Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitch
it's that book covers--sorry, Doug--are indeed simply everything. So much so, that if someone injected me with sodium pentothal and asked me, "should I spent money on an edit or a cover," from a pure marketing perspective, hell, I'd say, "the cover," and believe me, my inner reader would be screaming in pain about, but it's simple truth. Covers sell books.
|
There's no need to be sorry. You're not telling me anything that I don't already know. You're not even addressing any of my points. I KNOW covers are vitally important to selling books. I'm not an idiot. I KNOW the vast majority of readers out there are probably heavily influenced by them in some way or another. I don't live under a rock for cripes sake. The only things I've claimed are:
1) covers don't have much of an impact on
me--never really have (and yes, I AM the final authority on that no matter whether anyone chooses to believe me or not).
2) covers offer zero insight into how well an author writes.
3) dismissing the
writing skills of authors based on the artwork adorning their work
alone is not logical.
That's it. No one, myself included, has argued that great covers won't help sell more books. Why would they? Some of us have merely claimed that we're much less influenced by them than others, and that the "effort" of an author that chooses their own cover art cannot (CANNOT) be objectively compared to the effort of an author who's had to make no effort regarding the same. Not "cannot be compared." But "cannot be
objectively" compared.
There's a world of difference between talking about "how things are" and trying to defend the notion that "how things are" makes perfect logical sense.