Cover Art Giveaway
We are now in the process of putting together the Parenting in the Name of God e-book. The final version will be somewhat expanded, with extra emphasis on general usefulness in sorting parenting and lifestyle theology. If you’re new to all this, check out the blog series for the basic content.
The full-resolution covers are quite crisp. Please don’t worry about the small-print tagline or any apparent text blurring. For you curious types, the tagline reads, “A cheat sheet for parents being tested by deceit.”
Cover Option 1: “Shy” The darker of the two.
Cover Option 2: “Shoes” The blue/tan version.
Our cover art is licensed from Elasah.com, and is by Heather Young, a working artist and Christian homeschooling mom. Heather graciously allowed us to test a couple of images in the design process. These lovely paintings are available as prints (we bought a non-exclusive license of existing works), and we’re giving away one of each to commenters on this post. So please help us choose our cover! Last day to comment will be June 3, draw results announced June 4.
Cast your vote: Option 1 or Option 2? “Shy,” or “Shoes”? Please leave a comment with your cover preference.
Wanna see the prints? Visit the artist’s website.
More giveaway! Here’s the Kerry Nietz interview and a giveaway of a set of his books. Why are they relevant? Because he uses a futuristic science fiction setting to examine women’s roles, religion, and a literal “mental burqua” in the form of a cybernetic brain implant for mental slavery. And his swashbuckling hero’s out to conquer the controls.
#1 because it’s creepier, and the cult is creepy
I think #1 as well, because the subject matter is dark and it’s the look in the child’s eye which parents often use to interpret a child’s behavior. It also puts you in mind of that these are human souls we are monkeying around with when we employ methods more suitable to animals (that suitability even being debatable).
I like the second print better – but maybe you could save it for a different work.
I agree completely with Randy and Laurie on both counts. The second one is a happier pic, but the first is more appropriate.
Pingback: Shy « Blog Archive « Elasah Art
I think they both turned out perfect (great job on them!) I agree with everyone else– the first one works better for the book.
I posted the actual painting Shy here: http://elasahart.wordpress.com/2010/05/25/shy/
Updated the link in the post. Sorry! My bad.
I just posted it this morning (before the only one was where you found it.)
I am drawn to the first one, but I think the second is more appropriate and here is why. The first one’s face looks like it could be any age, up to one’s thirties, really. The second one is obviously children, and the fact that there is no face is telling because in this paradigm, basically children have no identity. Its all about breaking them. Seeing the little legs and shoes grips my heart in a protective way.
These are both amazing, but I feel the second has more of a universal parenting feel. The first seems to be to personable to that child or just to boys, where the second could be anyones child, boy or girl. Both are winners to me and thank goodness someone is approaching parenting with the God’s guidance. Good luck!
Both are good…but #1 accurately expresses the nature of the book. #2 looks like it could be a cute training manual for parenting if you didn’t read the subtitle.
Well, I’m glad I’m not the only one who prefers number two. They look like defenseless children. The slight turned in leg of the kid with the colored tights says “defenseless and vulnerable” in a way that might not easily be noticed.
The first one…I don’t know. It is a good picture, but it doesn’t say anything to me like that.
For the record, I lean in favour of #1, and Dave likes #2. So you folks are also settling a household debate.
Via Twitter, from Gina Conroy:
Feel free to tweet votes to @cldyck and I’ll count that as well.
I prefer the second one too. The first one looks almost dated. The second has a more current feel to it, which is more appealing to me. And I agree that the face isn’t quite child like enough, whereas the faceless children in the second one say so much.
I also prefer #2 because of the faceless, defenseless children. I like the darkness of #1, but I think #2 is more poignant.
See Dear, The second one with the socks.
Due to conflict of interest, you sir, are disbarred from voting, I’ll have you know.
You’ll have to rally Quixote if you want some advocacy.
Then I shall vote in Dave’s stead: The second!
(And because I’m an engineer who knows about Art the same way Stephen Hawking knows about kung-fu.)
Shoot! Am I allowed to count you, you nebulous agent of social disruption? Now I’m SO confused. {ditzy hair toss}
Okay, you count for the vote, but not the draw, being the artist’s husband and all. Dave gets his point.
Rats. I am going to have to stick an L on my forehead, I can see already. This is the pitfall of two households full of kids, alphabet stickers, and conspiring husbands.
