covers,what makes you choose one?

Sorry if this has been discussed before but I'd like to know whether you think a person on a book cover makes the reader choose a book or whether a scene or an abstract has more appeal.
I know someone will say it depends on the book, but some of us avoid certain pictures without knowing why. (I avoid cartoon pink books!)
Publishers must know what sells.
What do you think?
oldstick.

As for myself, I tend to be drawn to covers that have color, nature scenes, realistic houses or scenes, a magic quality, a mysterious look, or castles/archaeological type ruins/Celtic (due to ancestry). I normally do not even pick up books that are solid in color or have writing that is too fancy to read. I also do not like the 'harlequin romance' type covers. If I see those you can bet I will bypass them quicker than any other book. The only reason I have some in my library are due to friends passing them to me.

Until you posed this question, I never really thought about it. I decided to go into my library and just click 'covers'. It was interesting to see what is there.

I'm drawn to books with color or abstract design. I know I'm drawn to the color blue. I tend to bypass books that have a picture of a woman, animals, or cartoon illustration on the cover.

For me, it depends on the subject matter of the book.

- historical fictions: people in period wardrobes or period scenes - helps me quickly decide if it is an era that I am interested in
- short stories: no preference
- contemporary fiction: modern photo of a scene - no people
- anthologies: artwork or abstract designs

Thanks folks,
I was about to put a girl on my next cover but it seems people do not attract readers. I wonder why?
oldstick.

I'd venture to guess most readers like to insert themselves into the scene. That's more difficult to do if there's a person (or several people) on the cover. Messages 2, 3, and 4 fairly sum up what I look for in book covers, except that, unlike #4, I generally do not prefer people on the covers of my books; male or female does not matter. That doesn't mean you won't find books in my library that have people covers. Indeed there are quite a few... If the same book is offered to me both with and without people on the cover, I'll choose the cover with no people.

Covers are not the only criteria by which I choose my books. I read the synopsis on the hardcover flaps or the back cover of a paperback ... or wherever else the publisher has hidden the synopsis. I also have other criteria, but this isn't the place to state them all.

I prefer realistic scenes on the covers of books, preferably with people. I also am okay with cartoony art. Especially when the book content is humorous. I have nothing against pink. Or hearts. But I'm not much into black (unless it's studded with stars) or skulls.

I do not like abstract covers, I do not connect emotionally to them the way I do to representational art, and as a result I find them boring and unhelpful.

I will agree that large blocks of a single color (especially light colors like white or yellow), or abstract covers that don't have a reason to be so, do not catch my eye. I think that the cover and title together should work together to evoke the general mood of the piece. I hate when the author's name is larger than the title of the book.

Consider these covers of Dune by Frank Herbert which, for the uninitated, is a sci-fi book about a desert planet. Dune has had dozens of different covers throughout the years that run the gamut from excellent to crap (including those awful movie tie-in covers - those are always awful):

(http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-media/product-gallery/042507160X/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_1?ie=UTF8&index=1) is the cover I currently have (I don't know how to link to covers directly, so I linked to amazon pages) I love this cover and it's what made me pick up the book when I was a kid. I love the redness of the obvious desert landscape and the solitude of the little people making their way. I also like the way the title imposes from the sky. I think it's very evocative - and, after having read the book, I think it is quite apt.

There is also this cover (http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-media/product-gallery/0399128964/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_1?ie=UTF8&index=1) which I think is also an excellent choice for the novel, but perhaps doesn't explicitly say "sci-fi."

These two, (http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-media/product-gallery/0801950775/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_all) and (http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-media/product-gallery/0425080021/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_all) are ok, but are not powerful enough. The two blue moons are true to the book but it's an inconsequential detail and it makes me feel like the designer only wanted to emphasize the sci-fi-ness of the book rather than the desert shown underneath. The word "dune" doesn't say two blue moons. It says sand.

