Smart Bitches Trashy Books | All of the romance, none of the bullshit.

I like my covers by Trace Edward Zaber.  I like them a lot.  They were done by a real artist who put some effort into them. 

I don’t know how much money he earned doing those covers, and that’s none of my affair as an author.  What I do know is my publisher asked me what I wanted, and she (and the artist) were willing to listen and not slap together some CGI abortion that would be snarked at length. 

Some authors aren’t that lucky, and I feel for them.  But please, publishers, don’t tell me “this is the best we can do” when it isn’t.  There are artists out there looking for work.  There are authors looking for good cover art.

At the same time, I’m honest enough to admit that if my publisher said, “Yeah, I like the rose and pistols theme, but if I put Fabio on the cover and a heroine wearing green eyeshadow I’ll sell 50,000 more copies” I’d say, “How fast can you whip out that eyeshadow?”

Since I’m not being offered Fabio and 50K more sales, I’d just as soon work with a publisher and artist who create covers that please my eye as well as the eyes of my readers.

And this would have been much shorter if I hadn’t already hit the pinot noir tonight.[g]

Trace Edward Zaber? As a cover artist, an editor, and an all-around fine specimen of personhood? Rocks.

That is all.

Under Fair Use, Karen absolutely has the right to post a cover image on her web site for the purposes of review and commentary, and as a veteran of many Internet Copyright Flamewars of the past, I’m seriously PISSED at the publisher who said she had to take the images down. Morons.

Although intellectually I know that what lies behind those CGI covers won’t necessarily disappoint me, my emotional reaction to those covers is not good.  Even though I understand the programs are expensive and that the artists work hard on them, those CGI covers just scream cheap and one-dimensional to me.  And because I am still poised at the precipice between print and ebooks (contemplating the jump but still checking out the requisite equipment), those covers are not enticing me at all to finally take the leap. 

Beyond the problems of distortion and blatant artificiality, the CGI technology engenders absolutely no welcoming emotional response in me.  As cheesy as the Fabio and DeSalvo covers are, at least I resonate with a sense of human animation there (like I can imagine those people breathe, at least).  I can appreciate that some readers and artists really like these covers (I so wish I was one of them!), and I know that eventually I will get used to them the same way I have the clinch covers.  But even under the best circumstances, they don’t communicate any animate/animal sense of welcome to me.  That may change as I actually read some of the books, but I need way more than the covers to get me there.  I guess if I can finally come to appreciate the Fabio cover for The Shadow and the Star, anything’s possible.

Don’t these artists and e-publishers realize that they are getting mad at their customer base?

Dude.  When your customer doesn’t like what you’re selling, it’s probably in your financial best interests to offer them something they do like. 

Poser artistes can go on and on about the subjectivity of art and individual tastes, but if the only people singing the praises of these covers are the authors (who, one could argue, might be wary of pissing off the artists for fear of receiving an even worse cover the next time around) and the publishers, then perhaps they ought to reconsider their righteous indignation.

I’d never heard of Changeling until this kerfuffle, but you can bet they won’t be getting any of my money.  Some of the covers aren’t bad, but their attitude stinks.

There are some really bad covers out there. I just published my first book with a new epub, Cobblestone Press. They have pretty good covers IMO.

This is my first time here, I discovered you from blog hopping. Fun stuff, I shall return!

Art is subjective. So is literature and so are sports and politics, from what I see. All make for good fun when one mocks them (in good fun - let’s not get serious about snark).
Book covers can be pretty awful and I will be the first to say I wish poser had never been invented - but your cover snark shows that with enough imagination one can do wonders with a phot and airbrush as well.
LOL!
HOWEVER - I don’t think one should get serious or upset about opinions pertaining to art, books, or politics. It’s just personal opinion. For example, I think Picasso’s later work sucks. I saw a show where they were trying to sell one of his paintings worth 30,000,000£ on the street (in London) - they were asking 25£ for it. One lady said it looked like a monkey painted its arse blue and sat on the canvas and she wouldn’t have it in her house. They were never able to sell it.
Art is Subjective. Yes, most of the cover artists wouldn’t know an elbow joint from a shoulder, but the e-book publishers don’t have the money to pay famous artists to airbrush photos of famous models in amazing positions, LOL!
So we get strange and wonderful poser art where joints pop up in odd places and characters look like barbie dolls gone to the dark side...But so what? If the book is good it doesn’t matter. Stop judging - but keep mocking - I need my Monday morning laughs!

