[LMB] Was OT: Bad Covers for Classic Books, Now Miles Errant
matt.msg at gmail.com
Fri Apr 12 22:44:54 BST 2013
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Elizabeth Holden <azurite at rogers.com> wrote:
> Well, presumably. But why assume that ugly, bland, sexist covers are
> more likely to catch the eye than attractive, intriguing ones?
If they thought they could get away with it, they'd have covers with
nothing but topless women. The lesser romances already have topless (and
rather improbably muscular) men.
If I had to guess, I'd say that dignified and attractive art doesn't sell
books. Vulgar trash, however, seems to be highly effective.
More information about the Lois-Bujold