These aren't terrible, but I probably wouldn't pick up the book:
(http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-media/product-gallery/0450035697/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_2?ie=UTF8&index=2) and (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/2266114034/ref=dp_image_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books) The first is a little cheesy, and I don't know what's up with that disembodied head on the second one.

This one (http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-media/product-gallery/0450011844/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_0?ie=UTF8&index=0) I dislike because of the large author name, and the picture is so small I wonder why they bothered. This is unappealing and also an awful magenta color.

And last, and most definitely least, is this one (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/0441172717/ref=dp_otherviews_0?ie=UTF8&s=books&img=0 ) which is the current cover of the book and all the books in the series have covers like this and they make me want to scream and throw things. Really. I HATE this cover and everything about it. I think it's totally ridiculous and I don't know what the designers are thinking. Who is this supposed to appeal to? A rectangle of sand? What am I supposed to think when I see it? I probably wouldn't even give it a second glance, and if I did it would be due to the title alone. I think this cover encapulates all the things wrong with covers everywhere. The abstract design, the large author name, the color blocks. I think these covers are so bad that my copy of the series is old, battered, and held together only with tape, but I will not buy new ones to replace them if they're going to look like that.

I am curious if I am alone with my emotional responses to these covers.

I agree with your assessment of the Dune covers... and no, I would not buy the book with the current cover either. The awful magenta coloring and small picutre on the 7th cover you commented on just about turns my stomach... I used to own the Dune trilogy, and interestingly enough none of the 8 covers shown here were on my copy of Dune. Mine was a mid '70's printing; which I lost in one or another of my last three or four moves. Unfortunately, those are the ones where nobody has contributed a cover image. :(

That said, If you look hard enough, you might be able to get an older edition that's in better condition than yours, perhaps even with the same cover.

To be honest I rarely look at the cover.

Even brousing in bookshops - nearly all books are spine out, so Title/Author are the key information points. I'll probably then skim the back blurb and maybe start reading the first few pages (chapters if I'm hooked). I can't think of covers I've seen that caused me to buy or not buy a book.

in abstract there are some images I prefer, and some that I don't. But it doesn't interfer with the words.

I am a fantasy buff, and the majority of the covers on my books have pictures of the main character / characters. When buying books, I scour the fantasy shelves and keep an eye out for my favourite authors. I'm wary of authors I haven't read before, but I seem to have exhausted the supply of my favourites, so I usually go by the description on the back cover, if I'm going to buy it. Obviously, the spine design must grab my attention for me to pull it off the shelf for a look.

I've just had a look at my covers, too. I prefer ornate artwork with clean lines; I quite like art nouveau and art deco styles, and dawn colours, which suggest to me hidden mysteries being unveiled. I seem to pick up books which have a frame designed around the picture and / or the title. In fact, I really seem to like my titles being framed! Covers with a point or beam of bright light seem to be another theme - or maybe these are just common to the fantasy genre.

And I usually prefer UK covers to US covers. Without intending to cause offence (but I can't think of another way to put it), the UK editions seem more refined (as in finely drawn). For example, Robert Jordan's The Eye of the World: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/0812511816/sr=1/qid=1273503969/ref=dp_im... and http://astore.amazon.co.uk/books-books-21/images/0356190684 (same picture, different title layout).

I try to avoid very stark images, or plain covers. I don't think I like abstract. Given a choice (for the same book) between scenery or a cover with a person on it, I think it would really depend on the artwork.

But I think the most important thing is the title; when my sister came over, I offered her a book. I had picked up two copies of the same book, at different times, by an author I hadn't read, though I couldn't remember what the book was. When I unearthed it, we both gave an "Ah" of deep understanding - it was The Accidental Sorcerer by K.E. Mills. It just appealed to my quirky sense of humour (although it's still sitting on my TBR pile)

I notice that some people look at covers and others do not. I tend to get 'anal' about a cover if it has too much going on. For instance, if the cover has people I compare them to those in the story and more often than not I find the cover art doesn't match the character description. It tells me that the illustrator either didn't read the book or didn't get a character description before making the cover art. Because I see this being the case more often than not I tend not to like seeing people on the cover, just like 1dragones above pointed out.
So, oldstick, that is part of my reasoning behind not like people on book covers.
Hope it helps.

