Now, I'm not saying the cliche is right, but there are certain boundaries that should be put on covers; obviously, it has to be relevant to the book; it has to give some indication as to what to expect. But, and this is my opinion, the main character should be presented in photographic form on the cover. Some people might think, "That's most books though." They're right. I agree, most books do it. But some books, I think, take it perhaps too far.
This cover of Michael Grant's Gone


And finally, Sarah Rees Brennan's The Demon's Lexicon
So, how do we stop this? Well, I think UK cover artists are already working on it. With the exception of Brennan's book, these titles all have UK original covers that don't show very much of the story (Gone having just the cover Gone in big highlighted letters, against a black background, New Moon having a flower on it, again with a black background). These covers are both more modern, if done correctly, and leave us to imagine the characters as we read them, not as someone else does. Leave the visuals after that to fan-art and movies!
What do you reckon? Will modern-art type covers finally come to the fore, or will we be eternally forced to see someone else's interpretation of what a character looks like before we've even read the description?
1 comment:
Definitely agree. What's worse is when the models don't agree with the author's description.
Post a Comment