So, I’m working on this here new poetry collection called “The Devil Wears a Hoodie”. Now, I know what you might be thinking:
“Sahm, you haven’t finished your novel, ‘Man of the Seven Spears’, yet…”
I know… I know… But I will…one day…
Anyway, I’m working on this new poetry collection. I’ve already designed a cover, but I’m not yet sure which I’d like to use out of three different versions. Now, my lady said that she liked the first one the best. Personally, I like them all, but I like the last one most of all. I guess what I’m asking is, what do y’all think? Do you like any of them? If so, which do you like the most? If you don’t like any of them, what do you think is missing?
Any and all criticisms, good or bad, welcome!
Book Cover 1
Book Cover 2
Book Cover 3
There are, perhaps, different impressions for behavioral classifications, ‘socially acceptable levity domains’, consumer sciences, qualifications, and shortcuts here.
It’s possible the ‘typical’ Sahm King fan or reader, has reasons or motivations pertaining to feedback, not less quantifiable, for being seemingly undefined in scope.
‘God-willing’, names may be dropped [later] with more or less relevant parties, mentioned or otherwise.
I annoy easily. Games are for children. At this point, I’ll offer you a choice: come down off the mountain, else pay tribute to the King.
Hmmm.. Is that “bullshit mountain”?
Seems that way.
It seems a certain ‘Mr. Hyde’ should wait until the first dose of psychiatric medication has worked it’s ‘magic’, before arrogantly, and clumsily, critiquing work without required experience and qualification.
Surely the intention was to offer honest insight, and a rather less than obvious perspective, in hopes of provoking more favorable outcomes. If positive output and deviation cannot be squeezed from that jumbled mess, tagging it as invalid blather, and treating it with all due relevance, is wholly understandable.
While it might not be readily decipherable from such a frayed tangle, it is implied in the angles, that a decrease in momentum is not part of a desired result there.
Raw honest feedback, seems to be in the vein of helping those who can rise higher, better use self to that effect.
Certainly, it can be said, that even Lilith resting hidden in deep spaces, would not favor the weight of feedback, false, lacking in precision, not lifting, but anchoring in hindrance.
…and indeed the porous traits of bone, might be the better choice there.
The most qualified, I think, to critique a work are those who are not qualified enough to understand how the work is created. If I’m selling a book, perhaps those people will be purchasing said book – very same who will be reading and enjoying said book – are those from whom I should seek an opinion. I see nothing wrong and appreciate it.
Criticism, in whatever form it takes, is only a hindrance to anyone who takes said criticism personally, or they who fail to at least attempt to understand the criticism. In short, criticism – good or bad, helpful or not – is helpful by default, especially since it was one of the few critiques I’ve received out 18 respondents. There’s as much value in grains of dust as there is in a mountain; remember where the Earth comes from.
That said, beyond your opinion on the merits of the possible use of a texture, what else say you? Or will you leave it only at critiquing the critique?
Comparatively, the slice offset in the second one makes the face too disjointed…too indistinguishable.
The form, detail and color scheme don’t ‘mesh’ with the last one, when better options are presented.
The 1st one is preferred here also, but note that’s not declared with a Bachelor’s in design, similar or better qualification.
???
Duplicate the first one.
Detail blend with human ‘mummified’ skin from corner.
Maybe include some of the ‘brimstone’ also.
Fracture and offset ->slightly.
Put both versions out there, for a short while, and see which one ‘grabs’ better?
???
Mr. King, usually what’s put out from THERE, as far as writing and photography, is enjoyed very much HERE.
However, on this, even the first sample, from a moderate distance might fail somewhat. From a far enough distance the form might be distorted, yet interesting enough, to invoke curiosity, and draw closer looks from observers and potential consumers.
A close examination, of the detail of the one visible eye, particularly, is favorable enough, but observers might have to be flies already in the web at that point.
The first sample, again that being the preference, is better than what many might do.
As memory serves, and strangely enough, it does, there has been better impressions of ‘The King’ likeness, of that flavor (‘devilish’) presented previously in personal history.
It cannot be done better HERE, but if selling is paramount, and skill is accrued over time with experience, then perhaps better choices are left to make THERE.
Often, the proper sense for fear, for reservation and tact, are not found, even when such are timely assets of prudence.
Also, nothing HERE is know for being ‘in tune’ with current trends, and common tastes.
Take such with a pinch of salt not encircling, not cast over the shoulder, but to keep self at bay, nonetheless. Let abstraction and symbol speak and entrance, with likeness underlying to be queried and uncovered, by those denizens of thy realm, willing, worthy and ‘spell-bound’.
Contact details are fraudulent.
Eh, you can’t win’em all.
So, three for the first, though, enhancement is suggested. It’s not in any way captivating and, were it to be put on a physical version of this collection, there is a possibility it may attract attention, but upon closer inspection, the effect upon the observer is minimal, at best. The first, in short, is not up to the standard that I most often present, even as it is…the preferred choice. I see. In sum, it needs work.
I like your suggestions, especially the “detailed blend with human ‘mummified’ skin from corner.” In fact, that one, I’ll take a step further – eliminate the skin and blend with bone (I have a particular penchant for skulls). As I’ve plenty of time yet before I even begin putting this collection together, I’ll endeavor to create beyond the minimal effort I portrayed here (that courtesy of my ever present and inherent laziness).
I’m not certain why the anonymity, unless you do not have a WordPress blog / gravatar and happened upon my post via Twitter, but you’ve made some solid points. At the least, I’d like to know whom I should thank for such a detailed and humble critique of my cover. I understand, however, if that is not possible, and thank you all the same.
As I practice neither witchcraft nor superstition of any kind, beyond regarding Ark as the Most High (to which any who entertain his God-Complex should aptly inquire “Where’s the weed at?”), and as I place a true and measurable value upon opinion – worthy, not, or otherwise – I will not take this with a grain of salt. More like an entire beach of salt grains opposing the sand.
Allow me this, as I know of only a few who can speak this way… Is your word in any way expressed from the voice of one named for a supposed succubus and Akkadian demon, one who was before Eve was made to be subservient to a man who likened himself to Yahweh, and, even in eternal impugnment, still yet mocks humanity’s parody of abandon in the most absolute sense…or am I way off?
Good points all. Thank you very much.
Reblogged this on The Ranting Papizilla and commented:
He needs feedback on some cover choices. I picked one, can you?
I prefer the first one myself. The last one is too over exposed and busy.
That makes 2 for the first one.