- John

Thanks for your comments.

Perhaps you’re right, but I didn’t quite know how else to describe it. When I say something is “feminine”, it’s far from a pejorative, merely an attempt to classify something in a way that makes sense. If you look, for example, at the graphic design of magazines meant to appeal to an audience of women, they are often more highly decorative and use different colors than the design of magazines aimed at a male audience. It is the predominance of those elements that makes me think of this design as “feminine”. (I’ve long been curious whether women and men see color differently. I’ve never understood how many women can find large areas of pink, for example, appealing.)

I don’t think this design is “bad design” either. I think it is well suited to its purpose and intended audience, and can be easily navigated, read and understood. Something that meets those qualifications isn’t bad design (font choices not withstanding). The fact that it may not be to my taste should be irrelevant.

And yes, I do assume that most of those who fit the description of “hard bitten concept artists…” et al, are predominantly male, at least by number, but I also assume that those women who fit in those categories might also find the appearance of the book off-putting.

I think the design and tone of Leland’s book are a good fit with her core audience. Perhaps it tries a little to hard, but it goes out of its way to attract attention and to keep the level of interest high, like a speaker who frequently interjects colorful stories into a lecture. My description of it is not intended as a criticism, but an attempt to get part of my core audience, who might be put off initially, to look past a design not aimed at them and see the content that would be of value.

Thanks for the good words about lines and colors, BTW.

Anyway, as I said, I love your blog, it is an inspiration. I just felt the need to call you on this one little thing. All the best…