SNEAK PREVIEW: “Cyndere’s Midnight” has two cover designs. Which do you prefer?
June 5, 2008
Kristopher Orr is the artist responsible for the extraordinary book cover art for Auralia’s Colors.
Now he’s working on the cover for the sequel, Cyndere’s Midnight.
He and the good folks at WaterBrook Press are all interested in your thoughts on two possibilities. Which do you prefer? Which is more likely to intrigue bookstore browsers enough that they’ll pick it up?
Note: This is not a formal vote. Opinions will not be tallied for a decision. But your thoughts about the covers will be helpful in the last stages of decision-making. So we’d appreciate hearing which one you prefer and why.
Please consider these two designs, then post your thoughts in the comments here, or email me. (joverstreet – at – gmail – dot – com).
Click on the images to enlarge them.
NOTE: PLEASE DO NOT COPY AND CIRCULATE THESE IMAGES.
OPTION A:
These options have been removed now that the poll is over and the decision has been made.
OPTION B:
These options have been removed now that the poll is over and the decision has been made.
Auralia's Journal 
June 5, 2008 at 9:50 am
I like B more, although I’m not sure why yet.
June 5, 2008 at 9:52 am
Option B. The scene minus the person is — I think — more aesthetically attractive.
June 5, 2008 at 9:57 am
I love them both, but am leaning toward option B. It has an air of mystery and enchantment.
June 5, 2008 at 10:02 am
I kind of prefer option A. Having a figure on the cover provides some design continuity with the first novel. I also like how she stands in stark contrast to the background. I’m intrigued by her & want to know more.
June 5, 2008 at 10:12 am
I like A myself. It fits thematically with the cover for “Auralia’s Colors” by having (I assume) Cyndere on it’s cover.
I do, however, like them both.
June 5, 2008 at 10:20 am
I much prefer A. B is boring to me. With no person, I don’t really have much interest in the image. Without the person, it looks like the cover of some New Age book. With the person in A, I’m suddenly wondering what she’s doing, where’s this scene in the book, etc.
June 5, 2008 at 10:22 am
I prefer B- there is more mystery and intrigue without the figure on the cover.
June 5, 2008 at 10:25 am
I’m leaning toward option A. Having a person on the cover triggers far more questions for my imagination that the other cover.
June 5, 2008 at 10:32 am
Honestly, I’m not really digging either. They look cheesy to me. I do like the black and white contrast and the woods. The girl looks way too realistic compared to the first cover. In a way, B looks empty, but that also adds intrigue. I want to know what that circular thing is and why it’s there. But…is there another idea?
June 5, 2008 at 10:35 am
Having a figure on the front helps show what the story might be about and who the central character might be. Although this image looks like she was photoshopped in. I think an illustrated figure would be better.
Either cover is intrigueing. Althought I would pick up the book regardless of the cover, just because I want to read this sequel!
June 5, 2008 at 10:54 am
Lean toward A if the woman were less distinct, less contemporary-looking. Perhaps just a nose and chin in half-light extending beyond the dark interior of the cowl. Cover the arm. A feminine figure for continuity between Book I and II, yes, but one more shrouded in mystery.
June 5, 2008 at 10:57 am
I much prefer book covers without people on them, especially photographed people, rather than illustrated ones, so I prefer option B.
I like the cover of Auralia’s Covers because, while there is a person on it, you still don’t see her face.
I like picturing characters based on my imagination and what the author writes, instead of a cover photo.
June 5, 2008 at 11:01 am
A lot of fantasy books have photographed people on the covers, so not having the girl on this cover would set it apart, to some degree.
June 5, 2008 at 11:01 am
One more thing. What is the pile of rocks? Is it a grave or a firepit?
June 5, 2008 at 11:10 am
OPTION A!!! It ties in very well with the first book and lets me know there is a human element to the story, not just about rocks. Option B just makes me want to light a fire in the rock pit. At the same time, I don’t read books, but I might buy it if the cover was cool looking, like OPTION A!!!
