Artists attempting cover art

This is a topic of interest to me since I'm working at reissuing some of my older works on my own dime, which requires I give myself a crash course on the basics of cover art.

I'm a self-admitted control freak, but with reason. One of my publishers consistently provides excellent covers, while another just can't seem to get their act together. My books with them have had only a handful of covers that truly worked.

The rest were totally off the mark and even chased readers away. Time and again I'd get mail with, "The cover was so bad that it was the LAST thing I wanted to pick up, but since I'd read everything else I tried your book, expecting the worst..."

They were pleased that the insides were better than the cover, but still, it made me do this a lot:

In some cases where the art was better with the title was in large letters (yay!) but barely a tone off from the same color background. (Blue on blue, charcoal on black--just don't cut it!) While it would have made pretty wall art, it sucked at communicating to a browser trolling the aisles for something new.

This is also true for the spines. The title and my name are NOT visible unless you're a foot away, squinting hard, and know where to look. Similar books by other writers in my genre don't have that problem, which might explain in part why they sell better.

Yes, I've pointed this out (often!) to my editor, and asked for higher contrast or just plain white letters but had it dismissed. I'm just a writer after all. I was actually told--I kid you not and wish I was--"cover art isn't that important."

Had to bite my tongue. He was granting some changes and you learn to pick your battles, but I would have thought an editor with his level of experience would know better!

Much to my delight, the latest issue of PW has an article by Judith Rosen on cover production. She listed things I knew, but had never seen cited before:

A good cover has:

• a strong central image that communicates the feeling of the editorial
• stands out on crowded shelves
• a title large enough to read from space

If you're lucky, you get a kind of "branding" thing going. Excellent examples include covers for the Dick Francis mysteries. I can see those from the street when I drive past the store!

Whether you love or hate them, you can see Twilight covers from across the bookstore. They never grabbed me, but now I know what shelves to avoid.

The very night that I read the PW article I was channel surfing, and look--they were running an episode of Bravo's WORK OF ART. (Link below.)

I don't watch such shows, but this one had the artists attempting to do covers for classic book titles. Okay, that should be good for a laugh. Cover art for commercial publishing is a tricky thing, and if you don't know what you're doing, the word's "epic fail' come to mind.


First of all--spell the author's name right.

I felt sorry for that artist. She had a lovely partial nude of herself in a black and white ink/watercolor sketch. The figure is seen from the back, her bum covered by a sheet, and she's holding a Homburg hat.

In microscopic lettering: "Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austin"

Oops.

She got the period dress--that hat!--wrong, I don't recall any nudity in the book, and damn, make the title BIGGER, you're selling a book, not your art. Give your ego the day off.

And it is spelled AustEn, dearie.

Don't bother blubbing, you could have looked it up. Even Wikipedia had that one correct.


Get the Genre Right

Another fail was a cover for The Time Machine, which featured cut out letters in an oval framing for a shadowbox effect. The framing was decorated in a wallpaper style with floral motifs, a human silhouette, and (OMG) a Teddy bear. (WTF???)

The Time Machine is a dark story written for thinking adults, not a kids' book. I expect the artist thought "science fiction = kids" and perhaps saw a watered down version in the kiddie section of a bookstore. Or maybe a Saturday morning cartoon...

Yes, the critics reamed her a new one. That aside, the last thing a publisher wants is a wallpaper cover. Wallpaper is forgettable. If you DO remember it, it's usually for a bad reason.


You're doing cover art, not *Art*

It has to be commercial. You can get obscure, subtle, and cerebral in your studio, but a publisher wants something that will sell the damn book. No whining if the bean counters don't appreciate your lofty artistic aims.

The title was a messy looking watercolor with EDIRP & ECIDIUJERP in large letters.

Yes, I'm sure book browsers and annoyed students often wander around bookstores with mirrors in hand looking to decode Jane Austen titles.

The artist was trying to be different, which is great. But different doesn't have to mean bloody confusing. The artist got quite huffy at having to explain it was not a strange language. Sometimes one can be too clever. Well, she has her artistic integrity intact, but no check to deposit.


You can carry retro too far.

Back to The Time Machine. Another guy had a cubist-style "head" in shades of orange and red with a little ladder going up into the mess and thin, barbwire-style lettering.

He was praised for it, and one guy really loved the little ladder. To me it looked like something from the 50s-60s when you knew it was S.F. from the weird cover. Like this one:

I have this edition of the book, and yes, I did indeed READ it, no thanks to the cover. In my case I bought the book in spite of that cover. What the hell IS that thing with the holes? There is concept and then there is WTF? Still, it worked. You'd never confuse that one with a romance or western.

This other guy's new work for The Time Machine put me off. He missed an opportunity. Steampunk is smoakin' HAWT now. Had he done research he might have put in brass gears, goggles, and a bit of sepia-toning to grab the attention of a new generation of readers.

