Rejected Book Covers vs. The Finished Product

When you’re dealing with the release of a high-profile book, the stakes are high, so it can take an insane number of drafts to get the cover just right for everyone involved. To that point, last week the Sunday Book Review ran a feature on book covers that “got away”; we’ve selected a handful of our favorites from their roundup, and paired them with the covers that ended up making the cut. Click through and let us know in the comments in which cases you agree with the publishers’ decisions.

Note: In all cases the rejected covers are on the left and the final versions are on the right.

Blood, Bones, and Butter – Design by Lynn Buckley

Eating Animals – Design by Jon Gray

Netherland – Design by Heads of State

Sag Harbor – Design by Rodrigo Corral

The Autograph Man – Design by John Gall and Leanne Shapton

A Gate at the Stairs – Design by Barbara DeWild

Wetlands – Design by Roberto de Vicq de Cumptich

Repeat After Me/Dress Your Family in Corduroy and Denim – Design by Kelly Blair

Filed Under:

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest

[...] - Rejected book covers vs. the final product. [...]

[...] book covers vs. the final product. Flavorwire shows 8 examples of books covers (and in one case, a title) that weren’t side by side with the ones that we see today. The New York Times shows only the rejected designs, [...]

Blood, Bones, and Butter: Right - Good concept, could have been great with a few tweaks. Eating Animals: Right - Reads better and looks better. Netherland: Right - How could you NOT pick that one?! Sag Harbor: Left - The yellow on the other is just too much. The Autograph Man: Right - The other is just too busy, but I don't think either are really great. A Gate at the Stairs: Right - Has more intrigue. Wetland: Right - Just very cool. Repeat After Me/Dress Your Family....: Neither. Back to the drawing board. Now I must say that I always judge a book by it's cover. I shouldn't, but being a graphic designer I do. I'll pick a book with a well designed cover any day and most of the time it turns out to be an amazing book. So maybe there is something to be said about that. Just my thoughts.

Both Wetlands. The rest can suck it.

Rejected for "Blood, Bones," much better (a couple of discreetly placed drops of blood near the edge would not have hurt). I have the book because I am interested in Hamilton and her work, and because I already know her to be a good writer, but found the cover confusing, even before this. As a an editor thankfully liberated from in-house work, I see the hand of the marketing people, and too much manipulation.

New blood bones butter Both eating animals, but mostly the Old Old netherland Neither Sag Harbor, though I guess the old... Neither Autograph Man, though I guess the new... Old a gate at the stairs Old repeat after me, though I like the new title more...

SORRY TO REPORT BUT AS AN AUTHOR OF NINE NOVELS, I HAVE FOUND THAT OFTEN THE PUBLISHERS HAVE STOCK PHOTOS THAT CAN BE USED FOR ANY NOVEL IN A CERTAIN GROUP. IN ONE CASE, THE HERO OF ONE OF MY NOVELS, HATED THE BRITISH NAVY AND BROKE AWAY TO CAPTAIN HIS OWN SHIP, YET THE COVER HAD HIM IN A BRITISH NAVAL UNIFORM. STATIC SHOTS OF HERO AND HEROINE EMBRACING HAVE BECOME SO CLICHE, I CRINGED WHEN I SAW THE COVERS. BUT THE AUTHOR, UNLESS A MILLION DOLLAR SELLER, HAS NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT THE SELECTION OF THE COVER. IT MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA TO INCLUDE THE AUTHOR IN THE CHOICES--WHO AGREES WITH ME ON THAT?

Private Eye (UK) regularly publishes a section where publishers re-use book cover designs for differnt authors - it's a very amusing read and shocking to see how brazen some publishers are.

I think the greatest disappointment among those replaced covers is the Lorrie Moore book. The one of the left stands out and has wonderful visual punnery; the one on the right is just like millions of other novels where a supposedly "evocative" photograph that is really just from a photo library - and photoshopped a bit - has globs of text dropped on top in all the usual places. An interesting thing to look for is how UK covers differ from US covers.

I guess people do judge books by their covers. I know I tend to. And I have trouble seeing why the right are right and the left are well, just left.

It really frustrates me to see poor design to be chosen over good design. The Netherland cover is a prime example of a great cover being ruined so it looks like "what a book should look like". Ridiculous.

That explains why I haven't read the books on the right - I was looking for the books on the left.

All need vampire or wizard.

Wow. what a difference. I want to read the rejected Sag Harbor and have absolutely no interest in the final version. What a different feel. I wonder which was closer to honest.

The problem with showing rejected and final cover designs like this is that it doesn't give any context that would otherwise sway a viewer's opinion. Take the 'Netherland' cover, for example; the illustration in the rejected cover is FAR more interesting than the stereotypical it's-about-a-place-so-let's-use-a-photo cover that was chosen. But, maybe the illustrated cover had too much whimsy for a more serious or factual subject matter. Then again, contrast can be appealing too. Criticisms aside, this was really entertaining. It's nice to see the work that others are doing in the design field.

Ditto Russ. Wetlands seems to have lost an awful lot of meaning. And I definitely prefer the rejected cover of Netherland to the final, I hate the "Word Art" format of the final.

Russ, I thought so too. I liked the final of Sedaris' a LOT better than the rejected one.

The rejected "Blood Bones + Butter" cover is SO GOOD.