Looking at my catalog in cover view, I don't see any particular style predominating.

Frankly, I think it's not so much that I am attracted to some styles as that often the style of cover art signals the content.

Certain types of genre fiction - romances, "chick lit" (for want of a better term), fantasy - tend to have similar cover art. So if a book cover has a voluptuous woman in the embrace of a muscular guy with a shirt open to his navel, I probably won't pick it up. Not because there are people on the cover, but because I can be pretty certain that the contents won't appeal to me.

>12 WillowOne: Yes, yes, yes. That is the case for me as well.

While I don't choose a book by cover (I do admit I have been guilty of choosing by title) a good cover does greatly pique my interest when I pull it off the shelf. I should disclose that I consume a large amount of graphic reading material, so I tend to automatically make associations with the cover art.

I think if you are thinking of putting a girl on the cover to your book you should also take into account what she is doing in the picture. I definitely prefer scenes to portraits, though I do like this one a lot and matched my whole set to it: (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/imageviewer.asp?ean=9780689878572) It is a very accurate depiction from the text even down to the tiny details.

I am drawn to Fantasy/SciFi books, and I want to SEE the characters on the cover, especially if there are aliens. I think it adds to the visual descriptions throughout the writing. This, of course, assumes that the cover art represents the actual story within and not just some generic shelf art.

I also look for action in the cover picture to give me some idea about the story. I believe the cover is extremely important, for me anyway, in deciding if I will then read the back cover. Publishers know that the cover art can make or break a book release.

For me, the cover isn't terribly important other than as a genre/subgenre signifier -- I know that except for self-published books (which aren't going to be available for bookstore browsing anyway) the author has no input into what's on the cover.

The worst cases are those where the cover indicates the wrong subgenre, which will alienate potential readers and attract others who will end up not liking the book. One good example of this is the first US cover of McHugh's China Mountain Zhang -- this is thoughtful sociological SF (it won both the Tiptree and the Lambda awards), but that cover shows a man with what looks like a large ray gun. (It's actually an engineering/construction laser). Later covers are much better -- they may not show A Scene From The Book, but they aren't actively misleading.

#15
"I am drawn to Fantasy/SciFi books, and I want to SEE the characters on the cover, especially if there are aliens."

The same for me. I don't like covers, no matter how well done, that have nothing to do with the book's contents. Abstract art covers always makes me think that no one read the book before selecting the cover art. I know this isn't correct, it's just my impression. Biggest pet peeve, the author's name being so huge that it, essentially, is the cover art. For example, this cover of TickTock.

My edits were experiments with Touchstones. I didn't change the contents of my original post.

Wow!

This makes Library thing exciting. Thanks guys.

oldstick.

>17 Sundry: Agreed, covers should reflect the contents of the book, even if apparently by accident.
I remember reading that Tim White's cover for Terry Pratchetts Darkside of the Sun was actually a cover rejected for another book - yet it fits perfectly. http://www.artistsuk.co.uk/acatalog/TIM_WHITE_PRINTS_AND_POSTERS.html

Marion Campbell's The Dark Twin seems largely unknown - I wonder how much this is because of the original cover.
http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/m/naomi-mitchison/dark-twin.htm A friend eventually bought it, because it was the only book left in the bookshop that he hadn't read. We'd both ignored it because of the cover.
When it was eventually reprinted we jointly bought 76 copies for the friends who wanted copies.
The new cover is an improvement, (it could hardly be worse) but I suspect the original cover is the sole reason we don't have more historical fantasy books from her.

ETA hyperlink (and then correct it)

>19 nuatha: Oh dear, that cover really is eye catching. I don't think I'd have the nerve to be seen reading it with that big yellow sticker on it. The two things together say "soft core" to me and I'd have avoided it too.

