I'm a member of a closed group for writers on Facebook. A few days ago, another member boasted that - after no sales on Amazon - he changed the title, author's name, and cover image of his e-book and it started selling.
I've just posted the following comment (I can't separate paragraphs in Facebook comments):
"So, you feel that it's perfectly alright to use a "sexy" image of a headless woman (like a piece of meat) to sell your book. +++ 380 members of Russia's parliament feel that it's perfectly alright for men to beat their wives. They've just decriminalised wife-beating (the vote was 380-3!!!) +++ Thousands of Spanish men feel that it's perfectly alright to kill women with whom they have personal problems. (There's a Spanish saying: "I killed her because she was mine.") So far this year (as of 20th Feb.), 11 of them have carried through. +++ Donald Trump feels that it's perfectly alright - FOR HIM - to make a grab at any woman's genitals. *** Just 4 points on the nasty, sleazy spectrum of misogyny. At least now I'll know to avoid any books by Scott Butcher / Tabitha Scott. But don't worry! You'll get the readers that you deserve."
What do the rest of you think? Is everything permissible to get people to buy your book?
POOR Mr. Hopkins! Are the nasty radical feminists having a go at you? Would you like a witch to fly to your rescue? Sorry: I’m afraid that I side with them.
In fact, I think that it’s a rather shabby tactic to imply that principled people who are passionate about a subject of global significance are murdering “rational discussion”.
Just as it’s a shabby (and very effective) tactic of the Israeli gov’t and its completely uncritical supporters to accuse those who support Palestinian rights of being “anti-Semitic”, “Nazis”, and “pro-terrorist”.
The Bush Administration silenced for FAR too long liberal journalists who had qualms about its totally unjustified attacks on Afghan and Iraqi civilians by throwing around terms like “unpatriotic”, “anti-American”, and “traitorous”.
Words CAN be a powerful weapon: for good or for evil. Any writer should be well aware of the fact… and choose her words carefully.
Apologies for the interruption... and the sloppiness of that last sentence. Both were results of using a library computer and being warned that I only had 4 minutes left before everything disappeared.
So, edit: Cover art that promises great things of a novel that doesn't deliver the goods.
Kurt Vonnegut, jr. lampooned the first facet. His fictional science-fiction writer, Kilgore Trout, could only get many of his stories sold as the literary filling-material for pornagraphic paperbacks of cheap, grainy photos. Interesting plots and thought-provoking surmisings would have "WIDE OPEN BEAVERS INSIDE!!!" splashed across the covers.
Does this illustrate the 2nd facet as well? At least one irate puchaser wrote a nasty complaint letter to Trout, bemoaning the fact that the story hadn't been as prurient as he had been led to believe.
Back to Adrian:
In this world of seemingly arbitrary decisions by literary agents and publishers, certainly of decisions based solely on "Can we make a profit out of this?", I see NOTHING wrong with "Get[ting] family, friends and associates to give it rave reviews".
I have seen rave reviews by professionals which were completely misleading, especially of "humorous" books that don't make anybody with a real sense of humour laugh ONCE: "A chuckle on every line, a belly-laugh on every page!" A belly-ache more like. Were these professionals treated to free lunches? What, then, is so bad about getting your gran to rave about your book? Unless she never read it and you fed the review to her...
Having concentrated on Mr. Hopkins' appalling apologism of misogyny as a valid PoV, I have neglected to reply to Adrian Sroka.
Adrian, I would agree with most of your reply. How many times have I seen book cover "art" which had absolutely NOTHING to do with the contents of the book?! Extremely annoying. The practice falls into 2 basic categories: Excellent books with covers that shame them. Science fiction publishers are often sinners here. A lot of science fiction is dross. But there are some absolute gems among that dross. And to give a book that deals profoundly with the social/philosophical/cultural implications of 2 alien races meeting for the first time a cover of some futuristic building and vehicles, mutated human/androids which don't make an appearance may put people off an intelligent delight.
The other facet are books that promise great things for a novel that is godawful.