June 5, 2008 at 11:11 am
I like B better. The highlights and shadows of the girl doesn’t seem to work with the background as well as Auralia’s Colors.
June 5, 2008 at 11:15 am
I like B better. I find the object very confusing and, because of that, a little frustrating. With the figure of the woman — Cyndere? — there it’s worse because I want to know what she’s doing and the picture doesn’t tell me. It leaves me feeling let down. With just the object it feels better because even though I don’t understand it, it at least feels mysterious and interesting. The nagging question doesn’t matter so much someehow.
June 5, 2008 at 11:16 am
@Julia — I gather from the filename for image A that it’s a well.
I think the photographed person makes this cover feel too different than the Auralia’s Colors cover; it borders on feeling as if they were different editions of the same series. At the same time, there’s just something about the rocks strewn about Option B that I like.
So, I guess I’d like a hybrid: Option B with the scattered stones from Option A.
June 5, 2008 at 11:16 am
B might be more aesthetically pleasing, but the presence of a human face draws the eye much more powerfully, so from a marketing perspective, I’d go with A.
June 5, 2008 at 11:23 am
I like the idea of having a person in there, but it seems there is still more Photoshop blending to be done. The colors on the well and character are distracting in comparison to the rest of the cover.
June 5, 2008 at 11:24 am
Jeffrey, both look great. The winter scene and scrollwork are extremely enchanting, in and of themselves. But my vote goes to…Option A. I think a human figure almost always enhances the center of interest of a composition. Without it, for all of the possibilities of intrigue the stone altar offers, it is a vague enough motif to leave the glancing passerby uncompelled.
June 5, 2008 at 11:41 am
I definitely A, with the girl. I wouldn’t mind if she looked a little more illustrated (as in the first book’s cover) and a little less like a photograph, but that aside, I still think it makes the book more interesting looking, like maybe there is a character in it. B gives the impression it’s a more analytical, environment-based book, rather than a charcter-driven novel.
June 5, 2008 at 11:41 am
I like option A. Having a figure there brings continuity to the first novel and the series. It could be better, though, if the girl looked less photographed and maybe more anonymous, as does Auralia.
June 5, 2008 at 11:57 am
I lean toward option A; but agree with those saying that not seeing her face would be even better. Ties in with the first even more…
June 5, 2008 at 12:01 pm
I like option B. I like the mystery of leaving the human figure out, and I like to use my imagination of what the character looks like rather than having a face imprinted on my mind.
Although I think option A would work if her face was obscured with the hood. This would establish continity with the figure on the cover of the first book.
June 5, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Option A: I like the overall look but the face is too realistic. In Auralia’s cover the girl was intriguing because you don’t see a face. And even from the back, the image is soft and it matches the rest of the feel of the entire image. Still mysterious and fantasy like. The girl in Option A is too real, making it look a bit harsh compared to the rest of the image.
Option B: I like this look too but something is missing. Obviously the person, but I don’t know if that’s what will complete the look. It could be something or someone else depending on your story!
Good luck!
June 5, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Option “A”. It fits more in style with the cover for Auralia’s Colors and is more personal.
June 5, 2008 at 12:45 pm
I think I like option A, but I’d like it better if the woman wasn’t so realistic. I’d like her style to match Auralia’s Colors’ style.
I love the image of warmth emanating from the rock pit and the flowers and colors on the rocks. I like the rocks strewn about the pit, as well, as that adds even more visual interest. I love the shadows in the background and the feeling of evil/darkness contrasting with the lightness of the snow.
June 5, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Definitely option A, with the person on it. Without the person, the cover looks abstract and hard to understand. The person is an element that draws us in, adds warmth to a cold scene, puts the elements into perspective.
June 5, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Very tough call. I like the emotional impact of the figure in option A but find the photo realism distracting.
June 5, 2008 at 1:03 pm
I like the one without the model (let her face remain a mystery), but I think the addition of extra stones is something that should be kept, so a mix of A and B. Although on the second one you can kinda tell that she was cropped out. I assume they’d fix that.