Like this one:



Not perfect, but Steampunk fans will know to pick this one up for a look.

And anyway, the cubist look has already been covered in this 50th anniversary edition of another classic:





FOCUS-FOCUS-FOCUS

There were two covers for Dracula. One was a stylized landscape. I liked it as wall decor, but it's a lousy cover. The lettering was small and lost against the busy art, which looked like a quilt pattern.

The second one for the same title nailed it. Simple blocks of color, a central image, and an overall feeling of creepiness and anticipation. You'll know it when you see it. Well done!

I also approve of the cover for The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Three faces of the main character are caught as though by a time lapse camera, each showing aspects of the man's changing nature. The lettering could be much stronger so it stands out from the background, but the art got the job done.


You can look at the rest of the covers for the show here.


I cited the ones that grabbed me; the rest were "meh" or missed the mark so far that it would take a longer post than this to explain all the wrong.



The good thing for me is that I have been following the rules with my own attempts at cover design. It is reassuring to a person who has just been following her instincts and studying what's in the bookstores.

No, you cannot tell a book by its cover, but more than once I've wound up with a horrible read because the danged cover did its job and got me to pick up the book.

.

Shady Lane said:

The show is actually called WORK OF ART

Click to expand...

Bad me, no cookie--fixed now. Thanks!

Indeed YES. Commercial art and fine art are as different as commercial fiction and literary fiction--though it IS awesome when both come together. I have seen it done.


Guess I need to start watching that show! Some of those I saw in that sampling reminded me of the clueless batty types floating around my university's art building. (I refer, of course, to the teachers.)

Others remind me of the working artists I've met at conventions who make a living on their stuff. (They enjoy a good drink and kvetching about their publishers, just like me!)

I once wanted to be an artist, but what was in my head and what my hands produced just never matched up. Prolly just as well. Writing pays better.

Thankfully, Photoshop was invented, along with iStockphotos, so I don't have to worry about that so much.

I did learn the basics for composition that didn't involve nouns and verbs, and took some art history, so I can walk into any museum/gallery and not sound like a wholesale moron when giving an opinion.

Though for me the best art is beyond words.

In the real world for cover artists, they don't have time to read the book.

Sometimes they're told what the book is about from someone who heard about the synopsis from someone else.

"It's a romance, there's a cat in it, and I think the hero has a tattoo, or maybe it's a birthmark, on one of his arms or his back, and the girl is a vampire, or a witch, I forget, but just get the prelim sketch in by Tuesday."

Sometimes they're given an e-file of book, but at most they get the bare bones 3-page synopsis the writer sent in with her 50 sample pages. In the old days they couldn't expect to get a copy of a full 400-page manuscript!

Other times the artist doesn't read the book because they don't like the genre or the writer's work. (I'd hate to be the cover artist for a writer whose work I loathed!)

Some publishers discourage the writers from talking to the artists. One of my houses is like that. They're afraid the writer will put non-marketable ideas into the artist's head.

From the look of some of my covers, my ideas would only improve things.

The bottom line is time and money. The artist is given a theme for most books and turns the work in fast to get a check. This is what mid-list and debut writers can expect. "It takes place in New York, it's night, and there's a body. I don't know if it's male or female, just put in a damn body and leave room for the title."

Lead titles get more attention and discussion. They're the money makers.

With only one publisher was I able to change a cover. They'd picked out the wrong artist entirely for my book. I instinctively knew he would screw it up, no matter what. His style just was NOT right for the book.

Thankfully, the previous book's artist already had a finished painting. With one little tweak it would be perfect and hey, no waiting. So they went with him. Whew!

But that kind of thing RARELY happens with the larger commercial publishers. Too much money is riding on things.

Each department jealously guards their borders. An art director is as reluctant to take advice from an editor on the cover as the editor would be if the art director offered to help with the editing. To let such a crossover happen might make you look like you don't know how to do your own job!

But for classic books such as those used in this TV show, there is no excuse. The artists could have picked up the Cliff Notes in ANY bookstore. Duh.

citymouse said:

I'm often baffled as to why publishers let this sort of thing slide when cover art is so important.
C

Click to expand...

Ditto! That's why my jaw dropped when my editor of 20 years said "Oh, cover art isn't important."

Huh-what???

Serious. He was dead serious. Maybe he wanted me to disagree and have a bracing morning fight, then hang up before I could win. (It's happened.)

Like I said, I've learned to pick my battles. He was getting the most offensive detail about the art changed, but I'm not keen to sell more books to that house.

The other editors I've dealt with are not insane, and they don't dismiss my opinions. I'm treated like a professional (not blown off like a chatty kid) and they are polite. Good manners are free, after all!