#2 Shoes.
Definitely and absolutely.
Children are innocent. And yes, they are born with sinful natures but it seems to me that adults sometimes forget that they have not “outgrown” theirs! Those adults need the visual reinforcement of children being more innocent than they, which I think the shoes does infinitely better. (The “shy” one looks possibly afraid, which might condemn well but not inspire parents to change. And it took me a minute to be sure it was a kid. Its message is not clear to me. Also I think the title is easier to read with the shoes.)
(Yes, I tend to analyze a lot
)
I have to vote for the shoes cover. It seems everyone (Not excluding myself), is releasing a face cover this year. Plus, small shoes are cute.
Pingback: Cover art | Why Not Train A Child?
#2…”teach a child in the way he should go” was the first thing that came to mind when I saw the illustration. I’ve also seen the piles of shoes by the backdoor which are strong symbols of parenthood!
I can’t decide! *sigh*
But after reading the comments, I think that the shoes one might be best.
My daughter (who just got through enrolling and being accepted by Full Sail University to study graphic design) and I vote for the second. I don’t know exactly why–just love the little legs.
Congrats to your daughter! That’s great!
Heather did a great job on both covers, but I’m voting for number 2 for the sole (haha) reason that ‘God’ stands out better.
The type is equally crisp in the large versions. Clicking on the images will bring up the high-res file, for those who want to see a bit more clearly.
And Cat actually designed the covers, I just painted the pictures.
I, for one, refuse to get in the middle of this one…
Chicken.
But seriously, what do you think of them?
He’s a wise man…and don’t call him seriously.
“He’s a wise man”
Surely, you jest?
“and don’t call him seriously.”
LOL Good point, most unsuitable.
Chicken? I, think not. Shema and I were thinking about going to One’s a Meal instead. One can really sink one’s teeth into something a bit more substantial than a greasy chicken bone.
But, like I said, I’m not getting into the middle of this one. They both get the point over very well from different directions, Imo…
MS
Don’t tell me, this is a chicken-fried steak outlet…
“They both get the point over very well from different directions, Imo…”
Thanks. Which is what I thought. Which is what I’m torn over. I really want to know what people would just have to pick up and find out more about. Whatever we choose here, if we get to the print edition stage, that’ll be the cover. That means standing out on conference tables or in libraries where there might be a lot of other child-and-family resources. I really think Heather’s art is outstandingly eye-catching either way, so I’ve lost my objectivity.
#1. It has so much more dramatic impact, that’d be one I’d pick up off the shelf.
I like the second one better as a painting, but SHY seems to be more appropriate for the content of the book. The shoes painting has to “cute” of a feel to me for a book about such a serious and dark topic.
Art wise, I think #2 really caught my eye. It has that Norman Rockwell innocence about it, and I like the contrast actually between that innocence and the subject matter. Reminding folks what “should” be the case and is destroyed in those situations.
#2
(Both pictures are wonderful.)
I like them both, however, one must keep one’s audience firmly in mind. Therefore, I vote for #1 as ably summed-up by Gina Conroy:
my vote is for #1 because it does look darker. #2 looks more playful. go with what fits the mood of the book.
I love both paintings and applaud the artist’s skill with each. My initial inclination was for #1. It is powerful in its dark poignancy. But the more I’ve thought about it, and read other comments here, I think the second one is the best choice. As others have mentioned, the first one could depict someone much older. The second one definitely shows young, vulnerable children. I also like the anonymity of showing just the shoes and how this relates to all children, boys or girls.
You should definitely go with the first one, SHY, because it really fits the topic of the book. Save #2 for another book. Both paintings translate well to cover art. Well done Heather and the cover designers!
Ellen C Maze
Author, Artist and Cover Designer
I like option 2. It looks to get the point across more as well as being easier to describe to folks on what to look for. Congrats to your work. Keep jamming.
Shoes, definitely shoes (for about the same reasons already mentioned.)
I prefer the “Shoes” one. Something about it appeals to me. Maybe because it looks happier. The “shy” one seems to be appropriate for books dealing with child abuse…
That’s pretty much the topic, so that’s great feedback. I know you’re on the run and short of time, but thanks for stopping in!
@ Heather…
Very impressive work, Heather. They’re both so good it’s difficult to choose between them. I took a stroll through your gallery, and the originals look great. Nicely done. I also liked “In Shadow” and “Storm Warning” very much. Objectively beautiful, if you don’t mind me saying so.
