I am sure this has come up before, since it is obvious, but I am fishing here for current opinion.
The Alvin Maker books have some interesting covers that at least have some small degree of relevance to the stories.
However the Ender books have cover art that has nothing to do with anything as nearly as I can tell. Why go that way? I avoided the books for years because the generic nature of the artwork suggested that it was just "stock" Sci-fi and not an attempt to do anything new or interesting.
Judging a book by its cover is not something to be proud of, however judging the cover after reading the book I was struck by its complete dissociation and meaninglessness.
Why not find and interesting image in the story and capture it, rather then use the book as a place to display some artists random work?
BC
Posted by gwan (Member # 6194) on :
Personally I hate the Alvin maker covers, I think it dull your imagination to see portrayals of what the character supposedly looks like. I prefer the generic ender's game covers, just because the readers imagination is absolutley free, with no preconcieved notions of what the character is supposed to look lie. I think that red prophet is a really good example of this because, in my mind Tenskwa-tawa looks nothing like that. Its not even consistant to the discription in the book, the book discribes him as having a mohawk, yet the cover shows him with long lucious hair. Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
While I was reading Heartfire, I was asked "Why are you reading a romance novel" about 6 times.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
OSC has said that it's because the author has little to no say (depending on his previous success) in what art is on the cover, and when the cover art represents anything that happens within he counts himself lucky.
Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
Also OSC has stated before that he dislikes having characters on his covers
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)