“I don’t think one should get serious or upset about opinions pertaining to art, books, or politics. It’s just personal opinion.”

Do you really mean that? I could agree if you’d just stuck to mentioning art and books, because, as Candy says, one can have an emotional response to something, not just an intellectual one, and so something that’s technically good may not please, and something that’s technically a mess may make one feel happy, intrigued or lots of other positive things. But politics? No. Politics is about things like hospital waiting lists, funding for education, going to war, energy policy and all those things have an impact on people’s lives for years to come. There is no way that I’d agree that politics is just ‘personal opinion’. Politics can be life or death, and that matters. The political opinions that people hold tend to be the ones they support/vote for, and so it does make a difference what they think. And even if they don’t do anything about their political opinions, it still gives you a huge insight into their world-view. If someone has a penchant for ‘cheesy’ covers, that’s a quirk. Someone’s deeply held opinions on reproductive rights tell you far, far more about them.  OK, rant over.

Candy, thanks so much for writing ‘I’d like to see somebody with the ovaries to stand up and say’. I’ve never understood why I would have acquire male gonads in order to display courage and determination. Now, due to Candy, I know I can get these qualities without needing a sex change. Thanks Candy! (I mean that seriously, not snarkily.)

Uff da.

And yes, some epubs DO have good covers.  Making, in my mind, the idea that because cover artists are expensive, we have to settle for crap, just that.  Crap.  Moxie Press is getting great covers.  Many at Cobblestone Press are great, as are many at Liquid Silver Books. 

And yes, that program you bought may be expensive, but expensive doesn’t always equal QUALITY.  It’s no excuse for silly imagery, stupid posturing, butt-ugly bodies, and all-around ridiculous scenes.  It’s just not. 

And call me shallow, but covers are important.  What else is going to make me click on that link to that book to learn more??  Seriously, do you expect us to click on each and every link?

I don’t think we are getting the point of at least a couple of the ladies from Changeling here. Apparently there are two thing we, the customer, must understand:

The artist devoted hours to his/her work! (which apparently automatically makes it Art, with a capital A), and we are hurting people’s feelings here (which, in turn, apparently means that no one should ever express any opinion that could, conceivably, hurt their feelings).

To that utter bullshit add the feet stomping and “those are my covers anyway and I didn’t give you permission to post them,” and the result with this consumer is a decision not to ever deal with these people. If and when I buy ebooks, Changeling will not be among the potential sources.

Laura V. - because you posted a question to me here, I thought it would be polite to answer you -
Yes - politics are opinions as well - and opinions, as you have seen, can stir up a lot of emotion and ranting. “Political opinions”, I believe you said. Yes it is life and death and far more serious than cheesy covers and yet I still believe that one’s beliefs about politics, art and abortion are just that: beliefs - opinion - thoughts - and luckily we have people like Smart Bitches to make us laugh about silly things like cover art - and the Onion to make us laugh at politics, and Jesus Central to poke fun at religion.

I’ll be the first to admit that I’ve never read an e-book simply because I loathe and despise CG covers and art. Plastic men don’t do it for me, and nor do women with broken and elongated necks. Squick factor.

I know any number of graphic artists and designers who would happily create a cover design for under $200/pop and do tons better work. So IMO, these publishers saying that it costs too much aren’t looking very hard. Hit the damned art school in your area and I’ll guarantee you’ll find some cheap artists there who have at least an iota of an idea of things like proportion.

