Laziness
Recent events have made us realize that authors plagarize and blatantly lie for their novel more than what we may have previously acknowledged. Sure we realize that these things probably happen, but it’s angering to find out you’ve been duped, and even more frustrating to have paid these people money for this service. As I was taking notes for this weekend’s New to the Scene, I was disheartened to learn that there’s another aspect of re-publishing I had not previously considered.
On the cover of Melvin Burgess’s Doing It, a paperback reprint that was released this past week, the cover depicts a teen couple, poised on a couch, with the guy’s hand hovering just inches above the chic’s knee. With such a striking color scheme and a composition that portrays a scene of eager anticipation, it’s easy to understand why this photo was selected for the cover of a teen novel. However, this same photograph was also used for Steven Herrick’s Love, Ghosts, and Facial Hair.
I wonder: Is this is an act of laziness on the publisher’s part? Does anyone have any knowledge that can help explain this situation? If not, I’ll be going to Book Expo in a few weeks and I’ll make sure to ask someone there.
Feedburner Rss
I don’t have any knowledge about WHY it happened… but my guess is that the publishers used the same source of stock photos to pull book covers for their titles.
I was told last week that the photo used for the cover of Stephanie Meyer’s award-winning Twilight (pale, almost silvery white outstretched arms on a black background, holding a bright red apple), is also on the cover of another novel (don’t remember the title, I hadn’t heard of it — about a student/teacher affair).
Anna - now that you say that — i think the there was an apple on the cover of “teach me” a book about a student-teacher affair.
I LOVE the book “Doing It” and if you haven’t seen the original, hardcover copy, go get it now and look at the cover design, then read it because it’s totally worth it. I was so so so terribly disappointed in the paperback cover b/c I just don’t think it packs a punch, nor represents the story the same way the original cover did. It’s the story of three high school guys who want nothing more than to lose their virginity this year. Without telling you anything else, I can tell you that this book is important b/c of the guy perspective. This new cover makes it more of a “girl cover” and that is so sad. Now, I’m even more depressed b/c the cover image isn’t even unique. I’ve been in the Chi/YA lit field for about 12 years now and I’ve never, ever seen this tremendously stupid move of duplication. And I was so looking forward to getting the paperback for our shelves b/c it looked so shocking and hip before…