The Corean Chronicles
Changing Cover Art ?
The other day, a more recent reader [new to what I write in the last five years, and also, I suspect, of a younger persuasion] of my work emailed me with a suggestion. His view was that my science fiction covers were far too "dated." The artwork looked like "that eighties stuff" with all the sharp lines and airbrushing. He argued that my SF would sell much better if my science fiction covers looked more like the recent Corean Chronicles covers by Raymond Swanland, because "Swanland is more organic..."
The reader went on to say that my science fiction is anything but conventional or dated, but that the covers on the books proclaim that it is. I certainly like the Swanland covers, but I like a number of my other covers, by other artists, and the John Picacio cover for Ghosts of Columbia helped John win an award or two, I understand. I like that cover a great deal.
But... the point raised by my reader is intriguing. Certainly, research into reader buying habits shows that, especially for an unknown or little known author, the cover is one of the largest reasons for picking up and buying a book. One study determined that something like 27% of sales result from the impression the cover makes on would-be readers.
Yet, for an established author, how much of a difference do covers make? Or do they only make a difference in sales to new readers? The covers on the Recluce books have always been painted by Darrell Sweet, who is a superb colorist, while the Corean Chronicles covers painted by Swanland show more dynamic action. Certainly, sales of the Corean Chronicles appear to have increased somewhat with the Swanland covers, but would a switch to more edgy action covers increase the sales of my SF books... or would they end up disappointing readers who would then expect the sort of non-stop action such covers would imply? Would they turn away older readers who would think that the change in covers reflected a change in content? And while my science fiction certainly has action, it's definitely not non-stop, because my characters are as real as I can make them, and in real life, nothing is non-stop.
Of course, as the writer, I get very little say on the cover, outside of suggestions for scenes, and what technical input I do provide is usually on the accuracy of the illustration -- and yes, the art director and editor do actually consider such factors.
Still, the question remains... would organic yet edgier covers for my science fiction better reflect to readers what I write?
The reader went on to say that my science fiction is anything but conventional or dated, but that the covers on the books proclaim that it is. I certainly like the Swanland covers, but I like a number of my other covers, by other artists, and the John Picacio cover for Ghosts of Columbia helped John win an award or two, I understand. I like that cover a great deal.
But... the point raised by my reader is intriguing. Certainly, research into reader buying habits shows that, especially for an unknown or little known author, the cover is one of the largest reasons for picking up and buying a book. One study determined that something like 27% of sales result from the impression the cover makes on would-be readers.
Yet, for an established author, how much of a difference do covers make? Or do they only make a difference in sales to new readers? The covers on the Recluce books have always been painted by Darrell Sweet, who is a superb colorist, while the Corean Chronicles covers painted by Swanland show more dynamic action. Certainly, sales of the Corean Chronicles appear to have increased somewhat with the Swanland covers, but would a switch to more edgy action covers increase the sales of my SF books... or would they end up disappointing readers who would then expect the sort of non-stop action such covers would imply? Would they turn away older readers who would think that the change in covers reflected a change in content? And while my science fiction certainly has action, it's definitely not non-stop, because my characters are as real as I can make them, and in real life, nothing is non-stop.
Of course, as the writer, I get very little say on the cover, outside of suggestions for scenes, and what technical input I do provide is usually on the accuracy of the illustration -- and yes, the art director and editor do actually consider such factors.
Still, the question remains... would organic yet edgier covers for my science fiction better reflect to readers what I write?
—L.E. Modesitt,
Jr.: 7/05/2007 09:36:00 PM
Comments:
<< Back to all Blog posts
I can only speak for myself, but my answer would be no, "organic yet edgier" wouldn't change my buying habits, and wouldn't reflect your style better to me.
I tend to use the art when assessing new authors, to give me a hint as to the type of science fiction/fantasy. I remember I first picked you up with Magic of Recluce, and the Darrell Sweet cover played a role because he had been doing the Covenant/Donaldson books, and suggested to me that you might have something interesting to say in fantasy. On the other hand, he had also done some covers for (imho) not-so-interesting fantasy authors, so it wasn't definitive. The art and the recommendations on the back of the book, as well as the flyleaf description, finally got me to fork over money :)
Once hooked, I admit, I tend to be pretty faithful to authors, cover or no cover. Still, I do like covers as eye candy (and sometimes PC desktops and screen savers :)). I tend to prefer "realistic" covers like Darrell Sweet's (or C.J. Cherryh's brother [?] David), because they allow me to imagine better visiting an interesting world, learning from it, and even enjoying parts of it.
