coffee table book with a few helpful labels. It was written by two academics, neither of whom seem to know how to write for the common man; this was riddled with jargon, and, frankly, codswallop. (And I'm an art historian ... so I know mumbo-jumbo when I see it!) To be fair, when at their worst, they're generally quoting other academics who are similarly burdened with the obligation to provide other impenetrable bon mots.

Here are some examples of "helpful" text:

"Kidd's designs are not easy: his covers lead his viewers through a process of perusing and decoding multi-leveled combinations of images and type."

"Using typography as a subordinate accent, Carson is willing to let the image take center stage, whether it hovers in a field of white or dominates the cover"

"Indeed, Lubaz pointed out the duality of historicist practice that, on one hand, presented the viewer with familiar visual languages, and on the other, spoke to fellow designers on a more sophisticated, self-referential level."

The authors also seem pretty upset that publishers want to sell books, rather than just providing a venue for book cover designers to experiment with whatever the heck they want to do. Basically, the book sort of annoyed me all the way through. Maybe 1.5 stars, but rounded down because these two at least are well-educated and should have known better.

(Note: 5 stars = amazing, wonderful, 4 = very good book, 3 = decent read, 2 = disappointing, 1 = awful, just awful. I'm fairly good at picking for myself so end up with a lot of 4s). I feel a lot of readers automatically render any book they enjoy 5, but I grade on a curve!… (mere)