I noticed you do commissions as well…
Thank you, Sir.
I think you are one of the first who has really mentioned In Shadow (it is one of my personal favorites, even more so because I have never been able to replicate the style.)
And yes, I do commissions. In fact, most of my work up until this point has been commissions.
definitely the second one … not fond of the first one for the book – perhaps b/c i don’t have boys, and it’s too close (though the artwork is amazing)
Since the book seems to be about dealing with deceitful children, I think the first one is best. HOWEVER, the subtitle could be a bit more prominent and readable, especially since it captures what the book is focused on.
Thanks for that, Brandon.
The topic is authoritarian “parenting doctrine” which deceives parents into dysfunctional relationships with their children. I may need to rethink that tagline, based on this.
Re-thinking the tagline or something might be worthwhile. Or perhaps offering some context at the outset. I realize this work arose out of a running conversation, but as someone who wasn’t really part of that conversation I know I had to read several paragraphs (not at the start of the book) to get a sense of what the debate was all about.
Then again, I suppose the book assumes the reader is already familiar with the other side of the argument, since this book is in many ways a rebuttal.
Still, I’d suggest some one-or-two paragraph opening that sets the stage for the discussion for the curious types that stumbled on the work later.
My thought with the Shoes print now, is the tagline creation could be a lot easier. We’ve got two kids up against a wall — will the parents take the time to put themselves in their shoes?
It is a rebuttal, but Dave’s portion in particular is general remedial teaching, and I think that wider purpose should likely be acknowledged in the cover setup.
Ooo, I can see where that tagline would go and really like it. I can definitely see how the current tagline might confuse those who don’t understand or know about the content
Just a quick aside on this from someone totally new to the conversation. Just looking at the book cover, I don’t read the tagline as anything dark or serious. There’s some context I’m obviously missing.
Where is the deceit coming from, exactly? Without a clear sense of that, the tagline isn’t clear. Is it deceit coming from parents trying to parent in the name of God and misusing doctrine? Is it deceit coming from children who try to lie? Is it deceit from a society who disavows God, and this is a presentation reassuring parents that God has a place in parenting?
In other words, I think it could be read in several different ways. If the intent is how to deal with lying children in God’s way, perhaps the first picture is more appropriate… but the tagline still isn’t very clear on what is being offered.
Yes, I could chase down the links on the blog about the book, but if I’m looking at this on a bookshelf, wondering what it’s about, I want to know from the book itself, as much at a glance as possible.
I’m leaning toward the first. The darkness in it seems to fit the subject matter the best.
This in spite of the fact that all the arguments for the 2nd make perfect sense to me.
I can’t get past the fear that I see in Shy. It looks like a child trying to look as if s/he is not afraid whilst being terrified inside.
See, Brandon’s comment is why I lean toward number 2. Without the title “Shy” and just looking at the boy, “shy” wasn’t my first thought. It’s dark, and more focused on the child. As if it is the child that perhaps needs to be changed.
Wow – Both covers are amazing. I like the first one because it is dark and more representative of the darkness of the parenting philosophy you’re exposing. But, I’m not sure if the face is that of a child or of an older adult.
My vote is for “Shoes” because it’s clearly of children, and the innocence that is represented absolutely tugs at my heart. I can imagine reading the book and all the horrible things the Pearls promote, then looking at the cover and being in tears at the thought of the innocence and helplessness of children subjected to Pearls and the like.
Can’t wait for the book to be published!
My vote is for #1 as well, and for pretty much the same reasons everyone else has said. “Shoes” jumped out at me because it was so cute and colourful and I automatically liked it, but as far as relating to the subject matter, “Shy” definitely seems more appropriate.
But oh my goodness, “Shoes” is such a cute picture . . . kudos to both Madame Artiste and Madame Cover Designer!!!
Goodness, what great comments all around! Why don’t you use both! Whichever you use for the front, use the image of the other as a banner across the top of the back.
This is a great idea!
Our agreement with the artist is to license one image…so those votes really count!
Glenda makes an interesting distinction above: #2 is simply more eye-catching and provokes a little more curiosity. The answer to “which image is best?” really depends on your intent. Let’s say for the sake of argument that #1 more accurately reflects the tone & subject matter. If you see the cover image as part of the introduction of the book, then #1 is the way to go.
