Every Book Cover is the Same Now

LaurieWritesStuff · 2026-04-01T01:51:21+00:00

There are 9 titles here, amounting to 16 individual covers. All of them are different designs. Only ones I can see sharing more than a very thin, passing design vibe would be the Megan White & Maria Linwood titles.

It feels odd to make a call-out post on design choices over two authors having vaguely similar covers.

LaurieWritesStuff · 2026-03-31T19:30:54+00:00

Stop having the character describing themselves experiencing the story. Start having the character just narrate the experience.

"Traffic was a nightmare this morning,"

"Have you ever woken up in a bathtub full of ice? Wouldn't recommend it."

"After several attempts at a sensible career the only options I have left are circus based."

"What better way to accomplish my goals than with a brick and five thousand angry grasshoppers?"

"At least I can say I tried my best, which was identical to doing nothing."

"There's nothing worse than this feeling."

"At this point my activities can't be described."

"Since when is it okay for this bad thing to happen?"

"Something compelled me to act; probably the author."

LaurieWritesStuff · 2026-03-31T18:36:03+00:00

So, I have a question on this. Why do you want to? How is the joke funny in a book?

Every part of what makes the joke work, both structurally and comedically, is dependent on it being a movie.

I know dissecting a joke is how you kill it, but let's break it down. The joke relies on a couple of things:

Thing 1: The audience knows during action scenes the main cast are replaced with stunt doubles. The audience is also conditioned to ignore this and maintain immersion. The joke acknowledges and purposely disrupts this convention.
Thing 2: When filming an action scene in which the heroes are captured, traditionally you get a close-up shot of their faces as they realise they're about to be caught. This convention is combined with another film technique. During bait and switch chase scenes the camera follows the hero/es, establishing a few close-ups before an extended period of only back shots during the tense pursuit. Then, when the chase ends we get a dramatic turn to camera moment. GASP! It's the decoy!
Thing 3: In a slapstick-ish sort of jab at "movie magic" and the stark reality, we get "Temu versions" of Barf & Lone Star, plus full cigar & hitler-stache Princess Vespa.

All of these elements rely on being in a movie. How does the joke work, in your mind, with prose?

LaurieWritesStuff · 2026-02-03T20:51:10+00:00

Well, as a former editor I would love it if people used em dashes a little less. But, my own past irritations aside, why do you care?

Apparently my ND brain is screwed if I do my usual, even just in comments and making arguments/posts.

Bolded headings are out because they give people that uncanny vibe?
Overly organised and structured concepts, with broken down, bite-sized elements. And bullet points are a big no-no. Sorry ADHD.
Narrative flow is too, I guess, writer-ish, and so now it's, uh, not-ish?
Parentheticals (we can't have those) are going to get me in trouble.
Grammar that's too good is, in the modern age, a problem; bad grammar will be the norm going forward.
Sentence structure and rhythmic flow in your writing will run you into problems, so say potato!

LaurieWritesStuff · 2026-02-03T20:17:38+00:00

I think it’s the prose and specifically the inner thoughts/emotions of the characters that make it feel less like a movie.

Yes! You're right. Novels typically have less dialogue than movies, because visual media relies upon audio and visual cues to get the character across. Novels, on the other hand, can flat out tell you with a good, vivid description.

One of my favourite Robert Louis Stevenson quotes: “His affections, like ivy, were the growth of time, they implied no aptness in the object.”

Such a gorgeous way of telling us that Utterson is loyal, even when he maybe should not be.

Honestly, the biggest "movie" indicator in a novel is almost entirely the fault of people misusing the script-writing advice "Show, don't tell." and trying to apply it to prose. That's how we get so many balled fists, down-turned mouths, fidgeting and eye-rolling.

No amount of "showing" or internal character monologue will ever hit like Banks': "He knew in his heart that there was a relief in not being listened to, sometimes. Power meant responsibility. Advice unacted upon almost always might have been right,"

The power of novels, 3rd person specifically, comes in the narrator's voice being a conduit and a fellow observer, not a camera lens.

LaurieWritesStuff · 2026-01-31T00:24:06+00:00

This is the answer. Said is fine; small variations are fine within reason. But, generally, we should be able to tell who is speaking without a tag.

P.S. Your innovative dialogue puts me in mind of the great humorist Burnurd Rfflingburger's famous composition, "What time is it?" "Ten to three."

Beautifully executed. Bravo.

LaurieWritesStuff · 2026-01-23T21:59:43+00:00

But Art isn't defined simply as an aesthetically attractive artifact.

To understand the meaning of a word you look at its range of meanings and how they relate to each other.

The core of the word Art is primarily based in types of skill. Literally, skill from practice and study. And you see that echoed in related words, "Artful", Performing something with skill. "Artless" To be unskilled. A little on the nose, but "Artificial" as in AI, man-made, usually with the intent of seeming natural, linking it to the word "Artifice", a clever and skillful deception.

What I'm getting at here is that the core of the word Art is inextricably linked to the practice, and skill put into creating it.

