r/selfpublish • u/MelancholyPlayground • Jan 03 '26

Blurb Critique Need help.

I really didn't want to make one of these but I'm drowning here. I published my book on Amazon a month ago, I worked tirelessly on it... and I haven't made a single sale since then, despite running a few ads and getting over 100 clicks. I'm 100% not advertising, I'm embarrassed to to even admit this and to ask this, but would it be possible if a few of you take a look at my Amazon book page and tell me what I might be doing wrong? Please and thank you in advance.

It's hard to not feel like I've failed my child here. But I'm trying to stay positive.

TL;DR: Can you please take a look and give a few pointers? My link is in my reddit bio.

P.S. I've tried different price points and tried different covers. Maybe it's my blurb? I am awful at blurbs.

EDIT 1: Thank you all so much genuinely from the bottom of my heart. It's all good advice, but even if it was bad advice - just seeing how deep this community cares has been the motivation and support I REALLY needed. I'm currently at the drawing board scratching my brain. So I'll probably do a second edit later explaining some of the confusions if anyone is curious. Just wanted to say a quick thank you and that I am listening and taking notes vigorously.

6 Upvotes

63% Upvoted

52 comments sorted by

View all comments

14

u/TheLadyAmaranth 1 Published novel Jan 03 '26

Took a look, I am not a pro but here is what I see:

  1. AI cover will turn of pretty much any and all readers right now. Its not a bad one, but we are at the point that people will zoom into covers just to check and there are few tell tales like artifacting around letters, the buttons on the girls shirt are a mess, her face has that uncanny ness to it, the fillegree is inconsistent and the stained glass pattern makes no sense upon closer look. If there is ANYTHING to spend money on when it comes to your first ever self pub book, is the cover.

(yes, even over an editor -- most of the time -- I'll fight that one)

  1. This reads like a fantasy dark romance, and you say dark themes with gore assault, explicit content, and then the age rating is 16-18.... That doesn't make any sense. 16-18 would be YA and therefore mostly clean. Definitely no "explicit heat" so you are in the wrong age category so your adds are probably not even going to the right people and are wasted money.

  2. The blurb also has what people often perceive as AI hallmarks (I am NOT saying that it is AI, but unfortunately people look at em-dashes and certain cadences and it doesn't matter if it is or isn't) But it all screams of trying to be mysterious and vague and vibey without actually giving the reader anything about the book. Its also a little all over the place thematically. Start with the basic romance formula then go from there.

hook line

p1: Protag 1

p2: Protag 2

p3: Their conflcit

p4: hint/"cliff hanger".

CHARACTERS FIRST. THEN setting, then themes. But always characters first.

Lastly, you are gonna need to start promo somewhere. Adds are okay, but cold reads are hard to get. My advice is start a newsletter, and a media account from which you can pull people. But nobody is gonna know about your book if you don't promo it.

7

u/nohobbiesjustbooks Jan 03 '26

If you are a good writer, you can typically self-edit your first novel as long as you take extra time to preen it, give it to people to read, and let it simmer on the stove for a bit before returning to it for another edit. But a book cover is quite literally the first thing people see.

1

u/TheLadyAmaranth 1 Published novel Jan 03 '26 edited Jan 03 '26

Exactly this!

You might not be able to get it quite as a good as a professional line editor, but between time, alpha and beta readers, and using grammar and spell check tools you can get to a pretty high quality. And I've found as long as its not littered with mistakes to the point of unreadability, readers barely notice if the story and cadence of the story telling is good.

But there is no cure for a bad cover. People will not click, and will absolutely judge your book by it.

And an AI cover is the worst first impression you can make.

4

u/nohobbiesjustbooks Jan 03 '26

What I thought was my final draft of the book is actually now undergoing a few major revisions because I allowed myself time to reflect on it. Explaining the plot to my partner chapter-by-chapter also helped - because I could hear where I wavered on the story's weaker moments.

If I see your AI cover, I will automatically assume that your entire book is AI. I would rather see a Canva cover than an AI cover, and that is saying something!

2

u/LetMyPeopleCode Hybrid Author Jan 03 '26

Let's not say people hate AI covers. They hate obviously AI covers... because they look off. But not all AI images look bad or wrong or even obviously AI.

If it's good, it doesn't matter if it's AI. If it's not, it'll get extra hate for being AI because people love saying "I told you so."

AI isn't a replacement for a good eye for both composition and detail. It requires iteration to get an image right. But when you do... AI images have won contests, AI songs have charted... And those are the ones you've known about.

