Pixels, not Pencils?

How'd we miss this? On Wednesday The Guardian UK ran Lionel Shriver's infuriating diatribe on "vapid" computer-generated book covers. While we're not familiar with the author's work, we've decided to pre-judge and say that we pretty much hate her already. Especially for lines such as these:

Oh BULLY for you. What the fug kind of a girl's name is Lionel, anyway?

As luck would have it, there's a heated argument going on in the comments section of this article. One made us very happy:

"The thing that makes a book designers life a living hell is authors thinking they can do our job for us. Most times you will find that the author and publisher have in fact not briefed the designer properly. They will not have passed on the message that the author feels strongly about having an 'illustrated' cover."

Preach!

When we worked in publishing, the in-house designers at our company slaved nights, weekends, and many over-time hours to please authors who, upon suddenly growing massive, canyon-sized egos due to the fact that they were about to become "published," thought it appropriate to dictate to a professional how a marketable book should look. Sometimes, like old lady Shriver here, they'd even draw their own covers and submit them for approval. NO. No, no, no.

MEMORANDUM: To any author (seasoned, newbie, or otherwise) about to enter the marketing/publicity process: Kindly trash your romantic notions about delicate, Henri Rousseau-inspired watercolor paintings as dust jackets--along with your dreams of having Oprah shout in your ear about your overpowering narrative skill on Book Club Day. People don't want to buy novels with covers that closely resemble the ugly-ass free art calendar their grandmother gave them for Christmas. We don't, at any rate. Happy Friday!

Love and other indoor sports,
Word Up