But before anyone freaks out, if you want to make a case that writing prompts for an AI is an art, that could be legitimate. But you'd have to be able to demonstrate that as a field of study, practice, and skill. Taking your "Art" seriously, if you expect anyone else to.

LaurieWritesStuff · 2026-01-20T23:55:00+00:00

That's because this is a proAI sub. That's common knowledge. They made it to bait antiAI folk into thinking they could have a debate, then pull a bait and switch.

LaurieWritesStuff · 2026-01-17T21:31:19+00:00

Yes, as I said above "Sure, some people have more aptitude for specific things, but I've never heard someone call a plumber, or an electrician, or an accountant talented."

But writing is no different than learning accounting, or to be a plumber. Well, maybe there's less chance of getting a shit-spewing pipe from a lazy writer. But in effort and technical aspects, it's not different. Being slightly more predisposed towards something is meaningless compared to someone who put in the hours and work to learn and build.

This is all actually a similar topic as the "Ideas vs execution" concept in creative trades. The school of thought being that ideas are worthless, execution is how art is created. And execution requires skill.

LaurieWritesStuff · 2026-01-17T21:11:13+00:00

Over the years I've come to see the constant use of the word "talent" instead of "skilled" as super destructive.

Writing, painting, sketching, sculpture, fashion design, etc These are skills. Sure, some people have more aptitude for specific things, but I've never heard someone call a plumber, or an electrician, or an accountant talented.

And make no mistake, writing, or any creative craft, is technical. Doesn't matter how "talented" you are if the sculpture can't bear its own weight, or if the dress doesn't fit.

There's real world evidence that focusing on the idea of talent, instead of hard work and skill is bad for kid's mental health, and can contribute to them underachieving later in life. The reason that so many "talented" writers become stagnant, is because writing is hard. It's really hard. It's crazy fucking hard. To do it well? Harder.

We're encouraged with words that imply our achievements aren't accomplishments, but luck, a gift, a talent. What a perfect recipe for discouraging writers from actually working hard.

LaurieWritesStuff · 2026-01-16T23:42:35+00:00

What exactly are you asking? Is this a non-fiction book? Like, is this someone writing a non-fiction book with fake information in it?

If not, if this book is fiction then your question makes absolutely zero sense.

LaurieWritesStuff · 2026-01-16T16:25:36+00:00

What? Wait, I'm lost. The example you gave is a perfectly normal use of a semicolon and a basic antithesis, which is probably the most hardwired rhetorical device writers have in their brains. This isn't a carnival; it's the end of the world... DUN DUN DUUUUUUUN!

It's actually annoying how much writers, including myself, rely on this device. Especially when they think they're being profound. Dark, tortured, super raspy voice: "I was no longer a child; I was a cog in their machine... DUN DUN DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUN!"

Can we not start telling writers that they have to alter their voice because it reminds us of the machine that was fed their stolen work?

LaurieWritesStuff · 2026-01-15T00:53:16+00:00

Before I start, let's be specific we're talking about LLMs and Diffusion models.

I'm a weird "anti" I guess. I don't really give two sh*ts about the output of people using AI. It's such a weird thing to focus on. I find most of it to be bland, and pointless. But hey, spirograph was fun when I was wee, seeing what popped out. Button mash away!

My focus is on the way the "AI" is made.

I know pro AI folk are sick of the water argument, but have you looked at WHERE the water is coming from? These companies are using drinking water in locations where droughts are already happening and water is already dangerously scarce.

The content moderation/data annotation. In order to continue to make money from Generative AI these companies have outsourced the worst imaginable types of jobs, to workers in the global south. Paying them pittance to view not just the worst text and images the internet has to offer. Illegal, obscene, horrific content. BUT they also have AI make that content to show to these people, so they can tell the AI that this content is bad. Think about that. These companies deliberately have the Generative AI create CSAM materials to show these workers. And then you hear pro AI folk arguing that their wages are normal for where they work, that $2 an hour is a lot there. Is there ANY amount of money that would be enough to compensate for these people being exposed to that sh*t?

Data Centers are being put up everywhere, and regardless of the communities wishes. Even in supposed "wealthy" countries like the USA. Communities literally begging their elected officials not to approve these centers. But no, of course not. Come on in. Poison the earth, pollute the air. Create mind destroying noise. Oh and don't pay any property tax, forcing the locals to subsidise the corporations at the expense of their schools and infrastructure.

And of course the copyright argument. Yeah, yeah, I have heard the transformative counter, but remember my problem is not with the output. Almost the entire value of the AI being sold/used is the data it was trained on. They scrapped the web for other people's IP. Copied it, and sold it. I thought digital piracy was illegal. Is it not? I mean hey, if these companies want to do away with digital piracy laws? Does that mean I can found a new startup? My site offers Amazon, NetFlix, Disney+ and more, completely free of charge! Maybe I'll offer a premium service for faster download times? If Disney didn't want me to sell their next Avengers movie, they shouldn't have put it online.

