Glad I could contribute to your insomnia, Arthur. Very valid points about a good designer must be multi-talented.

There is one success (speaking professionally) which is self-focused: design annuals, new clients, peer recognition. The other success is others-focused: author, editor, marketing, publisher. So as designers the tension is between the two. Client satisfaction must come first, but it can't exist without the former. They go hand-in-hand. It is a bit capitalistic. I think this is where a certain level of maturity comes into play. There many times you have to be flexible and willing to "compromise" to produce successful work for your client. Our desire for self-preservation (staying in business) outranks our desire for self-aggrandizement. In the end I want happy clients with happy authors, editors and publishers because it ensures success: a happy family. Happy clients generally come back for more. Those whose focus is primarily peer recognition will eventually find fewer and fewer assignments and fewer opportunities for success—-of either kind.

I was hoping there would be some discussion on the definition of success. Would you say your definition has always been as it is now or has changed over time?

Cheryl, Your comments have given me ideas of more topics to explore. I appreciate the insight from the art director's perspective. Having only been a freelancer (at least in publishing) the view from the inside is helpful. I think it is easy for both sides to form stereotypes of how and why things happen the way they do.

Maybe some of you in-house art directors could respond to this, but in my view decent talent is readily available. Great talent, however, those who you see in every Design Annual, those whose work is original, thoughtful, and creative are the rare ones. But my guess is that most of the rare ones also have a good sense of business. You aren't going to get too far in this biz if you are total jerk either. When I get calls or emails from newbies and they ask me for advice, one of the first things I tell them is to meet or beat deadlines. I don't think that occurs to a lot of people. Because if you do THAT you already have an edge over than the scores of designers who fail that. If you are a good talent and don't meet deadlines you aren't going to last. If you are somewhat talented but have good client relations, aren't overly confident, and have a sense of how business works you have a chance. I'm not saying talent isn't worth anything. It is worth a lot. But, without a sense of good business (which includes being a nice human being) your design value is close to zero.

Thank you, Paula. I think it is most satisfying to take a subject matter that could be mundane and create a cover that is unexpected.

Andy, I guess the rational for the swapped colors on the "Rs" was to illustrate some sense of unity while holding some tension. The gist of the book is that parents (though a unit) have different parenting techniques Whether that treatment is successful or not is open for discussion.

They should have gone all the way with the retro thing if they were going to do it at all. The shape of the bottles don't work with the throwback thing. Different shapes echoing the old glass bottles would have helped? Like the idea, just not crazy about the execution.

Ed. Note: I own and use several of the bestselling fonts, and I think they are quite nice: namely Museo and Aviano (and several of the others look like they would be a good buys). But as a group I think the list is rather strange. I suppose it is the inclusion of Monogram and Handmade that baffles me. I realize this isn't a critic's choice list, but rather is based on sales. Which, in the end, is even more odd: are there really that many applications that call for the use of those faces?

No kidding, Henry. What that man can accomplish with Black, Tan, White. Gray and Futura is astounding.