June 5, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Wow. Lotsa comments.
I tried earlier but it wouldn’t post.
Here’s my thoughts:
I like what 1 is trying to do, but it doesn’t get there yet. The colouring and lighting on her are not quite right yet, and draw me out of the image. The rocks, too, don’t fit the rest of the scene; the trees are covered in either a light snow or hoar frost; the rocks shouldn’t be naked like a baby bottom.
I think having her on the cover is a good thing to tie into the first cover. However, in the first book she is clocked in mystery. Here she is not. Maybe if she was hooded, so you only caught a glimpse of the face? That’s the biggest issue, I think, is her face. It drags my attention, in a bad way.
The second cover is great, too, and it feels complete. IF these are final comps, I’d go with two, because the first has too many issues. If those issues were resolved, however, I’d probably go for cover 1.
June 5, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Clocked in mystery. Nice.
June 5, 2008 at 1:23 pm
These are both beautiful covers, but I would give the nod to option A. I love continuity in book artwork as much as the next reader, so I’m definitely influenced by Auralia’s Colors having a person on its cover. Leaving that aside, I agree with several other “option A” folk above that the human presence has the better emotional impact here.
June 5, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Although I do like figures on book covers, there’s something disjunctive about Option A. I love Auralia’s cover, because she’s facing away from the reader…almost looking into the book itself, which is her story. Auralia’s cover draws you in, but doesn’t make you feel like you’re intruding. In a way, the reader stands behind Auralia, feeling the same kind of mysterious pull that she does.
In cover Option A, I feel almost like I’m intruding, and want to back away. While this may be the feeling you’re intending for the book itself, it doesn’t necessarily make me want to open the cover to find out what the thing is that she’s crouching beside, or what it is that she’s looking at off to the right (her left.)
So, if I had to chose, I would chose Option B. I love the continuity of having a figure on the cover, but not the way that she’s facing or the feelings she evokes from Option A. I’d go for more of the feeling of mystery of Option B rather than the emotionally alienating feeling of Option A.
I’d love to see another option with the figure placed differently.
June 5, 2008 at 2:07 pm
I like B. I do like the idea of a photo of person like the first cover, but I liked it as a silhouette. This photo is more obvious. Maybe a different version of the person as a silhouette would tie the two books together better unless the second book is not about the character on the first cover, which could be inferred.
June 5, 2008 at 2:15 pm
I prefer A. It’s not as instantly striking as the first cover, but it grows on me.
June 5, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Option B
The photo of the woman in A doesn’t match with the illustrated picture of Auralia in the first novel—they’re inconsistent.
The style of B completely matches the style of Auralia’s Colors.
June 5, 2008 at 2:30 pm
I like cover A. The girl is intriguing. Cover A begs the questions; What is she sitting next to? Why is she sitting there like that? Where is she? Who is she?
Option B is not intriguing.
I like Auralia’s Colors cover better.
June 5, 2008 at 2:38 pm
I like option A the best. Although I’m having trouble deciphering what she is kneeling by. Is that a well? I think the icy color scheme is beautiful. And it’s good to have a figure that a reader can relate to and connect to at once, before even reading. Option B is boring. I don’t get it.
June 5, 2008 at 2:54 pm
I much prefer A. Having a person on the cover makes me more curious about the story. It also links it to the cover of the previous book, which I like; but even if I’d never heard of “Auralia’s Colors,” I’d be more likely to pick up option A.
June 5, 2008 at 3:43 pm
I like option B better. I think the photo of the girl feels out of place with the illustrated trees and well. Option B makes me curious, while option A makes me distracted.
I agree with many that option A would be better if the girl were illustrated, to keep continuity with the first book. It would be nice to have a feeling of a unified set of books for the series.
June 5, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Wow! There are a lot of comments on here to sift through. You guys are going to have fun 🙂
I cannot wait till this book comes out, I am so excited! I have been sending it to all of my artist friends.