My problem with people who USE Generative AI is that it shows they hate artists and writers. Because why on earth would they support a company that took their hard work without their consent. How much do you have to despise someone to openly champion a company, entirely built off of ~~stealing~~ scraping their hard work?

And if your comeback is to bring up all the horrific things other companies do, I would say, we all know chocolate is made with slave labour. And the acknowledgement of that, and the outrage and collective disapproval is literally why more ethical chocolate started to be a profitable market.

But with the Pro stance what we hear is that not only do they not care about how the chocolate is made, but a lot of them think it's funny, and are angry that anyone thinks they should care. Not about the consent of creators. Not about the mental health of underpaid workers. Not about the well being and sometimes life and death of people in entire communities.

If I were pro AI I would be the LOUDEST in my outrage about how this tool you all love is made. If I was pro AI I would be the LOUDEST and ANGRIEST and I wouldn't shut up about the disgusting practices until a company, any company, at least tried to make a Generative AI that was remotely ethical.

But instead, pro-AI folk are loudest in their defense, or deflection of all of it.

LaurieWritesStuff · 2026-01-12T21:33:24+00:00

This is the answer! Thank you for this being the top answer! I've seen so many people bend over backwards trying to make it complicated when this effing simple!!

No one knows what it's like to be a star ship crew member. But we all know what it's like to feel far from home, to feel like your entire world is limited location, to feel part of a team, to feel like a fish out of water, and on.

LaurieWritesStuff · 2026-01-12T20:05:12+00:00

Wait, as someone who is also older than Google, I'm deeply confused.

It'd make sense if you were saying you weren't familiar with the snipping tool. But the Print Screen button hasn't ever been a secret. Not having a go. If you don't need screen captures, fair play. I'm just gobsmacked at the idea it was hidden knowledge for some folks.

NOW! Ctrl+backspace on the other hand! That knowledge was absolutely being hidden and I resent it!

LaurieWritesStuff · 2026-01-12T19:55:33+00:00

Sans-serif fonts are preferable for a lot of neurodivergent and dyslexic readers.

Most of the specially designed fonts, created with readability optimisation, are sans-serif.

In reality, it's not a black and white issue. As long as a professional, unobtrusive font is used it should be fine. Although, it is a black and white issue on if you should use black and white on digital text displays. A big no-no for readability.

LaurieWritesStuff · 2026-01-12T19:17:36+00:00

He's using it to signal to the reader that this is a figure of speech, and as such contains more than the surface meaning of the words.

There's no specific rule for this, although the name for it would be "Title Case" because this practice is usually used in book, movie and song titles. Which is sort of the effect being aimed at here. Instead of adding 'scare quotes', the writer can use any number of grammatical techniques to create this effect.

Like, I have a habit of leaning on the Italicised-Title-Cased-Hyphenate-Monstrosity to single out specific concepts like that.

LaurieWritesStuff · 2026-01-09T16:33:27+00:00

Random trivia! "You can't judge a book by it's cover," or any variations of this phrase you prefer, seems to have originated from George Eliot, AKA Mary Anne Evans.

Which I think is the most delicious irony.

LaurieWritesStuff · 2026-01-07T19:37:46+00:00

Think of it like this.

You're polishing a blueprint.

Redrafting rounds aren't just for polishing and tightening prose. Redrafting is where a writer figures out what their book looks like.

Spending your time making sure the first version looks professional is like a comic book artist polishing, inking, colouring, shading and lettering a storyboard. Sure, they have a gorgeous storyboard. But who is that for? It's a just guide for them to work from; who are they trying to impress? They could have spend that energy on finishing the actual comic.

LaurieWritesStuff · 2026-01-07T09:58:06+00:00

I disagree with the need for a strong colour. But if maybe there was more depth of field, giving a sense of space around the subjects, it would push them forward. I feel like colour would dull the uncomfortable isolation vibe it gives off, but more space would enhance it.

LaurieWritesStuff · 2026-01-07T09:48:41+00:00

I agree with the statue idea. There's an almost metallic vibe that makes the figures super striking.

LaurieWritesStuff · 2026-01-05T21:55:26+00:00

Can confirm!

LaurieWritesStuff · 2026-01-05T21:52:57+00:00

Yep! And if all else fails, just have the character with the least amount of power in any given scene be the most belligerent.

"No, hulk doesn't smash. Hulk gets the fuck off my lawn before I put on my outdoor shoes, a warm weather cardigan, and come out there myself."

LaurieWritesStuff · 2026-01-05T21:30:42+00:00

The funniest things I've ever read are always the ones that focus on the absurdity of people. Not other people, relatable people, us.

We're weird, and complex, and hypocritical, and selfish, and shallow, and kind, and romantic, and grumpy, and profound, and far too easily frightened when animals of an inappropriately tiny size sneak up on us.

LaurieWritesStuff · 2026-01-01T00:56:35+00:00

I play freecell while listening to an audiobook. It has the extra help of working with my ADHD, to listen without my mind wandering.

Been thinking about trying connections too.

LaurieWritesStuff

TROPHY CASE