Book Covers

[DiapDealer]

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.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

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.

The way I look at it is that there are only so many books I can read. So when I'm looking at a book by an author I don't know and have not had a recommendation for by someone I may trust enough, then the cover is rather important. If the cover is lousy, I will pass by the book.

However, the cover can be wonderful, but if it screams at me that I may not like it, I'll bypass the book. Maybe it's romance or sparkly vampires, The cover can be great, but the genre has to be good for me to look further into the book. Though a lot of romance books have boring formulaic covers.

I have bought some really good books (written by a then unknown author) because of the cover. if the covers had been poor, I would never have read the books.

So yes, covers do matter. Even when we say the cover doesn't matter, it does matter even if you don't consciously think so.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

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.

AKSHUALLY...

I was only addressing that one line to you, individually. I should have been clearer.

I wasn't defending the idea that "how things are" makes perfect logical sense. S**t, Doug, I was talking about how people react to covers, which is emotional--by defintion, not logic. Right?

I'm saying only that your approach to book-buying is not necessarily the way that the majority of buyers approach it and my own experience--for what that's worth!--indicates that the majority seem to buy based on what their eyes see first. You're clearly not in that category.

I agree that it's illogical to dismiss the writing of an author based upon his cover. (Hmmm...that's an interesting theory to test out. Anyone here with an abundance of time on his or her hands, that wants to do a random survey, at Amazon, of crappy covers versus good covers--and yes, of course, that's subjective, too--to see if that theory holds? Wolfie, dear, you're not busy, right???? While we can all argue over "good/bad" for cover design and "good/bad" for writing, perhaps we could agree on some subjective standard, e.g., lousy formatting, or 5+ typos on the first page, or something that, to equal "bad." [In case it's not clear, I'm riffing a bit here...])

When I volunteer time over at CoverCritics.com, one of my lines is "your cover is clickbait." To me, that's the simplest, easiest, most accurate way to describe the job of a cover. Once someone's clicked, its job is done. But getting that click--priceless, as the commercials say. :-)

And I'm 99.9999% sure that there's nothing logical about any of it. I don't think that I said that there was? Did I? Gosh, I'm getting senile, to (apparently) forget that I said that, so soon after (presumably) typing it!

Hitch

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The way I look at it is that there are only so many books I can read. So when I'm looking at a book by an author I don't know and have not had a recommendation for by someone I may trust enough, then the cover is rather important. If the cover is lousy, I will pass by the book.

However, the cover can be wonderful, but if it screams at me that I may not like it, I'll bypass the book. Maybe it's romance or sparkly vampires, The cover can be great, but the genre has to be good for me to look further into the book. Though a lot of romance books have boring formulaic covers.

I have bought some really good books (written by a then unknown author) because of the cover. if the covers had been poor, I would never have read the books.

This is fine. No arguments. Have it. Different strokes. Lovely. Thanks for sharing. Peace out. Good talk.

Originally Posted by JSWolf

So yes, covers do matter.

Had you said "to me," or to "many," or "to most" you'd not hear a peep from me. But you didn't. So I feel the need to point out that your statement is not an objective fact. You merely WANT it to be one.

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Even when we say the cover doesn't matter, it does matter even if you don't consciously think so.

And now you've crossed entirely into the realm of unadulterated mumbo-jumbo-ism, and are contributing nothing.

[odamizu]

Originally Posted by Hitch

... one of my lines is "your cover is clickbait." To me, that's the simplest, easiest, most accurate way to describe the job of a cover.

This ↑↑↑

Originally Posted by Hitch

... Humans are sight-hounds on two legs and we are moved, in various ways, by what we see--including book covers.

And this ↑↑↑

If I see a cover, I have an impression. I can't help it. If I see something, my brain reacts and forms an impression, fair or unfair (I've read some great books with terrible covers and awful books with great covers).

If I am looking for a specific title (e.g., recommendation from a friend or review) or looking for an author that I like, then the impression the cover makes carries less or little weight.

But if I'm just browsing online for something new and unknown to me, then my impression will be formed by the title, author and cover. One of those things, or a combination of those things, has to be strong enough to prompt me to read the blurb. If the blurb keeps my attention, I will check out the first few pages; if not, I will pass and move on.

When browsing in a brick-and-mortar library or bookstore, where most books are presented spine-out, my first impression will be title, author, and spine-design. But when browsing online, where you are presented with thumbnails, the cover makes a much bigger impression.

I've never read a book based on the cover alone without also considering the title, author and blurb. But I also have never read a book without at least glimpsing the cover, and once glimpsed, my brain forms an impression.

