The key word there is "representative". Authors can get really bent out of shape about cover art depicting scenes that were never in the book, or that show characters who are the physical opposite of the text description. Thing is, cover art can be wildly divergent from content in some ways while still giving a good idea of what the book is like or about.
And the reverse is also true. The Saturn's Children cover that looks like really bad CGI porn is in fact a very clever and funny description of what the book is about -- but only if you *already* know that the lead character is a sexbot who is bottom of the social pecking order in a post-human society, and that the novel is a pastiche of Robert Heinlein's Friday (and what that means). If you don't know that, it looks like a typical Changeling Press cover, only aimed at the stereotypical male sf fan who can't get laid.
Which is why the general reaction when Charlie first showed a jpeg to his focus group was, "My condolences, dude." It's accurate, but it will nevertheless put off some of the people who would enjoy the book, and attract some buyers who will not be getting what they expected.
no subject
And the reverse is also true. The Saturn's Children cover that looks like really bad CGI porn is in fact a very clever and funny description of what the book is about -- but only if you *already* know that the lead character is a sexbot who is bottom of the social pecking order in a post-human society, and that the novel is a pastiche of Robert Heinlein's Friday (and what that means). If you don't know that, it looks like a typical Changeling Press cover, only aimed at the stereotypical male sf fan who can't get laid.
Which is why the general reaction when Charlie first showed a jpeg to his focus group was, "My condolences, dude." It's accurate, but it will nevertheless put off some of the people who would enjoy the book, and attract some buyers who will not be getting what they expected.