I’m not surprised people’s feelings were hurt- they probably did work hard and do their best and it hurts when that isn’t appreciated.  BUT to a) say that it’s all subjective anyway and b) say just because I don’t like what you said I’m taking my ball and going home, well, get real.

As its been said, some of art is subjective.  But artists ignoring the basic rules of anatomy/physiology on book covers?  (Also- if art is subjective that means I get to express the opinion that something stinks!  Being told, well its all subjective so shut up with your less than flattering opinion is like saying YOU ARE WRONG!  Its good!  And that is not subjective.)

And, as I’ve said before, when you put something out for public consumption people are going to criticize.  And even though the blogger in question didn’t like the covers the publishers totally got free publicity from it and might have benefited from leaving it up there, negative opinions and all.

If this makes no sense, my apologies.  The sinus meds, they are fun.

Doesn’t all of this make you wonder how much time some of these authors/publishers have on their hands?  To go around to all of these blogs and individually respond to random fangirls’ opinions?  It must take hours!  I suppose if you are a small publisher, blog surfing is as much about advertising as anything, but that doesn’t explain the blatant attempt to piss off fans and potential customers. 

The Bitches make fun of the “best” covers out there, ones adorning the works of well-known authors from major publishing houses.  It is sport, it is fun, it is snarking, and nothing is off limits. 

If you want people to stop making fun of your terrible covers, stop with the blog flame wars and start working a little harder: use this opportunity as free market research and put the results to good use! 

Anyone else think this has seriously jumped the track?  I mean, this all stems from romance stories!  Write well, make us swoon, we will buy your shit.

I totally agree, my ex-husband was a very talented artist going to art school, and he would have been ALL OVER $200 bucks (or less) a pop to grind out some gorgeous cover art for something like this.  He spent days working on murals at crappy businesses for less than that sometimes.  If they can’t find something better than crappy disproportional poser and whine ‘but that’s the best we can possibly dooooo’ I call BS.

Art is not totally subjective. Otherwise there would be no art critics, no art museums, and artists would be paid by the hour. Which is, of course, nonsense.
Sure there is always room for personal opinion. I occasionally look at cover snarkage, here and there, and think ‘well, that one’s not really so bad.’ And I can always admit that a piece is technically good, but not to my taste. For example, I prefer Pre-Raphaelites to Impressionists, but can still admit that some Impressionist works are really good. I just wouldn’t hang them on my walls.

However, having said all that, at least half of the CGI covers I see are junk. Just because someone can manipulate the program and produce a recognizable humanoid figure does not make them an artist.

There has got to be a better way to do this. I realize that e-publishers don’t have a lot of money. But they pay their writers a percentage of sales – couldn’t they do the same for their cover artists? Maybe they could attract some competent semi-professionals or art students or something. A quick rendering in color pencil or marker, scanned at high resolution, would be more attractive that some of those scary Poser people.

As an example, Kelley Armstrong ran a short story contest last year. The winner got a ‘cover’ illustration for their story.
http://www.kelleyarmstrong.com/e05ssGP.htm
This is an attractive piece of art. I would at least click on something like this to read the blurb for the book.

Besides, cover art for ebooks doesn’t have to be crappy!

Check out Maili’s covers for Moxie Press if you don’t believe me.

The icing on the cake for me, though, is that KarenS’s first post was a public service announcement on behalf of Changeling Press. Was it snarky? Hell, yes. It still was a public service announcement. And I may be half blind and a hundred percent stupid, but I don’t see any “thank you for setting the record straight regarding the rumors that CP is going out of business"--not anywhere.

I believe the very early Penguin (Mid-Late 1930’s) paperback books didn’t have cover pictures at all.

They had Title, Author Name, Publisher Name and the Penguin Logo.  They came distinctive colors—green and white for crime for example—with a the same strong consistent layout and design used for every single title.

If the economics of ebooks are marginal enough that it’s simply not feasible to have a newly created, non-stinky, cover image for each title, then maybe it’s time for publishers to go back to those sort of basics.  Pick out an abstract, but professional and good, cover design for the whole line—or possibly subgenre or, for romantica, level of hawtness—and just change the Author/Title for each e-book issued.