Also, given all the talk on the Kindle forums about getting cover thumbnails on sideloaded books, the angst about having to choose between covers and WhisperSync, the desire for ereader screensavers to show the book cover, and talk in general about changing covers and getting covers to show the way you want them to, I think a lot of people value covers.

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by odamizu

Also, given all the talk on the Kindle forums about getting cover thumbnails on sideloaded books, the angst about having to choose between covers and WhisperSync, the desire for ereader screensavers to show the book cover, and talk in general about changing covers and getting covers to show the way you want them to, I think a lot of people value covers.

I use covers as one clue when looking at a book by an unfamiliar author (I don't pay much attention to the cover if I'm already familiar with the author) but once I've acquired the book I don't really care what the cover looks like in a tiny thumbnail on my black-and-white 6-inch e-ink ereader.

I guess someone who reads on a larger device, especially if it's in color, might care more? Or maybe someone who sets their ereader to show the book cover in sleep mode (I don't do this) enjoys looking at a nice cover when their reader is sitting on the coffee table?

[crich70]

I think (traditionally for sure) that covers have at least caught my eye and made me take a 2nd harder look. Granted if a picture on say Amazon isn't big enough to make out then it may not influence me much. I also tend to stick to lower priced books mostly to keep my budget.

[GlennD]

Covers have always been a huge draw for me, especially when I was buying paper books. The cover is designed to tell you about the book, but one thing I've found is that it tells you a lot about how confident the editor/publisher is in the book. When I see a Michael Whelan cover, for example, I know that the publisher is sparing no expense to promote that author. A Whelan cover doesn't guarantee a good book, but I know he is picky enough and expensive enough that it makes me want to read it. Other artists apply here to a lesser degree - Whelan is by far my favorite cover artist.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by GlennD

Covers have always been a huge draw for me, especially when I was buying paper books. The cover is designed to tell you about the book, but one thing I've found is that it tells you a lot about how confident the editor/publisher is in the book. When I see a Michael Whelan cover, for example, I know that the publisher is sparing no expense to promote that author. A Whelan cover doesn't guarantee a good book, but I know he is picky enough and expensive enough that it makes me want to read it. Other artists apply here to a lesser degree - Whelan is by far my favorite cover artist.

The fact that you have a favorite cover artist (whose name you know) illustrates to me that I must be missing a some sort of cover art chromosome.

[kyteflyer]

I will never decide to read a particular book based on whether the cover is good, or not. But I *will* decide NOT to read a book if the cover indicates that its a genre I will not normally read. I am not interested in romance or erotic stuff, so any cover with half naked men and/or women will never hook me in, but rather it will turn me off.

My favourite genre is scifi, with an emphasis on the "sci" part. So if I see some book called, oh i dunno, Monsters from Mars, which has a half naked anybody on the cover, I *know* its not going to be the kind of thing I want to read. I could be wrong about it, but the cover will put me right off even bothering.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

The fact that you have a favorite cover artist (whose name you know) illustrates to me that I must be missing a some sort of cover art chromosome.

What's funny is, if you had asked me for the name of the ONE cover artist I know of--it would have been Whelan.

Hitch

[GlennD]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

The fact that you have a favorite cover artist (whose name you know) illustrates to me that I must be missing a some sort of cover art chromosome.

Maybe. But I've always been interested in the art; I've got a bookcase that is 75% devoted to compilations of fantasy and science fiction art. It's the one kind of book I'm still accumulating.

[GlennD]

Originally Posted by Hitch

What's funny is, if you had asked me for the name of the ONE cover artist I know of--it would have been Whelan.

Hitch

Really? Frank Frazetta, Boris Vallejo, Larry Elmore, Keith Parkinson, Darrel K Sweet......none of those ring any bells?

I guess there's nothing wrong with that. To each their own.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by GlennD

Really? Frank Frazetta, Boris Vallejo, Larry Elmore, Keith Parkinson, Darrel K Sweet......none of those ring any bells?

I guess there's nothing wrong with that. To each their own.

Nope, not really. I learned to love Whelan in my (very, very much younger) Dragonriders of Pern days, in the late 70's and early 80's.

I've seen some cover art that I've loved since then, but he's the only cover artist whose name I know (outside of those who do work with me, of course). Nothing against them; it's just...it's not something that's stuck in my noggin.

HItch

[lumpynose]

Originally Posted by GlennD

Really? Frank Frazetta, Boris Vallejo, Larry Elmore, Keith Parkinson, Darrel K Sweet......none of those ring any bells?

I guess there's nothing wrong with that. To each their own.

Scantily clad with bulging muscles or bulging mammaries; how could anyone forget those?