Why don't authors try to make book covers as memorable and

>>9280840
>vidya box art
>box
what year is this

>>9280840
They are getting there. I guess is only matter of time they realize people will buy books for the art.

>>9280840
Agreed, they should make trailers for books too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLoNznxcjDc

Authors have no say on their book covers, most of the time. Blame the publishers.

>>9280840
Book covers are commoditized at this point. You get a close-up image of a prosaic item vaguely relevant to the story or, if you're lucky, a person facing away from the reader over a doodled background.

File: 58caedd5506c2ad6680a9d496205ce87.jpg (28KB, 298x524px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 298x524px

Then don't be a faggot and start posting some God-tier covers.

File: american-psycho-book-cover.jpg (279KB, 744x1138px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 744x1138px

>>9284105

File: solaris.jpg (209KB, 351x532px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 351x532px

>>9284108

File: moby-dick-cover.jpg (55KB, 399x600px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 399x600px

>>9284117
Penguin has some good covers.

File: The Sea Wolf.png (382KB, 500x775px) Image search: [Google]

382KB, 500x775px

>>9284129
agreed

>>9280840
>Why don't authors try
Because their medium is text, not visual art.

Women make up the biggest demographic for books in general, so the covers are geared towards them. Specifically, middle aged suburban white women read a staggering amount of books, which is why you get the saccharine flowery shit. Authors have no say in this matter.

>>9284129
Penguin has good art, but they kind of ruin it with the completely black spines and black borders to the art. It doesn't look like a book cover should.

>>9280840
Traditionally published author's really don't get a choice, or its very rare that they do.

Self-published authors are usually to pleb to make a decent cover so they make the most generic ones they can.

File: 1485394070428.jpg (271KB, 1165x1749px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 1165x1749px

>>9280840