|
|
Post by ruthmadison on Jun 27, 2012 9:57:47 GMT -5
I made a big decision last week. Since I'm starting this new company, I want its books to be the very, very best that they can be.
I'm going to re-release (W)hole and Breath(e) under that imprint. Both are being proofread and having new covers designed by a professional.
BUT, based on some of the reviews and some comments from friends here, I'm going to be changing (W)hole and putting it out as a second edition.
I'm adding more from Stewart's point of view so that the switch to him narrating half way through is not so abrupt and also because Stewart is the real reason to fall in love with that book, so more Stewart can only be a good thing!
I hope that I can take this opportunity to smooth out some of the issues with (W)hole and bring it up to my current standards with my writing.
For you, my friends, I will try to find a way to offer a coupon to get a free copy of the new version!
|
|
|
|
Post by dolly on Jun 27, 2012 10:12:38 GMT -5
cool.  fwiw... i thought the cover of (w)hole was by far your best cover. i might kern/tighten the type but otherwise it looks clean, professional and modern. if it were me, i might keep it and use it as a style template for the others. |
|
|
|
Post by Ximena on Jun 27, 2012 10:15:01 GMT -5
Very excited about this. One of my chief criticisms of (W)hole was the abrupt shift to Stewart's POV, even though I really enjoyed those scenes.
I look forward to seeing the reworked version!
|
|
|
|
Post by ruthmadison on Jun 27, 2012 10:23:18 GMT -5
I do like the cover on(W)hole, but I wanted to try something new, freshen it up. What I've done is hired a pro to do the e-covers and then I'm going to leave the print cover as it is now.
I'll get to see what affect a pro cover has on it. Should be interesting.
(I totally tried to imitate the style of (W)hole to do Breath(e) and failed miserably! lol.)
|
|
|
|
Post by ruthmadison on Jun 28, 2012 13:16:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Ximena on Jun 28, 2012 13:34:57 GMT -5
Nice! I love the fonts.
|
|
|
|
Post by devogirl on Jun 28, 2012 22:39:44 GMT -5
Oh no, Ruth! I'm sorry to be critical, but I really don't like the new covers. Like Dolly said, the cover of (W)hole was great! The one word title, the stark photo of a wheelchair, it was so perfect and really fit the story. I also liked the crutches photo on the second book. Why did you change it to just a photo of some random girl? I hate her "little girl lost" expression, it doesn't fit the character or mood of the book at all. But more importantly, these are supposed to be launching an out-and-proud dev imprint, right? Why did you get rid of the wheelchair and crutches? Nothing about those covers says DEV to me. It's like romance novels that try to hide the disability on the cover with a generic image. Please, please reconsider. I know you want to change the covers for the new edition, but it's a mistake to erase any sign of disability.
|
|
|
|
Post by Emma on Jun 29, 2012 0:07:22 GMT -5
I'm sorry too Ruth but I agree with DG about the new covers. I really loved the (W)hole cover and liked that you could tell from the cover alone that it wasn't just another hospital wheelchair story. I know they are your books and your publishing company so we shouldn't really say anything but I thought you'd like to know.
|
|
|
|
Post by dolly on Jun 29, 2012 1:32:14 GMT -5
i agree with what devogirl (and emma) said. i don't mean to be critical, but a cover is the "face" of a book and those covers don't do *anything* to make me want to read them. are you aiming these books at the dev community? or are you trying to appeal to the non-dev masses? as much as i prefer these covers to the illustrations you were using, it sort of feels like the designer was attempting to lure non-dev tweens to the book under the guise of it being a standard teenage romance novel. like devogirl, i was under the impression that these new covers were part of the launch of a new dev-oriented publishing company. the covers are decidedly completely un-devish and the girl looks unempowered and not like someone i could particularly relate to. i'm not a big fan of all-caps fonts, but the font itself is nice and clean. however, the smudgy-shadowy effect makes the title look kind of muddy. but i guess they were going for a 'wistful' look?  the original cover was classy, clean, uncluttered, confident and gave a sense of dev-empowerment and made a statement. it also looked like an adult book. i loved it. i think breath(e) would have looked great with a simple pair of forearm crutches replacing the wheelchair, with maybe a different font colour. (if you were looking to make the covers more "beach friendly", something like an artistically shot, slightly blurry closeup photo of a front caster or crutch tip as a subtle background image might also work.) my thoughts are offered in the spirit of helpfulness. it's your book! i have previous experience in the design field so maybe i am overly sensitive to these things... all that being said, i'm very much looking forward to reading the new edition.  |
|
|
|
Post by Pisti on Jun 29, 2012 5:09:32 GMT -5
I prefer the old covers, too.  |
|
|
|
Post by ruthmadison on Jun 29, 2012 7:00:03 GMT -5
Well, I wasn't really planning to do "out and proud dev" despite the name. I want to get the books in front of a wider audience and not make people feel like they have to be a dev to enjoy them.