Maybe this is bad, but I tend to avoid covers that have an endorsement from a television show like Oprah book club or Today Show. I'm not sure why I avoid them, I've read some of their recommended books with out stickers on them and some are good.

#19 & 20
The characters on the cover appear...er...ecstatic. I agree with you, Mvrdrk, the image plus the phrase "adult fantasy" gives the impression of erotica, not historical fantasy. The comparison to Tolkien would seal the deal of my having no interest in reading the book, even if I were looking for erotica.

#21
Maebsly, I don't think it's bad. I do the same thing. A book's front cover is very important turf. Using part of the front cover for that sort of blurb makes me think the book needs to be propped up, first thing, by such an endorsement.

I always choose a book by it's cover. I love the covers that speak to me and make me want to enter into that story's world. I do not like cover with pictures of the author on it. I can't explain this, I don't buy Oprah magazine for this reason either. When I am doing displays at work I am much more likely to choose Hildrebrand books over Evanovich books simply because of the covers. It must seem wierd, but I definately do judge a book by it's cover. I am a voracious reader and choose all my books that way. Of course I have been disappointed when the cover does not represent the story, but more times than not, I have been pleased.

I never choose a book by its cover. I look at the Author's name to see if I have read other works. If I like the authors style (some I just can't connect with) I will read the back cover description.
If I don't recognize the author, I will usually read the back cover description.
It takes me a long time to shop for books so I like to go to small book stores or places with a coffee shop near by (or in the store) so I can have a Tea and rest up.

Pictures of the subject matter will catch my eye

Dragons for fantasy

Damsels nearly falling out of their clothes in the arms of a hunky rogue for a historical romance

scenes, for a mystery novel, I don't care for blood
thats my take

also The Authors name large and if its part of a series, what number it is

Personally, I think illustrated covers of people is way too common, whether Sci/Fi, fantasy, romance or historical. After a while they all tend to look alike that my eye wanders toward something else. As such, I avoided them when choosing the cover for my YA fantasy. I stuck with the classic look.

There are certain colors that stand out - red for example. It is an eye-catching color and I utilized it.

The object of the cover is to catch the eye, since it's the first thing the reader sees on the shelf. It goes by the same principle of 'you only get one chance to make a first impression' so whatever cover is chosen by the author or publisher should be the best in representing the book.

As a volunteer librarian, I can help with a few pointers!

First things first - book covers and designs are the product of a specific time/era. As a charity library in a rural setting, with an ageing population, there were some noticeable changes those last 30 years, especially when I recently sorted the books to be withdrawn to make space for new collections; the 1980s books covers were mostly romance settings, foggy pictures, pastel colours, some classics (but few) and Colleen McCullough/Daniele Steel covers (Dynasty - rich and famous covers) from book clubs.

In the nineties, the designs were in complete opposite to the 80's - more sobriety, new types of 'noir' thrillers, novellas, philosophical essays, new writers and new, more minimalistic designs on the covers. These were also in glossy, strong softcovers, rather than hardbacks (easier to hold and read).

Up to now, the designs that work the most with people are minimalist (i.e. blended transparent backgrounds with sharp, foreground single 'mysterious' image, that relates to the plot of the book somehow) whilst retaining a few codes - black/dark for thrillers, CSI, Cornwell (Andrea Japp being the most popular author of the moment in France), rural pictures for rural historical romances, historical images for historical fiction, or a picture with a specific, strong, eye-catching colour (as in Claudie Gallay's Les déferlantes' - wholly blue with a lighthouse to suggest Brittany and the ocean).

All this to say that, yes, people mostly choose a book based on its cover, which can be difficult for budding authors, as getting the design right by a professionnal can be expensive.
Quite a few times I have taken some 'old' books that were not taken out at all, and there is no way people will pick them, as they already look old and tatty to them, regardless of the storyline. This is why the cover design (and a catchy summary of the plot) can reach the reading population more. And in the end, popularity may come quicker than with a faulty design.