Branding the genre, torturing the author, repulsing the reader
Anyone who's read this blog knows I'm a bit twitchy when it comes to book cover art. I hear and read a lot of arguments from various publishers about why particular cover art, even if it's crap, is used on books of a certain genre. A lot of it has to do with branding. Most of the arguments are full of holes.
I write Romance. It's the red-headed stepchild of fiction genres, and personally I think a lot of that has to do with the cover art and the back blurb--the two things the author usually has no control over in the book production. And if there's anything guaranteed in this world besides death and taxes, it's that if you write and publish romance, you'll be assigned at least one craptastic book cover--P.C. Cast not withstanding.
Granted, a preference in art is highly subjective, but I think there's a crossover point where 99% of the viewers are going to either say "WTF?!" or "Ewwww." If it's not dead doll Poser work or dismembered models pasted together via poorly executed Photoshop work, it's homogenized poses and the ubiquitous tramp stamp.
I'm all for branding. It's good business and good marketing to make a particular mark and style and be known by it, but does the genre really want to keep the reputation its earned with bizarre, repulsive cover art and ridiculous back blurbs?
I received notice of this most excellent entry by a reader via a Google alert. I applauded; I cheered when I read. I can only wish the industry would pay attention to voices like these.
http://sundae-sweet.livejournal.com/20951.html
~preachy blog entry brought to you by the letters S and D for sleep deprived~
I write Romance. It's the red-headed stepchild of fiction genres, and personally I think a lot of that has to do with the cover art and the back blurb--the two things the author usually has no control over in the book production. And if there's anything guaranteed in this world besides death and taxes, it's that if you write and publish romance, you'll be assigned at least one craptastic book cover--P.C. Cast not withstanding.
Granted, a preference in art is highly subjective, but I think there's a crossover point where 99% of the viewers are going to either say "WTF?!" or "Ewwww." If it's not dead doll Poser work or dismembered models pasted together via poorly executed Photoshop work, it's homogenized poses and the ubiquitous tramp stamp.
I'm all for branding. It's good business and good marketing to make a particular mark and style and be known by it, but does the genre really want to keep the reputation its earned with bizarre, repulsive cover art and ridiculous back blurbs?
I received notice of this most excellent entry by a reader via a Google alert. I applauded; I cheered when I read. I can only wish the industry would pay attention to voices like these.
http://sundae-sweet.livejournal.com/20951.html
~preachy blog entry brought to you by the letters S and D for sleep deprived~