At least the covers would be less likely to actively scare people away from buying :/

It’s interesting but I like reading the Eva romance better. Alas, she never did work her way through to a half-breed Indian or a navy SEAL or a vampire or a shapeshifter or a merman.

Sigh. People are missing out on the REAL art found in SBTB. 

Kate, whose attempt to drag traffic to her own blog by insulting Doug’s cooking isn’t working well.

I went to the Changling Press website to see these covers-yikes! I actually recognized one that was mocked on someone else’s website and the rest...I think that Karen Scott was being rather kind in her descriptions.

My father was an artist and believe you me,he’d be the first one to say something about subpar work. I’ve never bought an e-book and frankly,with covers that resemble second rate video game porn,I’m less inclined to. Yes,you’re not supposed to judge a book by it’s cover and all that but it is a strong influence on readers selection and to deny that is just another ride down the river Denial.

I can’t respect people who feel that critisism = you are a bad person. It’s an immature response. You don’t like my cover? Well your a big fat doody head too!
And “artists” beating their chests over that critisim just exacerbates the stereotype that girls just can’t cut it in the ________ world. For the record, I’m an artist, not a CG artist, but I mush paint on canvas… not for a living mind, but It’s what keeps me off the street.I do photo’s too. There are folks who really love my stuff. There are strangers who seek me out and tell me that I must be painting with the brush up my ass ... that they too, could do that with their eyes closed. Do I stamp my little foot at them and tell them that they have hurt my widdle feewings? Do I send in my peeps to stamp their little feet at them? Now how much of a jack ass would I look like if I did?
In my subjective artistic opinion EVERYTHING is subjective. Art,politics,books,even the weather report. Perception IS reality.
Most E-book covers suck, President Bush is a lunitic, Dara Joy used to be a great talent, and snow days rock. Those are my perceptions and my reality. Most of you will have a difference of perception and a difference of realtity. But that does not make you a bad person in my book.

anyone else noticing how eerily similar this is to the scuffle about negative romance reviews a few months ago? “You’re not qualified to say it’s bad because you don’t know how harrrrrrrd it is!” “I’m doing my best, and that should be all that matters!” “That’s like, just your opinion, man.” So, what, if another talented graphic/cgi designer says it’s crap, will it count?

I think what bothered me the most from the CP publisher’s comments was this line:

“Of course the cover art is computer generated. The only other options available to small presses are stock photography—care to see your cover on 6 other books?”

This is simply not the case, and I resent the implication that all small presses are stuck with bad art.  As evidence of how it can be done, here is a page of covers from Amber Quill Press, a small publisher of mostly ebooks:

http://www.amberquill.com/catalogue.html

Clearly, there are options out there, and it’s only a question of how the publisher wishes to market the books.

The difference is just astounding I must say. And as someone who has taken photo’s for adverts Id say Erotica or fiction, romance, if the cover sucks then i’m not going to buy the book. I went over to CP and as I thought, these are the books I encounters at Waldenbooks.  “Oh! yippie! A whole shelf of romanctic erotica!” I took a book off the shelf and… “Ew! CG porn covers! Cheesy, exploitive, who did these? A 13 year old boy?
Needless to say I put the book back and looked around to make sure no one had seen me at that shelf.
Covers say A LOT about what is in side.

“I believe the very early Penguin (Mid-Late 1930’s) paperback books didn’t have cover pictures at all.

“They had Title, Author Name, Publisher Name and the Penguin Logo.  They came distinctive colors—green and white for crime for example—with a the same strong consistent layout and design used for every single title.”

I’m OT, but the sight of those simple Penguin covers meant the odds were in your favor of getting a *really* good book. What a golden reputation Penguin still has, and those covers are a perfect example of less is way more. Romance covers don’t have to be that conservative, but fabulous or even just eye-catching can be simple, too.

