Bluesman Mike Lindner Wrote:The new covers are too "arty." They are lovely, when you look at them. But they don't stand out. You are competing against other fictioneers whose publishers' art directors design covers to grab the casual browser's eye. Very important! Of course you have many, many loyal readers who put your new works on the NYT list, but why stop there? Leave the subtle art inside the pages. Make the jackets bright and bold.
Bluesman, though I do not sell books for a living, I must respectfully disagree from the perspective of a buyer. I loved the covers of many paperbacks in the 1980s and early 1990s. Some time before Y2K the covers on most sf paperback went weird on me, to the point where I find it hard sometimes to buy paperbacks of books by authors that I like.
I actually think this cover is quite stunning for a mass market paperback. I like the mashup of Bladerunner and Frankenstein that this cover evokes.
I would like to see some hard numbers as to which books sell because of specific types of covers, and which books fail because of this "arty" cover. By which criteria is this cover "arty?" If I didn't already own a copy of The Touch I certainly would not be put off by this cover. Instead, I would pick it up and admire the brilliant colors and stark contrasts.
Anders