From: Raymond E. Feist
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997
You're making assumptions about what is "good" and "bad" in the wrong context. The purpose of a cover is to get the book noticed. If it's a great piece of art that doesn't make someone stop and look at the book--no matter how wonderful the art is if you pause to look at it--it's a crappy cover. So, the object of the exercise is to get someone to notice the book and pick it up. I've seen some brilliant illustrations that don't make people notice the book. If you point out the book cover to someone they might say, "Wow, neat art," but they didn't notice it until you pointed it out, that's a lousy cover, no matter how great the art. Is that clear?
From: Raymond E. Feist
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 1997
Subject: Re: cover art for RoDK on paperback
Every publisher has their own art department and makes their own decisions for marketing reasons, not artistic ones. A great painting doesn't always make a great cover. Conversely, a great cover may be actually a crappy illustration. RoaDK was a classic of a package that wasn't great "art," but was a hell of a good cover; it sold 70,000 copies..
FAQ answers attributed to Raymond E. Feist are copyright by Raymond E. Feist.
It should also be born in mind that the answer given was only applicable on the date written, and to a specific question. You may find further, similar questions, in the FAQ.