I tend to use the art when assessing new authors, to give me a hint as to the type of science fiction/fantasy. I remember I first picked you up with Magic of Recluce, and the Darrell Sweet cover played a role because he had been doing the Covenant/Donaldson books, and suggested to me that you might have something interesting to say in fantasy. On the other hand, he had also done some covers for (imho) not-so-interesting fantasy authors, so it wasn't definitive. The art and the recommendations on the back of the book, as well as the flyleaf description, finally got me to fork over money :)
Once hooked, I admit, I tend to be pretty faithful to authors, cover or no cover. Still, I do like covers as eye candy (and sometimes PC desktops and screen savers :)). I tend to prefer "realistic" covers like Darrell Sweet's (or C.J. Cherryh's brother [?] David), because they allow me to imagine better visiting an interesting world, learning from it, and even enjoying parts of it.
L.E. and Wayne,
I agree. The cover does influence me when I am scanning the shelves for something new. I almost always pick up a Michael Whelan cover. S.C. Wyeth did the original Donaldson covers, BTW. Once I'm hooked on a series though, I really don't care who does the cover. Gene Wolfe always has great covers.
I agree. The cover does influence me when I am scanning the shelves for something new. I almost always pick up a Michael Whelan cover. S.C. Wyeth did the original Donaldson covers, BTW. Once I'm hooked on a series though, I really don't care who does the cover. Gene Wolfe always has great covers.
I don't really have a good answer for you, L.E., because I've always looked for your books because you wrote them - not because of the cover art. Though I certainly do like the cover art on your books - it always seems relevant to the book that's inside it.
I very much appreciate that you care about how people perceive your books in relation to your covers - that you don't want to disappoint readers who expect something about the book because of the cover, and also don't want to just draw in the readers for the sake of making a buck. It speaks volumes (heh) to the quality of your writing and to the care you put into it. But then again, a careful read of your books would make it pretty obvious that those are the characteristics you find to be ethical and proper, so I guess I shouldn't be too surprised!.
As for turning people away....I'd be very surprised if someone who has read a few of your books would be turned off because of the covers. Anyone who reads your books does so for the content and the characters and the story, and the cover is just gravy (and consequently has a negligible factor in the purchasing decision).
(Interestingly, I did pick up a couple David Farland novels because they had Darrell Sweet covers - because I'd really liked your Recluce novels and something in my mind associated Darrell Sweet covers with L.E. Modesitt book.)
I very much appreciate that you care about how people perceive your books in relation to your covers - that you don't want to disappoint readers who expect something about the book because of the cover, and also don't want to just draw in the readers for the sake of making a buck. It speaks volumes (heh) to the quality of your writing and to the care you put into it. But then again, a careful read of your books would make it pretty obvious that those are the characteristics you find to be ethical and proper, so I guess I shouldn't be too surprised!.
As for turning people away....I'd be very surprised if someone who has read a few of your books would be turned off because of the covers. Anyone who reads your books does so for the content and the characters and the story, and the cover is just gravy (and consequently has a negligible factor in the purchasing decision).
(Interestingly, I did pick up a couple David Farland novels because they had Darrell Sweet covers - because I'd really liked your Recluce novels and something in my mind associated Darrell Sweet covers with L.E. Modesitt book.)
I typically scan both the title and cover to see what catches my eye if I haven't read anything by the author.
I first read one of your books in February of 2006. It was The Eternity Artifact. I read a lot of "hard" SF and the cover was one that you would typically see in a "hard" SF novel.
Since then, I've read twenty-three of your other books (thank God for librarything.com, where I can keep track of all of this!)
Once I've read an author, the cover is pretty much just window dressing.
I first read one of your books in February of 2006. It was The Eternity Artifact. I read a lot of "hard" SF and the cover was one that you would typically see in a "hard" SF novel.
Since then, I've read twenty-three of your other books (thank God for librarything.com, where I can keep track of all of this!)
Once I've read an author, the cover is pretty much just window dressing.
I don't think changing the cover art for the novels will accomplish much. I personally have never sed cover art as a deciding factor for purchasing a book.
I look more at title to catch my eye, followed by a quick read of the back cover. If that doesn't hook me, the book goes back on the shelf.
It seems that half the time the cover art has almost nothing in comon with the book anyway!
The only use I have for cover art is in the case of old sci fi, you can guess the age and hence edition, of some books based on the cover art and publisher.
BTW, the first book I ever read by you was "Dawn For a Distant Earth" and it wasn't the cover-art that hooked me in.
Post a Comment
I look more at title to catch my eye, followed by a quick read of the back cover. If that doesn't hook me, the book goes back on the shelf.
It seems that half the time the cover art has almost nothing in comon with the book anyway!
The only use I have for cover art is in the case of old sci fi, you can guess the age and hence edition, of some books based on the cover art and publisher.
BTW, the first book I ever read by you was "Dawn For a Distant Earth" and it wasn't the cover-art that hooked me in.
<< Back to all Blog posts
© 2006-2007
by Tom Doherty Associates, LLC. Tor® and Forge® are
trademarks of Tom Doherty Associates, LLC, and are
registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.