Image by Stewf via Flickr

I was working with my publisher the other day on my novel’s cover (yay! start shameless plug–>> The P.U.R.E., releasing on or around 4/16/2012 <<–end shameless plug) and I needed to search through stock photography websites for a full body photo of a nicely built male wearing a suit.

A few months ago, I didn’t know these stock photography sites existed.  I bought books but rarely did their covers influence my decision to buy or not buy.  I think because my reading time was so precious, I’d usually done my homework on the book’s interior before I bought it.

The more I perused the stock photos, the more I recognized models from books I’d read.  I also realized that many used the same models over and over again.  At my local bookstore, I recently saw the same female model on two different authors’ books positioned side by side.  I had at least two more books I already owned with the identical model.  She was undeniably lovely with her part Asian, part Caucasian features, but were there no other beautiful models available to do historical covers?

The covers that do catch my attention, however, are the awful ones.  No, I won’t single any out for the hall of shame; there are plenty of websites that already do a good job of that.  I’ve even seen a couple of prolific authors publicly poke fun at their own, older covers.

What made them so bad?  For starters, bad cut and paste jobs.  If I can see the edges of the cut and they don’t match the body lines–fail.  If I can tell a cowboy hat, medieval helmet or baseball cap has been digitally plopped atop the model’s head–fail.  If the cover is too literal, such as a pair of handcuffs and a whip superimposed for a BDSM tale (I don’t read ’em, just sayin’) or tries too hard to be symbolic (an African American hand offering a vanilla ice cream cone to a Caucasian hand offering a chocolate one)–I groan.

When music videos first came out, critics skewered those that pantomimed or acted out the lyrics word for word vs. capturing the tone and mood of the song.  Those critics were right and the same holds true for book covers.  Literal is not always best.

Does this mean my book (second shameless plug) will or won’t have a well-built male wearing a suit on its cover and in the story?  Maybe and yes.  I provided suggestions to the publisher who may or may not use them, hence the maybe part.  A well-built male is a key player in the story so no worries there.

Personally, I don’t always like to see covers that give away too many elements of the story.  Teasing is best, in my humble opinion.  The models don’t have to match exactly the physical descriptions within the pages.  I purposely use a light touch when describing faces and body shapes.  Readers have terrific imaginations and they are more than capable of conjuring images to match the actions and dialogue.

My opinions about settings and critters differ, however.  Unless it’s a real world contemporary setting, I do like visual hints.  Did that make sense?  If the book is in a fantasy setting, I want a glimpse.  If an animal or other-worldly creature plays a key role, I’d like a peek at it.  Some of my favorite book covers contained depictions of haunting landscapes and beings.  I’d refer to the cover throughout the reading experience. Those visuals plowed the field of my imagination, making it a fertile ground for the author’s seeds.  Isn’t that what all covers should do?

What do you think?  Should the characters and settings on the covers of books resemble the author’s descriptions?  If so, how closely?  Is the cover part of the reading experience or simply a marketing ploy?