I don’t see any “thank you for setting the record straight regarding the rumors that CP is going out of business"--not anywhere.

I *thought* I read a couple of comments to that effect, but I think they were drowned out by one voice in particular at Changeling that significantly upped the ante, so to speak. 

One of the points in that whole thing that struck me was Karen’s comment about how the stakes are very low for her in terms of how she comes off in her blog and how the opposite is true for an author/artist/publisher.  I got the sense that some authors find this unfair.  But with the higher stakes also comes the possibility of higher gain in the form of sales.  The potential influence is just greater all the way around, and the higher it is on one side (i.e. sales), the higher it’s going to be on the other (i.e. availabilty for public critique).  I think the worst thing of all in that whole mess was the request to remove the covers, because IMO it was the one thing that potentially imperiled bonus sales of those books from readers who would have sought them out to purchase, either as a sympathy vote, or because they recognized the author, or because they actually liked the covers. 

I was also struck by Kate Rothwell’s comment about authors who are all kissy-face to readers but then go after them in “semi-private” (paraphrasing here).  While I *know* that’s the case, it still gave me a moment to appreciate those authors who are more up front with their less than cotton candy responses toward readers (even when they’re directed at me!).  I have to admit that there have been several instances where an author’s ultra-polite response has made me wonder whether that individual isn’t approaching readers as one would a small child or someone intellectually handicapped.  I don’t *know* whether that’s the case or not, but I think that authors can be polite but still very forthright, and that such a position can actually communicate a lot of respect for readers.  IMO, obviously.

On the ‘thank you’ issue, Robin said:
“I *thought* I read a couple of comments to that effect, but I think they were drowned out by one voice in particular at Changeling that significantly upped the ante, so to speak.”

I should have made clear that I didn’t see any gratitude whatsoever from MR/SM, owner and publisher at CP over KarenS’s public service announcement. What I did see from MR/SM was a childish tantrum over a reader’s opinion.

Robin continues:
“One of the points in that whole thing that struck me was Karen’s comment about how the stakes are very low for her in terms of how she comes off in her blog and how the opposite is true for an author/artist/publisher.  I got the sense that some authors find this unfair.”

As I’ve told my teenaged kids more times than I want to remember, where the hell is it written that any aspect of life has to be fair? Published authors are public figures, and as such, their behaviour can (and they can bet their heinies it will) be analized, dissected, criticized, publicized, and immortalized in countless blogs. And while I keep hearing how “any publicity is good publicity,” I think it behooves Jane/John Q Published Author to present a mature and likable persona to the reading public--IMO, that may mean the difference between flash-in-the-pan so-called celebrity, and long-lasting readership.

Miri - I’m ashamed of you.  What makes you think that these artist’s are women?

I’d like to see just one of these “artists” sit thru one critique class from my digital print class in college.  You may not like what someone does, that’s all opinion.  But when you can look at a piece, and no matter the subject and media, see a complete lack of effort, time and knowledge of the basics, I personally am offended.  Picaso is not a foavorite of mine but he knew and had mastered the basic and even applied them to his modern pieces.  These covers remind me so much of a fellow art student who was a painting major with a superb eye for color and had sold abstract paintings for thousands (they didn’t clash with couch) but couldn’t draw and shade a circle or proportionally sketch a figure.  He got so offended when offerred suggestions, he lashed out to belittle those trying to help.

Telling your audience that they don’t KNOW what they like because they do it themselves (heaven help them if they can) isn’t gonna keep them coming back for more.  I’m talking to authors, publishers and cover artists.

Who does the buying for cover art to begin with?  I have to admit that I’m new to the Romance writing scene, but I’ve been doing photography for 15 years now.  If there is a lack of affordable images for covers, then I need to try to fill that niche.  Even after paying for models, post production, and time, I could still make money off $200 per image.

J-me said:Miri - I’m ashamed of you.  What makes you think that these artist’s are women?

I think they are women because their names are:Sam-female Ann, Sahara, Shelby aka: Margaret Renee, and Lexxie.