But from a pure marketing standpoint – like, if your only goal was to move units on the shelves of Barnes & Noble across the nation and pick up impulse buys and become rock-star rich like ALL authors that write about Christian theology and doctrine, then #2 would most likely be the far stronger choice. The colors attract the eye and the picture itself is more playful and inviting.
#1 is an eye closeup that, while attractive, is likely going to look like a lot of other one-eye-closeup covers on books about everything from psychics to photography.
So is the image there to describe the book, or attract readers?
Me? I dunno. I never sold no books before.
Even more than Barnes and Noble, it needs to be something that homeschooling parents will pick up from their friends and actually open, something that appeals within the conservative paradigm. And that’s because the subject matter is controversial. It needs to invite the suspension of judgement on the content.
At the same time, it does need to not give the feeling that it’s been deceptive about the nature of its content, so a good reflection on that matters too.
I never thought about psychics and photography. I was thinking more like what Zooey said, about the way Heather’s captured a soul in retreat in that look.
Pingback: Interview: Kerry Nietz, author of The Superlative Stream « Scita > Scienda
I prefer the second cover, because I just do. But whichever cover you choose, I would either change or delete the tag line. Since I have been following this thread (and I have had my own experience talking to “parenting experts” related to parenting an adopted child), I understood that the deceit you were addressing is the advise parents are given on how to parent their child(ren) but I am not sure everyone would.
Yeah, I have been thinking about that…..There are going to be people who don’t “get” what deceit you are talking about.
Both images are great, but I prefer the second one with the socks and shoes.
i would have to say the second one isn’t as dark and ominous so i would have to pick it
I’m for Shoes. The reasons have been stated by a lot of other people, but the one that really struck me was the “faceless” children. I also have difficulty in putting an age to the first image.
Pingback: Book Cover - Twenty Sided
The first may be a more appropriate drawing, but taking into account the title, the second is an all-around better composition. Go with #2.
I like them both as paintings. But I think #1 is just the staring eye of a male of indiscriminate age while the second one is obvious children.
And since it reminds me of those old norman rockwell paintings I like it better and it would make me second glance the book. But the first one wouldn’t. I’d go with the second painting.
Having read some of the comments, I’d love to know more about what the book is a rebuttal for. What is the context of the book? Or, if you like, what is the dust jacket blurb?
Matthew, the e-book is going to be a free resource dealing with a particular parenting method that claims to have “the” way to produce properly religious children. The parenting method, put out by No Greater Joy Ministries, advocates operant conditioning via physical punishment (even in anticipation of undesirable behaviour) and the use of parental love/care actions as the positive conditioning element.
“When they are good, then you can love them,” the method book says at one point.
The Christian ministry in question promises guaranteed results of religious compliance in children, IF parents are 100% compliant to the ministry’s instructions. It misuses commonly recognized variations of Christian jargon to cloak its message in a way that seems familiar and trustworthy to more mainstream churchgoing parents.
Why would any sane parent fall for this? Well, there is also powerful peer force manipulating those who take a few steps too close, pressuring many to remain in the circle of dysfunctional thinking. I was given some of the more negative treatment this past week, as an example (see post “The Mental Burqua”). The intimidation factor is extreme, particularly towards women (see Hillary McFarland’s interview post), and the isolation tactic is to block any alternative information through fearmongering and labels of non-acceptance.
I have no problem with the gay-last-name jokes at Twentysided.
(Seriously, what is there to say about my name? Oops, I must have picked up someone else’s by accident?) I have a big problem with attempts at psychological assault and battery in the name of religion.
Cover #2 – absolutely love it!
#1 for sure.
I cast my vote for #2, Shoes.
It’s much more approachable, and seemingly more appropriate to the subject matter.
I prefer the second illustration.
Shoes. It’s more colourful and inviting, also sort of all inclusive since you have both genders represented there. Shy, while good, has quite a bit of gloom to it.
Seeing as it’s about children lying I guess it makes sense that many seem to prefer the first image, but I far prefer the shoes. It’s more colourful and also shows an understanding of children. They look abashed or cornered (from the knees down, at least).
The top cover implies (to me) that children are inherently deceitful – the darker colouring of the image also adds to this tone. Perhaps that’s what they are going for, but I really think it would be beneficial to use the shoes image in terms of people actually picking up the book to see what it’s about.
