While waiting for comment to come back on my new novel, From Mountains of Ice, I’ve been working the cover, pictured here, for your comment.
3 Comments
Okay, I hate to say this, but I think black and white has an inherent marketing problem. For many years now, one way of spotting the self-published books crossing my desk was that many of them went for cheaper black and white covers. So I have developed a pretty deep prejudice against B&W = self published (for the wrong reasons). I don't know if that will show up among younger readers or general public, but I suspect that review copies sent to oldsters like me are going to the bottom of the pile (unless they happen to know your name/work).
My second problem is the face. It's cool and all, but at first glance I thought it was the alien from the "Gladiator (?)" episode of Star Trek; then, when my brain over rode that image, I got "the ice man" pulled out of the glacier after 6,000 years or whatever. I don't know if that's what you're going for (haven't read the book yet) but between the title and the face, I'm getting "return of the mummy" kind of vibs that this is the guy AFTER going in the bog. (I'm guessing the real intent is a sort of Mauri markings on the face?)
So like it okay as art; worried it will not help sales.
Lots of food for thought here. Thanks. I cannot help but notice, however, a lot of best-seller and popular books from legacy houses employing B&W covers: – Twilight series – Darkest Power series – Dan Brown's Angels & Demons – Not Becoming My Mother, Ruth Reichl – A lot of the Holly Black YA books – The Winter Vault, Anne Michaels – Divisadaro, Michael Ondaatje – The Underpainter, Jane Urquhart – Magnificent Voyage of Emily Carr, Jovette Marchessault – The Monument, Colleen Wagner I could go on.
I, too, find the black and white uncompelling. It would not grab my eye on the shelf.
Okay, I hate to say this, but I think black and white has an inherent marketing problem. For many years now, one way of spotting the self-published books crossing my desk was that many of them went for cheaper black and white covers. So I have developed a pretty deep prejudice against B&W = self published (for the wrong reasons). I don't know if that will show up among younger readers or general public, but I suspect that review copies sent to oldsters like me are going to the bottom of the pile (unless they happen to know your name/work).
My second problem is the face. It's cool and all, but at first glance I thought it was the alien from the "Gladiator (?)" episode of Star Trek; then, when my brain over rode that image, I got "the ice man" pulled out of the glacier after 6,000 years or whatever. I don't know if that's what you're going for (haven't read the book yet) but between the title and the face, I'm getting "return of the mummy" kind of vibs that this is the guy AFTER going in the bog.
(I'm guessing the real intent is a sort of Mauri markings on the face?)
So like it okay as art; worried it will not help sales.
Lots of food for thought here. Thanks.
I cannot help but notice, however, a lot of best-seller and popular books from legacy houses employing B&W covers:
– Twilight series
– Darkest Power series
– Dan Brown's Angels & Demons
– Not Becoming My Mother, Ruth Reichl
– A lot of the Holly Black YA books
– The Winter Vault, Anne Michaels
– Divisadaro, Michael Ondaatje
– The Underpainter, Jane Urquhart
– Magnificent Voyage of Emily Carr, Jovette Marchessault
– The Monument, Colleen Wagner
I could go on.
I, too, find the black and white uncompelling. It would not grab my eye on the shelf.
A popular trend in digital photography right now is a black and white image with one aspect or detail in colour. Like this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dpoem/3302475158/
That idea might add some punch.