I’d like to think that if I got a bad cover I’d be laughing with the snarkers, not ranting at them.  Bad covers are bad for readers but doubly bad for authors.  I wouldn’t diss the cover in public--that’s unprofessional--but I wouldn’t stand up and defend it as great art.  I’d be glad I wasn’t alone in my dissatisfaction.

(Yes, I’m having way too much fun with this particular kerfuffle)

I don’t know, Jeri, Suzanne Brockmann’s dissing of GET LUCKY’s cover is very public, rather funny, and IMO not at all unprofessional--but then I think that Ms Brockmann has amazing class.

[You can check it out here http://suzannebrockmann.com/get_lucky.htm ]

Ooo, I’d completely forgotten about Lucky and that cover. Thanks for the laugh in memory. :D

Personally, I think this entire discussion is totally bizarre. If the authors and publishers can’t see themselves how strange some of those CG covers look, I’m really not sure what to say to them in the first place.

Can someone just explain to me what the need is for these awful CG people on the covers?  Does it do anything for anybody?  Aren’t readers just buying in spite of these covers, because they love the genre or the author? 

I see nothing wrong with simple covers that evoke a mood or “feel” for the book.  Several of the examples people have cited as “good” do exactly that.  The CG people just look cheap.

Like most of the world, I don’t get the “It’s hard and it costs money and takes a long time to learn” argument. As I argued in response to the writer-as-artist question. . . just because something is art (and I think fiction is) doesn’t mean it’s good. I’m sure the Poser stuff takes skill and creativity that I don’t have, but you having a skill set doesn’t give your creation worth to anyone else. And art by definition is subject to critique. Hell, art DEMANDS critique, doesn’t it?

I went to the website of the one of the artists who issued an invitation. Most of her work was beautiful. Really nice. But there were some pictures featuring the Corpse Neck O’ Lurve. Rigormortis doesn’t lend itself to the Neck O’ Lurve and dead eyes don’t make me wet and tingly. I can’t believe that she doesn’t see the flaws in those few covers. (And I’d be thrilled if she’d comment here.) Her examples were proof positive that it CAN be done nicely, and it certainly can be done poorly.

Btw, I went to the CP site because I didn’t get to see the covers on the blog (method to CP owner’s madness, hmm?). Did anyone else notice the cover featuring the man with the really, REALLY long groin? I’m talking the groin, folks. We should have already made it to the head of his dick, but it was still just skin dusted with hair. Huh. Fashunating.

candy, sarah,

here’s what I think:
You should hold a Find an Actually Attractive Poser cover.

There must be some out there, right? I considered looking but I want someone else to do it for me.

I can’t believe there was even an argument about this. I recall some images I sent to the smartbitches in e-mail--I think it was a dragon/bestiality theme--and most of the worst came from Changeling. There was one of a dragon straight from Mario Bros 3 drinking a mai tai on a beach looking very pleased with himself. And it was a romance. My friend and I laughed ‘till we peed our pants (figuratively of course).

As for the commenter (I think it was Sam?) who suggested that we shouldn’t take art, books or politics seriously I can’t help but think that’s a very brain-dead way to go through life. Certainly there are some things that are minor, but I don’t think that art, books or politics are in general “minor” things; or that merely because something is based on an “opinion” it can’t rise above the level of amusing. The Smart Bitches may be hilarious and The Onion occasionally worth a guffaw but beneath the humour there is often a point worth considering after the chuckles disappear.

Finally, something I know enough to comment on without sounding like an idiot!

