Drawing & Covers

I've been spending a lot of time recently looking into getting art done for Batter's Box, my debut novel, which I'll be publishing sometime later this year. "Don't judge a book by its cover" is one of those pieces of advice that's more aspirational than realistic. You can have a great blurb, a great premise, and a great hook, and still, some won't be able to overlook the cover. Some won't even click through to see those pieces of supposed greatness if the cover doesn't speak to them. We all know this. We all do this. When I'm scrolling to find a movie to watch while exercising, if I don't like the screen grab or poster, I'll move past it, even if the title is intriguing.

So covers are important. This isn't a grand revelation. But they're important.

For my poetry, I've been leaning into the sorts of things I want. Poetry is a niche genre in the first place. So I make art. For butterfly snuff, I made a mock-up in Canva and then went into Gimp to paint it in a semi-watercolor style. For A Museum of Art and Eggs, I had myself a photoshoot, took a couple of my ink drawings, and added those to a photo of an art museum. For A Cascade of Platitudes, I made a vague copy of Duqueylard's Orpheus in Krita, played around with colors, and attempted to add a rain effect (for the cascade of it all). These are a bit indulgent, and I admit they aren't the most professional or appealing, but they're artistically satisfying for a niche that's notoriously hard to make a living in.

For my annotated plays, I wanted to emulate the style of acting editions - simple, one major color, a primary focus on the title - while also adding my own style. In Canva, I found a criss-crossing circle pattern that matches my general vibe of chaos. The interconnectedness, in my mind, also pays tribute to the nature of annotating. So far, I've added one additional element to each cover. Perhaps that's a mistake. Or perhaps the circle is. These are less "satisfying" to make, yet they feel coherent, and it is easy to keep this cohesion. When you see a cover in that style in my backlog or my latest updates, you know at a glance that it's of the same type. There is value in this.

I do not think I can go with either option - indulgence or ease - with the covers for my novels. There are genre conventions to follow. Trends to chase, as awful as that idea is. Batter's Box is genre romance. How do we convey that? Well, there are two wide trends: shirtless men looking hot (nice) or flat illustrations that look vaguely cartoony.

Hot guys are always welcome in my world, of course. I am a gay man of simple pleasures. Yet I'm also aware these covers embarrass some readers. Who wants to be caught on the train reading a book whose cover screams "THIS IS SMUTTY!!!!!"? Actually, I can think of quite a few people, but still.

The safer route, then, is the flat illustration world. There's plenty of discourse about this trend. A bunch of people despise it. A bunch of people love it. The relative lack of details and realism makes it easier for some to project the cover models onto their imaginations of the characters or to ignore them entirely. It's a bit easier to make sure the art matches the descriptions. You can look at someone reading a book with a cover like that and not reach a conclusion about how filthy its contents are. It's safer.

There are some aspects of this trend that I like. There's often a minimalist quality to it, especially in the background art. I like minimalism. Perhaps this is because my own artistic senses tend toward maximalism (though, when directing, few things make me happy as a set composed entirely of rehearsal blocks).

Unfortunately, I'm not particularly a fan of what these flat characters tend to look like. This isn't an attack on any artist's skill. I don't think they're poorly made. There's simply something about them that doesn't speak to me. Perhaps it's because I've spent many a year reading manga, and so there's a general, line-heavy style I prefer. Flat illustrations are often unlined, the edges defined purely by the barriers of color. Perhaps my colorblindness gets in the way here.

Stubbornly, then, I want to be able to do this on my own. I want to take ink to page and draw a cover I enjoy that's mostly in line with convention but still satisfies my personal tastes. I've found some reference images that get at the poses I want. I've been attempting.

Alas, it turns out I've gotten rather rusty over the years. I don't draw nearly as often as I used to. I spent an hour or so last night drawing eyes from a reference page. Reddit threads said slowly getting your wrist used to the movements again will help you return to your former glory. As well, if you draw things that don't need to be anything, sketches you have little interest in, things that have no need to be shown or to be good, it eases the burden on your brain. You can get out the bad lines and the good lines alike. You practice. You move on. You practice more. This is good. My wrist got sore.

I'm unsure if I'll be able to draw the cover I imagine. The smart thing to do will be to craft a rough mock-up that I can hand to an artist who will then craft a respectable version with their own twist. This is the responsible thing to do. People judge a book by its cover, so the book deserves a good cover. My wallet would appreciate a good color that excites an audience.

For now, I shall continue to draw. Perhaps I will never get to the points where my art graces the front of my novels. Perhaps it shall be contained to the page, to social media, and to my poetry collections. It's good to draw though. It's good to draw.

Anyway, anyone have any good recommendations for cover artists interested in m/m romance, especially those who may want to cultivate a long-term relationship with an author? I'll have some horror and fantasy to draw for as well. As long as we don't dive into... ugh... AI art. Gross.