[LMB] Was OT: Bad Covers for Classic Books, Now Miles Errant

Matthew George 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.

Matt G.


More information about the Lois-Bujold mailing list