I prefer Option A- but have the same problem most people mentioned in regards to the girl… too realistic. Having the girl in the picture adds a very personal angle. Option B is just too much empty space.
June 5, 2008 at 3:45 pm
PS- Thanks for enabling comments for non WordPress people… I am never able to comment on your blog because I don’t have a log in > and don’t particularly want to sign up for yet another thing 🙂 I do read it regularly and find it very fascinating though 🙂
June 5, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Ohh, I forgot to say that I was surprised that the cover is mostly white. With a title like ‘Cyndere’s Midnight’ I was expecting a darker pallete. I was surprised, but I like it.
June 5, 2008 at 4:31 pm
I strongly prefer B; A is way too literal. It’s not that I prefer not having a person on the cover, because I liked AC’s cover. It’s just that showing a literal person with a literal face kind of spoils everything. Like seeing the movie before you read the book.
June 5, 2008 at 5:03 pm
I like them both, a lot. Very nicely done art!
I think “A” is much stronger though, as a book cover. Having a person in the photo makes me wonder — what is she doing? Why is she there?
Stories are about people, the cover without a person removes that element, makes it less intriguing, less interesting.
June 5, 2008 at 5:09 pm
B cover – at first glance.
Though A cover could work if the figure were more mysterious (less face) like the auralia cover
June 5, 2008 at 6:41 pm
B was my first answer
But people make good cases for A, and A is more like the first book.
Either one is beautiful
June 5, 2008 at 6:46 pm
B. Like it.
June 5, 2008 at 7:55 pm
I’m with the majority (though I didn’t count to make sure!) I prefer the person on the cover, but would prefer her to be more mysterious–the back view (to match Auralia) someone upthread suggested sounds great. I really don’t get the object…pile of stones? I don’t see it as a well, even when I expand the image.
I do like the frosty trees as another way of depicting midnight. It’s a different kind of dark, but it works for me.
June 5, 2008 at 9:03 pm
I prefer A but I agree with many of the other comments that say the woman should be softened somehow to fit a little better and not look so pasted in. I like her clothing, position, and the human interest that she adds, though – definitly seems more intriguing than B. 🙂
June 5, 2008 at 9:46 pm
I definitely prefer B. The “real girl” just throws me for a loop.
June 6, 2008 at 3:48 am
I prefer option A. As some others have said, the human figure provides continuity with the first book and (IMHO) a more compelling image. Perhaps with the face in shadow or three quarters away from the viewer, as with the first book’s cover?
June 6, 2008 at 6:06 am
I prefer option B. Version without the female figure seems more complelling, mysterious, less obvious.
June 6, 2008 at 7:36 am
no question about it, I prefer image B. I like to use my own imagination for the people. : )
June 6, 2008 at 10:10 am
I dig cover A. The cover seems almost lacking without the figure. And despite what others have said, I think her being there adds more mystery. I find myself wondering what she’s doing.
June 6, 2008 at 10:10 am
Go with cover A – human interest is key.
June 6, 2008 at 10:44 am
Option A. Having a person in the picture adds a layer of interest. Without the woman, it’s just a pretty picture.
June 6, 2008 at 11:01 am
I prefer image B. When people are browsing in a boostore, book covers only get a few seconds to sell themselves. Adding the female figure is more literal, and it doesn’t demand as much of the reader to fill in the blank, but it communicates faster and attracts attention better.
June 6, 2008 at 11:52 am
Definitely Option A.
Having a person on the cover makes it much more interesting.
June 6, 2008 at 11:54 am
Might as well chime in: I’m with those who prefer A, but I’d like it tweaked. Obscure her face a bit somehow, and fit her into the picture better. For example, no one else has commented, but I notice although everything else is covered in snow she’s not. Assuming she’s come through the trees, there ought to be some snow on her clothing, dripped from the trees. That sort of thing. She’s too clean.
The non-snowy colored rocks/well/whatever I took to indicate the thing is warm. Aside from a second look showing steam/vapor. The person seems to bring out the steam, make it easier to see.
