Now I will say the Red Haired Witch is 33 years old and has been reading the sci-fi fantasy category for quite some time. Like 25 years. And I have to say one of the things that has really discouraged me for about the last fifteen years is the poor cover art for the books. Not to say that the paintings / illustrations that have graced the covers from Anne McCaffrey to David Eddings is bad, per se,...I just think that it really speaks to a lower level of sophistication of the audience.In the 60s to 80s cover art began getting much more illustrative, initially as a way of marketing the books to create sales. With the rise of advertising agencies in the "Mad Men" era, book publishers wanted to make more market share by sexing up the book jackets.
Take a look at Dune's original cover:
[ via firstthings.com]
This is a "classic" feel of the sci-fi cover in the 60s and 70s. With this moment, of the Fremen crossing the Bled with a sexy "otherworldly" font. In this time of liberation and paper back pulps, this kinda of illustrative production made it easy to encapsulate the book, but holds back the reader from believing in a true experience.
That was great in the past; not so much in 2011. I posit to you that several publishing companies have started to upgrade how they package their sci-fi / fantasy tomes, but I am still really disappointed for the most part.
I mean, do I need an illustration? 90% of the books on the market have a text based or photographic based cover. Do I want to feel like I'm back in intermediate school when I'm buying a book to read on the train?
In the last few years, you can see publishers take a much for realistic imagery.
Laurell K Hamilton's book covers have definitely gone to the next step incorporating photographic imagery as well as illustrative qualities into a great packaging. Also, the House of Night series by Kristen and PC Cast have been really well designed but they are YA focused. Both engage you in a "sexy" world that is not like our own, but the photos of the body on Bloody Bones, and the piercing eye of MARKED, make you feel it is just a higher level of real; not disconnecting you with a drawing you cannot as easily self-identify.
Contrast that with the covers of Charlene Harris' books which are frankly a lot more sophisticated than their covers would imply or Patricia Briggs' books which also have a really kind of bleh cover. I love both of those series, and by no means am I demeaning the quality of the work of the talented artists who create them. I merely am talking about the covers as a way for audiences engage in the book. Yes yes, dont' judge a book by its cover, but we all know that people can and will judge a book just that way.
I realize that having a more sophisticated photographic imagery or design sense does not make the book any more or less valid, but I really think that its time for the book publishing industry to wake up and smell the photo chemicals, if you know what I mean.
My good friend had a book published a few years ago and I have to say that our experience working on the promotions for it only reemphasize how publishing has managed to remain a rather archaic practice. Or as he says, dear readers, "It practically still runs on steam."
I will admit in my time in my day job, I have done work with many different aspects of the entertainment industry. don't get pissy if u don't include publishing in entertainment; they are one arm of the whole 360 story telling process. That's why the Sookie Stackhouse novels were re-issued using the imagery of True Blood. Meanwhile, back at the rant, in my day job, I have seen examples again and again of missteps, especially with the rise in the last 10 years of the digital forum.
Remember, publishers, you are competing not just against other books, but TV Shows, films, theatre shows, which have a very sophisticated audience for a visual vocabulary. By marketing books in a traditional simplistic manner will only doom them to less interest in the public sphere. .
So there.
RHW
No comments:
Post a Comment