I think I’d like to vote for Shoes, though I’m sort of curious what the new tagline will be – perhaps it would be something that would make the Shy seem more appropriate?
I really wish I had time to think of one before the end of this, because you’re right, it might make a difference. Suggestions welcome.
With the caveat that it’s not about kids who lie, it’s about religious teaching that lies to parents about what’s healthy and safe for their kids.
That tagline has GOT to go.
I wonder… the title itself may well be confusing as well. See, involving God in parenting *can be* a healthy thing, it’s just those who misuse religion and religious trappings that are the problem (we see it in politics too). The title alone doesn’t make it clear where the book stands.
Perhaps a clearer tagline can make the title clear as well as the content. Something like:
Parenting in the Name of God:
How abusing doctrine can hurt children
(…and if a counterexample is offered, another phrase in the tagline illustrating that, something like “How abusing doctrine can hurt children, and how to avoid it”)
Hm, yeah…now you’ve got my brain turning. Thanks.
I like #2 better. Though I’m not sure it’s a proper vote, since I’ve no idea what’s the book like, only having read the title.
#2 Shoes – Appealed more to me considering the nature of the book “…tested by deceit”. The darker one would probably stand out more in the shelves, though.
Both are terrific, but I love # 2. And if I correctly understand what the book is about, it better suits the content. (but the tagline needs to be changed, particularly if you go with #1 )
I like #1 better, as it’s more attention-grabbing. From the bits I’ve read online, though, the tagline bears little relation to the actual content, so it might be easy to misread “tested by deceit” as “when your kids are deceiving you”.
This is my first visit to your blog, but here I go, expressing an opinion already.
Shoes. Definitely. It creates questions. As somebody said earlier, it shows the vulnerability of children, and whoever had the idea of using the image to say “put yourself in your kids’ shoes” is brilliant. I also think the tagline could be clearer. At first glance, I would never guess that “tested by deceit” has anything to do with NGJ.
Great blog. I’ll be back.
#2. It’s nicer looking.
I vote for “Shoes,” and congrats to Heather!
Parenting In The Name of God: parenting philosophies in sheep’s clothing.
Parenting In The Name of God: Are you following a false teacher?
It is SO not safe to try to use html when there is no preview feature. *doh*
All fixed! I’m not on a self-hosted platform, and I don’t have a lot of options for displaying HTML instructions without, for instance, changing the entire theme to one that has that feature.
Me vote #1.
I would say number two.
As others have said, it conveys well the innocence of children, in my opinion.
I like number 2. I don’t know what the book is exactly about but there are about a billion books with a closeup of part of a face, usually the eyes e.g. http://images.barnesandnoble.com/images/54360000/54367842.JPG or http://images.barnesandnoble.com/images/24650000/24650261.jpg The only single part of the body used more seems to be the hands.
So to differentiate this book from all the horror, SF, fantasy, thriller books it should look different.
A friend (Beth) voted on my art site: voted for Shoes. http://elasahart.wordpress.com/2010/05/24/part-of-the-process/#comment-35
Both paintings are wonderfully done (great job Heather!), but I really like the second one the most, for all of the reasons that others have already listed!
Came here from Heather’s husband’s site. I have a 2 year old daughter, so I’ve got a little parenting experience, and any advice that is not “whup ‘em” is welcome.
I like “shoes”. Boys and girls are different, and this shows it.
I vote for the shoes. Something about it just grabs me harder. I think it’s the vulnerability of the kids backed up to a wall and the girl with the cocked leg that seems to me to be a defensive position. It’s subtle but powerful.
Also, thanks for rebutting the Pearls. I’ve been aware of their brand of…parenting?…for quite a while but I had no idea how terribly far it had gone. It so saddens me to think that the sweet children with which we’ve been blessed come to such harm by selective interpretation of scripture. To me this isn’t an issue of spanking vs. not spanking. This is an issue of abusing vs. not abusing. I’m sure the Pearls’ followers don’t agree but it seems so clear to me.
Actually, I think I’ll have to change my vote to #2 after reading all the comments. I also agree that work on the title/tagline is needed for clarity.
DRAW IS OFFICIALLY CLOSED. Feedback is welcome to continue, if you’re late to the game. Thanks to everyone who helped us with this!