Yes, I am an artist and there are standards though not necessarily in art school. ( See the movie “Art School Confidential”, I can vouch for the “reality” of it.) For those students who think they are going to start where Picasso left off, why not start where he did (learning to draw) and then taking it from there.  In the era of jpegs publishers don’t have to limit themselves to computer art either. 
It took so long to do the piece of art? Boo hoo, baby!  It should take all your life to do the piece of art (practice counts, not hours on one piece).  The human figure is probably the hardest thing to draw because everyone knows what a body is supposed to look like.  Faking a tree or a barn is much easier, except to a forester or farmer.  Yes, my friends and I are available to do it right either as fine art (figures) or as graphic design (like the Penguin covers). We also accept criticism and opinion if its not a slam but a dialogue (No “anyone can do that” remarks unless your willing to discuss why anyone can’t. I can’t write a book but I know good writing when I read it.  I would not slam an author unless they are patently taking the money and running.) Please allow us to help the authors sell their books!

Oh, man.  Get Lucky is truly in a class by itself.  Humor and ritual suicide are the only appropriate and honorable reactions to that thing.  I’m glad Brockmann chose the former.

I am looking at the ad for exposed by Laura Baumbach as I type. THAT is beautiful to me. Not that all covers should be the same, but surely some nice digital photos would be pretty cheap and much more attractive. Okay, it doesn’t work if the guy is half dragon/half spymaster, but for the more straightforward erotica. . .  Then again. . . Hell you could add scales and claws to that arm and you’d be in business.

-Victoria, who may regret all these thoughts when she sees her own cover for the first time *tremble, tremble*

Regardless if it is considered art or not, I hate the CG covers.  No matter how anatomically correct they are, I find them as appealing as a store manequin.  And, I would not be caught dead reading one of the those on a bus or public area without a book cover.  If I really want to read the book I do it in the privacy of my house.  (I even hide them from my kids).  To me they are freaky looking. 

I am a graphic artist and I am amazed at the responses.  I deal with varied opinions all the time and you cannot take it personally.  Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, but in the eye of the paying client.  The customer is always right.  Customers do not pay you because they appreciate the time and effort you put in, they pay you to produce something they like—PERIOD.

I have been turned off by covers and publishers have not gotten my money.  Maybe they should not be attacking their customers opinions and considering doing more market research.  If someones blog calls their work “donkey balls” and it is an isolated opinion, why get all huffed up.  If it is not an isolated opinion, time to find out what makes us happy.  Getting pissy is not good in most retail markets.

The cost of the art should not be the reason for using it. That was an excuse I was given in my “old” house way too many times. “We can’t afford it, so we’ll put this cover on instead I made myself.” Even after it was proven sales doubled with different art.

If they truly like their art, it’s a reason to stand behind it, and I salute that. But I don’t agree with using the excuse of using that art just because it’s what you can afford.

This is the cover for my writing mate Denise Rosetti’s soon to be released work from Ellora’s Cave. I think it’s great. Don’t see why other epubs can’t do something like that. (It’s a good read too).

You’re right, Keziah, the Rossetti cover is pretty hot.  I wonder if part of the reason, besides the artistic talent, is because we don’t see his face.  It lets us use our imagination, doesn’t force an image on us, and most of all, doesn’t result in Deadeye.

Even though they’re becoming a cliche in paranormal romances, I like the woman-from-the-back covers.  Why they’re always wearing a tie-back bustier and a mysterious tattoo in a place that they themselves can’t look at without a mirror and a pulled neck muscle, I have no idea.

I’ll stick my neck out here to say that for as bad as some of the CG cover art may get, the quality of their stories is excellent.

I’ve read about 10 of them and each one was top notch. I loved the Wolf Tales by Kate Douglas, which are not on the CG site anymore and I assume that’s because Kate’s now pumping these out in longer versions for an NY pub. Dakota Cassidy’s stuff is very enjoyable and will leave you ROTFLYAO. There’s also some really good stuff by Ann Jacobs, too, and I especially loved the Luna 10 Chronicles.

Changling does have a strong fan base and I have heard from several authors there that the company is doing well and they are getting good sales.

With that said, I’d love to see them revamp their take on cover art so the outside of their books matches the high quality of the inside.

