i like the new cover – more representative of whats inside, imho.

Book covers. Giving all our energy to the text pillowed between the covers, and then having a publisher assert final rights on the cover to represent our work? That has never seemed quite ethical, to me. But then, we are ‘only’ the writer … we write the text which raises income for the publisher who, with our agent, deducts their ‘fair share’ of our monetary reward. Why do we write, again? Because WE HAVE TO. There is some imperative within us to sculpt thought into words and pages. But the cover of our work still matters to us! We own it as much as we do the words within.

I once (once – lesson learned thereafter) commissioned an artist to create a full-colour pen and ink cover for one of my books. The artist worked to a strict deadline and yet produced a beautiful and relevant cover. The publisher subsequently decided there would be no merit (nor additional income for them?) in reproducing the cover in full colour. Not only did they decide that, but they transformed the entire feel of the book by reproducing the art work in a terracotta colour placed atop a bright turquoise cover. It was hideous, and I felt very differently about the published work – not just the cover. I also felt angry on behalf of the artist, and powerless in my interactions with the publisher.

Benoit, I like both covers of ‘American Voyeur.’ The hardback cover instantly ‘describes’ the book; whilst the paperback cover implies the secretiveness of the topic discussed. In some way the paperback cover acknowleges your status as a writer – not ‘just’ a hardback apprentice, but a here-to-stay author.
My suggestion: put aside your ponderings about the two distinct covers; and know they both validate you as an author and accurately hint at the work within.

Tracey