FWIW, before I enlarged the pictures, I took the dark tree trunk to the left (as we look at it) of the Option B (non-person cover) to be the same figure as in Option A, but moved farther back. So many have said they want the face obscured, I thought I’d mention this in case the artist wants to do something like that: Move her back.
June 6, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Any chance the figure can have her back to the viewer? That would be consistent with the first cover and retain an air of enchantment while also drawing the eye into the woods and therefore into the book. Being able to see Cyndere’s face (I presume that is her) not only limits our imagination when reading but also looks more like a cliche fantasy book image.
June 6, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Option A
June 6, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Well, you wanted feedback – you got it!
Definitely A over B. I’m already mystified about what exactly the thing in the middle is, and even when I blow it up, I’m not sure I can tell. (Someone mentioned a well?) It doesn’t really draw me in by itself, just sits there looking… unidentifiable. I have zero connection with whatever-it-is.
That said, I agree that option A would be enhanced by showing less of her face. I loved that about Auralia’s cover – you could see her but still use your imagination to see what she looked like. Perhaps if the her shawl (??) draped over her face more, concealing all be the outline of her side-profile. Just the forehead, nose and lips or something. There, but vague. Just a thought.
Putting my graphic design hat on for a moment – I’m sure you noticed the photoshop blending issue in Option B when they removed the girl…
Great job!
June 6, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Jeffrey, regarding your book cover, here are some of my thoughts:
1. I think you should keep the look and texture of your first cover.
2. I cannot imagine anything more appealing than the human face.
3. On the first cover, one can only see a woman’s back. Perhaps in the series, you can gradually rotate the cover to reveal more and more of the face.
4. I am leaning toward a three-quarter turn for this book cover. In film, a three-quarter turn is a rejection of the camera, a refusal to cooperate with a viewer’s desire to see more. Perhaps it is just the voyeur in me, but I am allured by what I cannot see, not what I can.
June 6, 2008 at 4:51 pm
For what it’s worth, neither of them mesh too well for me. I like having figures in my book covers, but the girl in A looks awkward in her surroundings because of her warm skin tone. She also looks very “generic fantasy.”
The same goes for B: the well (or something), with its snowless, yellow-dappled rocks and hard shadows, doesn’t look like it belongs. I’m not saying that warm colors never fit in cold environments. It’s just not integrated very well here. Plus, the hole where the girl once sat is conspicuously choppy.
I’m making these comments in comparison to the *other* cover of Cyndere’s Midnight, the one that was scrapped. That one has all the things that these lack: a cohesive visual theme, strong color palette, deep melancholy and mystery. The figure was a compelling presence in that one. That one was all shades of blue, kind of like Auralia’s Colors, while the palette in these two is confused. The title’s blue, the trees are black/white, the girl’s brown/red and the stone is grey/yellow/green. Ahh!
People can’t seem to figure out what’s in this version much better than the last one, so consider opting for the old one.
June 6, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Er. Meant to say, People can’t seem to figure out what the mound-like object is in the version much better than the last one…
June 6, 2008 at 5:06 pm
A. I like the human figure. B looks a bit like it’s missing something and a bit too symmetrical for me. I do like them both though, and am very excited about the next book!
June 6, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Oh Wow!! I love A. It goes better with the first cover, methinks. More continuity. 🙂
June 7, 2008 at 12:21 am
Option B! Definitely. Here’s why:
-The figure in the first picture looks as if someone pasted a photograph of a woman in a cheap costume into a winter scene. (In general the cover is less compelling than the one on Auralia’s colors, because it looks like a photograph. This is a fantasy novel, not a romance; I want the cover to be tantalizing in an imaginative way. I don’t want it to tell me exactly what the woman looks like, or the well, for that matter. I still prefer to read copies of LOTR that don’t have actors’ faces on the cover; I have my own internal picture of Frodo and Sam, and when I picture Sam putting Frodo on his back to carry him up the mountain, I don’t want to see celebrities. I want to see the Frodo of my dreams. 🙂 Same here: a painting of a Mysterious Well would be far more compelling than a picture of one. I don’t want this well to look like I could run into it in the woods of Indiana; I want it to look like something slightly otherworldly–something that could ONLY be found in Auralia’s world. This one looks like it was photographed on the set of Lion, Witch and the Wardrobe, in the Wood, very close to the Wardrobe where the Wood looked (in the movie) and felt (in the books, as I remember, anyway) rather not-wild–instead, sort of indoorsy and dim. If the well & surrounding snow, trees, etc. looked painted, the cover would have a whole different feel.)