Here’s an ebook cover (with faces) I was really impressed with:

http://www.ellorascave.com/productpage.asp?ISBN=1-4199-0249-0

(I have no idea how to make that a link) Nathalie Gray’s “Femme Metal”. Don’t be fooled by the eyes. They’re not dead. They’re silver. But look at the sense of proportion and beauty and movement. And I’ve never seen such a kick ass heroine on an ebook cover. Look! She has an expression! (And the story was fun as all hell.)

So, I hope someone will learn me a little sumpin. Is THIS cover done with the same kind of program as the Changeling Press covers? Doesn’t seem possible.

I keep thinking of the Uncanny Valley, which isn’t some CG babe’s nether parts, but the divide between the realistic rendering of a human and the empathetic response of the viewer.  The idea of the Uncanny Valley was first theorized by Masahiro Mori in 1970, wherein the emotional response to a humanized robot veers from empathy to repulsion by the very humanoid properties which initially generated the sense of empathy.  As a robot approaches a perfect, exact likeness of a human but is not fully human, the gap of repulsion between representation and reality is called the Uncanny Valley.  The very qualities which comprise its humanness serve to highlight that which does not replicate human characteristics, and the robot becomes that much more strange to the human viewer. 

In film, the most successful use of CG comes when attempting to represent figures which do not duplicate human bodies or forms, but instead focus on stylized or animalistic creatures.  For example, Toy Story, The Incredibles and Finding Nemo all serve to create a sense of empathy with the viewer precisely because they are not attempting to animate exact human duplicates.  However, a film like The Polar Express generates the Uncanny Valley because the figures in the film are very close, but not exact, human representations, and the human viewer is repulsed by this approximation. 

I see a similar dynamic at work on the CG romance and romantica covers.  There is no denying that many of the covers are poorly rendered, creating an even larger Uncanny Valley.  The figures represented on the covers have just enough modelling and proportion to render them similar to humans, but not human at all.  This becomes doubly disturbing when one of the main goals of romance and romantica is to create an empathetic response in the reader.  How can we visualize something sensual, romantic or emotionally resonant when the illustrations of the hero and heroine remind us of corpses or molten wax mannequins?  It seems to be a disservice to readers when publishers are more anxious to produce covers in volume utilizing inferior representational art.  I think, in these cases, it would serve the publishers better to create abstract, non-representational covers of objects, landscapes or fragments rather than create something which engenders, at best, amusement and, at worse, repugnance.

The carelessness of craft at Changeling Press may begin with a sci-fi/fantasy publisher who thinks fairy tale is spelled fairy tail. (I’ll let it slide that it should even be fairytale, one word, not two, because in the context of her rant it’s an adjective.)

To me that signifies a culture of meh where it’s okay not to proofread all that carefully or not to worry about it if the proportion and perspective and lighting are a little off and the skin tones are oddly colored and waxy.

On the Poser software website, even their examples in the photorealistic gallery do not look real.

The best ones have incorporated actual pores, skin creases, wrinkles and skin texture. Still, the eyes are lifeless.

It takes effort and practiced skill to create art, and I think good artists should be compensated well for their work. Giving them a small percentage of sales is a great idea. I think a motivated publishing house could recruit a skilled team from a liberal arts college. The publisher gets better covers, the students get payment, experience and something to put in their portfolio.

Oh, now I wish I had never found the Poser galleries. Then maybe I wouldn’t have seen the creepiest image ever.

Also, speaking of mantitty (which I know we weren’t), check out the rack on Batman.

I love this site. It’s nut. These two had me laughing my ass off…

http://www.e-frontier.com/imagecatalogue/customimageview/3082/?sbss=499

http://www.e-frontier.com/imagecatalogue/customimageview/4213/?sbss=499

But this last was just plain creepy…

http://www.e-frontier.com/article/articleview/363/1/455/

And just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse, poser art on the move…

http://www.e-frontier.com/article/articleview/697/1/456/

Eeeg! What the hell is that dance and why is she flashing Poser Tit at me? Gah.

And that bottom dog being whipped in the first example? Why does he have more facial expression than I’ve ever seen on a human Poser? So strange.