Then there's what goes on the cover. Crucially, it should have the title and your name. And it should have a nice and appropriate design. That's where things generally go wrong (though sometimes your name doesn't appear on the cover - with licensed character work, for instance). It comes as a surprise to most people who aren't involved in the process that the author has virtually no control over the cover of their book. The cover is designed by a designer. That's good, generally, as design is what designers are good at and writing is what writers are good at. It would be pretty rubbish if writers designed the cover and designers wrote the text, wouldn't it? Keep that in mind when you grumble about your next cover. But even though this sounds like a pretty obvious division of labour, there are often problems.
The first problem is that the designer rarely reads the book. This can lead to some ridiculous situations, when a black character is depicted as white, for instance, or a horse is the wrong size/type/colour. Then there's historical and scientific accuracy. An illustrator *should* check everything carefully before coming up with a cover picture, but they don't always do so. You may have a medieval knight in armour from the wrong period, or penguins outside an igloo (yep, had that one - poles apart, illustrator!) As author, you should see a rough of the cover in good time so that you can pick up on these details and have them changed. But that doesn't always happen. You may not see the cover until it has been passed by everyone else, and then your objections may fall on deaf ears. 'It's too late to change it,' the editor cries. 'No one will notice.' The last may be true, at least in some cases - but you've noticed and so it will niggle every time you see the book. (Or worse than niggle if it is (a) a really bad error or (b) you've not published many books yet.)

Some cover designs are just lazy. They use stock photos that have been used on a hundred other covers and they use unimaginative design and uninspiring fonts. You can grumble about this, but what it says really is 'yours is a routine book - it's not a list leader and we can't afford a better cover'. The publisher will struggle not to say this to you, so I will. They can't afford to set up a photo shoot with models who look like your characters; they can't afford to commission original artwork from Quentin Blake; they can't afford that better picture from Getty. No amount of author-whinging is going to get the budget increased. If you can find a better picture from a cheap picture agency, you could pitch that. But I don't give much for your chances if the rest of the design has been done.

If you really hate the cover, you need to be able to say exactly what you hate about it and you need to listen to the reasons the publisher gives for choosing it. You might just be wrong. Or they might be wrong. Unfortunately, they have the final say, wrong or not. As always, a strong argument is more likely to get a result than tears and tantrums. Stroppy does not always mean having a strop. And if you're going to be stroppy, you also have to be right.
I think cover design is better these days than it's ever been - which is not to say there aren't some pretty awful ones out there.
ReplyDeleteI particularly dislike the orange UK cover for One Day - the original US version was the same design, but elegant monochrome. This has now been replaced by the horrid UK version, except for one called 'unknown binding'. Explain that?
Lexi, those of my books listed as 'unknown binding' on Amazon are generally the US library editions. But I'm not sure this is always the case.
ReplyDelete