-I don’t think it’s necessary to establish continuity with the previous book. If readers liked Auralia’s Colors, they’re going to read the sequel whether or not they’re told before they open the cover that there is a young beautiful female hero involved. The loveliness of Auralia’s Colors does not rest on the fact that it has a young female lead. The book is beautiful, not to mention a page-turner, for all kinds of excellent reasons.
-Plus, “Cyndere” is a very feminine name (Cyndi, Cynthia, etc.), and if readers can’t gather from the name that there’s a young woman somewhere in the book, then they’re dumber than a box of rocks.
-Granted, Auralia’s Colors had a girl on the front: but we didn’t see her face–just her amazing colorful cape, her hair blowing in the wind, and the landscape below her.
-I suspect there are some who read Auralia’s Colors who, for whatever reason, had not read a lot of fantasy before. But I think for those who truly love fantasy, a magical element like a well will be just as exciting, if not more so, than a character. Objects can take on lives of their own. On a personal level, I’m completely intrigued by the well. I would esPECially be intrigued by the well if it were painted (or *looked* painted–technology is wonderful) rather than looking photographed. I’m not as intrigued by the woman. Almost every fantasy novel has people in it; not all of them have wells. Not all of them have Auralia’s fantastic gift with colors. I think of how much characterization the Spice is given (Dune), or the One Ring, or any number of less famous “props” in fantasy. No matter what role the well plays in Cyndere’s Midnight, the picture of it is fascinating and should re-interest anyone who had temporarily forgotten about Auralia.
-This is not to say that the woman isn’t beautiful; she is. Jeffrey, if she’s someone you know, this is no indictment of her! I only protest the idea of a real woman’s face on the cover of a fantasy novel.
The end.
June 7, 2008 at 2:41 pm
LOVE the snowy forest and scroll work.
My vote:
Option A but tone down the peach skin tone. As others have noted, she kind of sticks out too much. Some have noted the photographic naturalism but I think it has as much to do with color.
While I’m not the type of person that always needs the human to make an image interesting, in this case I need her. For the kind of books you are writing, there is not enough story in option B.
Also, about both options, the very centralized composition is a little dull. Seems like the illustrator forgot the rule of thirds that made Auralia’s cover so strong.
June 7, 2008 at 5:28 pm
B
I don’t like seeing models faces on the cover of my books because I want to conjure up my own image of what they look like from the writing, not from the cover.
June 7, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Personally, I prefer A to B. They both look cool, granted, but since the character was on the cover of Auralia’s Colors, I think that should be the case with Cyndere’s Midnight as well. It makes the books more similar in style, which is always a plus when it comes to a series.
Although I would like it much more if the girl (presumably Cyndere) had her back turned. I find a book more enjoyable if you can picture the face of a character on your own.
June 8, 2008 at 12:26 am
option B for sure. option A would work if the image of the girl was less detailed and you couldnt really see her face. as it is, the photo realism becomes apparent and changes the whole vibe of the cover, which in B doesnt really look like a real photo. also the placement of the girl next to the well is off, it doesnt look realistic
June 8, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Not having read the first book, I would still be able to tell there is a correlation between the two books. Option “A” would gives connection to the second book. Option “B” is missing an element that “A” provides. If the female image is not included, something otherwise, is still needed.
Leaving the physical depiction of the female – more ambiguous or anonymous would also lend to people’s imagination, and that “ever wondering” what she looks like, would in a minor way, generate more desire to read the series. Once you’ve established an actual face with an image – you hold that in your minds eye. (Jason Bourne – Matt Damon, Frodo – ElijahWood)
Connect the dots – connect the connectivity, but keep your readers wondering.
