Well, I don’t.  Consider the trade paperback releases of Joe Abercrombie’s two latest novels, Best Served Cold and The Heroes.

These almost work for me, because they obviously spent time and effort composing the photographs: they chose the right models, selected high quality props and costumes, and most importantly shot them in an interesting, artistic way.  They also used a typeface that is large enough, gritty enough, and bold enough to make the cover feel edgy instead of just tacky.  The typeface takes up such a substantial portion of the cover that it makes the cover as a whole feel more designer and less B-movie.  They’re certainly a step above the tried and true approach of your typical urban fantasy or low-budget epic fantasy, where they dress up a hot girl in a bunch of leather, give her a cheap, decorative sword to hold, and then fiddle with it in Photoshop so it has a red haze or a bunch of creepy shadows obscuring the obvious crappiness of the work (or unimaginative composition and dumb churning water, like the Sam Sykes cover to the right).  Aidan over at A Dribble of Ink seems to have similar thoughts (and a commenter noted that they look like movie posters, which they do).  If you’re going to do a composed, cosplay, photoshopped cover, this is the way to do it.

Note that I said they almost work for me.  Because ultimately, this is romance novel stuff of the worst kind.  All of it.  I used to think I understood the reasoning behind it.  I used to think it had to do with cost: it seemed reasonable that hiring a professional artist to produce an original piece of artwork (a painting, for example) was more expensive than photoshopping a picture of a girl in a leather corset.  I’m certain that’s still true.  But the practice of using composed photography is common enough now that, at least in some cases, it’s clearly on purpose, rather than by necessity.

Joe Abercrombie’s a good example.  This guy isn’t successful enough yet to warrant spending money for an actual painting?  I find that hard to believe.  What seems more likely is that is that, in their infinite wisdom, his publishers decided that his work was more chick-in-leather than Michael-Whelan-painting.  This is a fairly recent development, too, because the original releases of his First Law trilogy featured some creatively low-budget graphic design.  The more recent editions of his books have cover art that speaks more to the Laurell K. Hamilton set than to epic fantasy fans, however.

Which is not to say that all original art is good original art: some artists in particular leave a lot to be desired, and most of the fantasy art out there is old-fashioned and undeniably cliche.  But for my money, you can do infinitely more with typeface, color, and a good graphic designer than you can with a camera if budget is your concern.  I realize that I’m probably in the minority here; presumably there’s marketing research behind this particular publishing industry aesthetic; presumably they’re pushing this crap because it sells books.  That doesn’t mean I have to like it.

Not everyone can have Lev Grossman’s covers, after all (particularly the UK versions — you’ll have to Google them though, because I’m too lazy to post any more images here).

Let this be a notice to speculative fiction publishers, however: every time you put a model in a bunch of cheap catalog costume gear and snap a photo of them rather than come up with an actual design for a cover, you will drive me (and those like me) away.  Because I have an actual aversion to it.  Revulsion, in fact.  Real faces looking out at me from a fantasy book cover (I don’t even like movie tie-in covers, in fact, though I concede their relevance and effectiveness) makes me feel like I’m reaching for the kind of book that middle-aged administrative assistants put in cute cloth book covers to read on the train.  Not something mysterious, edgy, dark, or interesting.  Certainly not something terribly intelligent.  Which is a disservice to both the writer and the reader, ultimately, marketing be damned.