I've been reading with interest about publishers and the covers they choose for books. Now, I have to say that covers play a VERY important role in my choice of books I'll pick up and read, and I can tell you, there are some ugly covers out there that are always overlooked because of it. For instance, Siberia by Ann Halam (which is actually a GREAT read!) has been hanging out on displays for about two weeks but people consistently overlook it because, face it...it has an ugly cover. Same could be said for Kissing the Bee by Kathe Koja - excellent read about friendship triangles, but the cover...doesn't make me want to pick up the book at all...I even booktalked this heavily and created a booktrailer for it, but very few takers.
But think about that for a sec - one of the most compelling and verifiably eye-catching bookcovers out there is Monstrumologist by Rick Yancy. That is the entire reason why I picked it up, but the story really hasn't drawn me in or held my interest. So, when we start to question the validity of quality of a YA book, does it start with the cover first? Are those the ones that reviewers pick out of their boxes of ARCs from publishers and go, "Oooohhh!! Aaaahhh!! Can't wait to read this -IT LOOKS GOOD!" thus already judging this book?
And always interesting to look at is when the paperback version comes out and the cover has changed to something more interesting than the previous one. Same goes for the good old classics. The only classic I know that hasn't changed with the times is the iconic Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger.
Just some thoughts....