June 9, 2008 at 12:26 am
I prefer option B. Although I like that the figure in option A makes the image seem less centered, something about the contrast of her skin tone and the picture-like quality of her features, especially her near lack of expression, with the surroundings strikes me as out of place. I wonder what she’s doing in the picture, but her presence doesn’t make me want to buy the book.
June 9, 2008 at 5:38 am
To me, A looks like the girl is half person/half worm. B looks like a cocoon. The negative toning of the scene (meaning, it looks like a photo negative) is an interesting choice–maybe its just snow, but it reminds me of Bakshi’s LOTR in some of the wierder sequences. I concur with the others on the identifiable features of the model distracting from the mysterious look of the character–but on the other hand, the old painted fantasy covers had clear depictions of the characters which were fun to disagree with if you didnt’ agree with the artist’s choices. In terms of preferences, I think neither cover make me more likely to purchase the book vs. the other. The pupae looking thing puts me off a bit, since it looks like its just sitting their in the middle of nowhere disconnected from the snowy woods or from its own identity as a chrysalis.
June 9, 2008 at 8:06 am
I think option A is the stronger one because of the human element. The illustration is fairly complex at first glance and I get better sense of the overall mood and point of the image with a human figure placing it in context. It is probably too small to tell, but I think I’m looking at a campfire? (I’d cut out the swirlies.)Overall both look moody and powerful!
June 9, 2008 at 11:45 am
I like the cover (A) with the human in the picture — links to the first book cover, gives the image balance, and I think people are more likely to pick up a book with a human figure on it. A bit more lively. Either would be beautiful, but A is my first choice.
June 9, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Both are well done and I like the idea of a figure in the picture but showing the face sort of takes away the mystery so my choice would be option B.
June 11, 2008 at 1:47 pm
I prefer option B. When I read a book I like to be able to use my imagination to create what the characters look like based on the descriptions written by the author. I don’t like having a character on the cover to dictate to me what he/she looks like. I’m not able to forget what the picture looks like and that dictates what I end up thinking the person looks like after that. Also, it’s more intriguing to not have a person in the scene-you wonder more about the picture without a person.
June 12, 2008 at 7:07 pm
I like option A.The presence of the girl gives some human appeal.It makes it more interesting and intrigues me with the question of what is she doing there.
June 13, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Option A because it gives me an image for Cyndere. If Cyndere is someone or something totally different than the woman on the cover, than I would go with B. Both are stirring.
I love Auralia’s Colors, btw.
June 21, 2008 at 8:06 am
There are a ton of blogs and I have tallied them up and see that the majority is going to option A. Which I completely agree with. Of course there are some votes for option B, but most of those voters also say that if Mr. Overstreet would repostition the girl a little bit so that she is more like the one on the first book that they would like it too. So I definitely think that if he is smart he will go with option A after readjusting the girl so she is more mysterious looking like Auralia. Just to put it as clearly as I can I must say that I would never by the sequel if it looked like option B. There is no connection to the first. Not to say that the artist did not do a beautiful peace of artwork in option B, but it just doesn’t flow with the first one at all. Also, I agree with one of the others that said they liked one of the other optional covers we saw at different websites. Maybe Mr. Overstreet could show us all of the covers so that we can give more pointers on how we want the girl to look like. Just a thought.
June 27, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Option A. I agree with those who say it ties in better with the cover of the first book.
July 6, 2008 at 1:30 pm
I prefer B because I think it teases with a hint of mystery. Furthermore, some variation from the design of the first cover, I believe, would be more appreciated.
July 8, 2008 at 5:58 pm
I like option A more.
it has Cyndere and I like that a lot.
in the first book you have Auralia pictured on the book that’s named after her so I think it would be good to have Cyndere pictured on CYNDERE”S Midnight.
ohhh….my mom likes option A too and she thinks the girl gives added character to the cover.