I really love the vulnerable expression. These covers are more coming-of-age/young adult and I've always felt that was the correct classification for them. They are definitely covers that would make *me* pick up the book to look at more closely! I talked very closely with the designer about what the books are about and I never specified not to make the disability aspect clear, but this is what he came up with (I may have scared him a bit by warning him not to use ugly wheelchairs).
I value all your opinions, though.
Here's the fact. I paid a lot of money (for me) for these covers, so I'm going to give them a chance.
The beauty of ePublishing is that nothing is make or break. If the books don't perform well with the new covers, I can always go back and do my own thing. I need to test out some things to see what works. If I get angry reviews about the books not being what people thought, then I'll know! lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ximena on Jun 29, 2012 7:31:46 GMT -5
I definitely see everyone's point - as a dev specifically these wouldn't necessarily catch my eye just from the covers. But if you're a person looking for a romance story you might be more tempted to take a second look. I think it'd be great to find a wider audience for not just Ruth's books but all the books published under Dev Love Press. There's a book I just purchased (haven't read more than the first chapter yet) that I think both Ruth and DG reviewed on Amazon that is basically a love story between a dev and a para - but you would never know that from the fairly "traditional" cover. It was published by Random House - so they probably saw it as just another romance with just a "twist." I would love to be able to get even non-devs reading books like Ruths' and others published under Dev Love Press because even if they don't have "dev" feelings for the characters, hopefully they can still enjoy the books and realize 1) devs aren't all weirdos as they're stereotyped as being (thanks weird male devs) and 2) just because you have a disability doesn't mean you can't be sexual/have relationships - bc I think that surprises way too many people. And, as Ruth puts it, if these covers hurt the book, she can easily go back to the old covers. |
|
|
|
Post by devogirl on Jun 29, 2012 7:50:09 GMT -5
There's a book I just purchased (haven't read more than the first chapter yet) that I think both Ruth and DG reviewed on Amazon that is basically a love story between a dev and a para - but you would never know that from the fairly "traditional" cover. It was published by Random House - so they probably saw it as just another romance with just a "twist." Wait, what? Title, please! That doesn't sound familiar at all, now I am curious. I get where you're coming from about appealing to a wide audience, but to me it seems like taking the wheelchair off the cover is like admitting that a general readership would be turned off by that. I hate hate hate those romances that try to hide the disability not only on the front cover but also in the synopsis on the back, as if they can trick a non-dev reader into picking it up. But it just makes it harder for those of us looking for a disabled character to find it. You already said you want some disability photos for the website, and not just generic flowers, so why not on the books themselves? Why not be out and proud? Isn't that what you've been doing with your blog and videos? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2012 8:45:47 GMT -5
I, too, feel like the books should get non dev audience. I don't think it's a matter of hiding, not using a chair or crutches, but more like marketing. "hey, there's this book, check it out if you like the plot'. think about it as educating the audience. some people might run away from such a forward message becauze of all the stereotypes, without even giving the book a chance. a wheelchair is a negative sight for the rest. so, once the reader will be hooked, she might even change the way she sees people with disabilities. Again, think of it as educating the masses  sorry for any typos, i'm on my phone and it hates me today |
|
|
|
Post by Ximena on Jun 29, 2012 9:12:23 GMT -5
Sorry, DG! I can't think of it off the top of my head... I'll update once I have my kindle in front of me to let you know. I know the author is British.
I also don't think it's like she's trying to "hide" it - because the description is still there I think, right? I think it's more like what Crista says.
|
|