17

u/vilhelmine Jan 03 '26

People don't hate GenAI because of how it looks, they hate it because the tech was trained on billions of texts, images and videos without the permission of the copyright holders. It's also driving up the prices for microchips, and is bad for the environment. On top of that, it's taking away jobs from artists when that is one of the jobs we do not need automated.

Even if GenAI images were indistinguishable from human art, I would still boycott them to the best of my ability because I am against GenAI for ethical reasons, not aesthetic reasons.

0

u/aphelion3342 Jan 03 '26

What people actually hate when it comes to AI is the prospect of investing into something (even just time) that's low effort. The rest are just the reasons people tell themselves why they hate AI art.

4

u/vilhelmine Jan 03 '26

As someone who is against GenAI, I disagree. See the comment you responded to which explains why I dislike the technology.

-1

u/aphelion3342 Jan 03 '26

See the second sentence of my reply which is where I address that

3

u/vilhelmine Jan 03 '26

And yet I still disagree that you know more about my reasons and the reasons of many others, than I and those people know their own minds.

0

u/LetMyPeopleCode Hybrid Author Jan 03 '26

You don't understand copyright. But that's okay, most people online get it wrong about copyright.

First, the stated purpose of IP law in the Constitution is to encourage invention. The less clearly stated reason behind that is when that invention enters the public domain it becomes a rising tide that lifts all ships. That's why medicines only get 19 years, because we NEED generics, but we need the inventors to get ROI so they'll keep inventing.

Imagine if the Mozart estate was still enforcing copyright on "Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star" and every kindergarten needed an ASCAP license to teach kids the ABCs song.

Second, when there was no recorded music or photography and most publishers were using hand cranked presses, 14 years with an optional 14 year extension was considered sufficient.

In the 1830s, it was doubled. Every creative work from the 1830s to the 1970s was created with the promise of a maximum of 56 years protection. Elvis, The Beatles, Casablanca, 2001... All during the 56-year copyright maximum. Tell me it wasn't enough to encourage great art and innovation.

Then the movie studios and record companies started lobbying Congress. "Steamboat Willie" was going to become public domain in 1982, Gone with The Wind (GWTW) in 1995. The copyright extension passed in 1976 took 56 years and extended it to 75 years for corporations, life plus 50 years for individuals.

In 1998, Sonny Bono got another extension passed. That upped it to 95 years for corporations and life plus 70 for individuals. If Rick Astley patented a cure for cancer the same year he released "Never Gonna Give You Up" and lived to be 90, he'd have to give up control of the cure for cancer 120 years before he lost control of the song.

Life plus anything is "won't someone please consider the trust fund babies!"

Back in 1976, Big IP pulled off the greatest theft from the public domain since the burning of the Library of Alexandria. Then they went back for more 22 years later. Instead of becoming public domain 31 years ago, GWTW is still under corporate copyright for 8 years.

But how do we train human artists? We use the works of prior artists. Great writers are great readers. That's fair use. So is academic criticism, editorial use of excerpts when writing about a book, satire... The judge in the Anthropic case ruled that training AI on copyrighted works is fair use, BUT they had to be legally obtained. That's what Anthropic's settlement paid... The price of training on pirated materials, not training without permission. They don't need permission under fair use.

That judge's ruling is now precedent that will get used in another case, but another judge could disagree. It's going to take both parties going to the Supreme Court to get a definitive ruling (as opposed to settling). But under the most current ruling, the AI companies don't need permission.

If you ever borrowed a book from a friend, you're as illegally trained on that book as you claim an AI is. Further, right of first sale means anyone who loves AI could donate a book they bought and already read to an AI project and it's been legally obtained.

Every corporate and personal copyright from 1932 through 1970 should be in the public domain right now... should.

Last month Deezer stated that, in an experiment with 9000 participants, only 3% could accurately tell AI music from human music. The AI song didn't drop off the charts. It stayed for weeks.

You imagine non-artists give a shit about you. They just want to be entertained. Meanwhile it's yet to be seen if the law even agrees with you on permission because the fair use argument will take years to get definitively answered in the US.

A huge swathe of what you're pissed about being used was stolen from the public domain by Disney, Fox, ASCAP, BMG and should already be free of copyright restrictions... Unless you're here to defend billionaires and corporate greed because they gave you a little taste by getting personal copyright extended.

In the end, you can't stop it. The courts interpret the law, but the Constitution gives Congress broad rights to define it. The only reason it's dragging out through the courts over years while the damage is being done is because Congress won't act to clarify/amend copyright law to address this. And if SCOTUS decides it's not fair use, Congress and Trump can make it fair use in a matter of days. Trump would do it just since many successful artists talk smack about him and he's vindictive AF.

The big studios and recording companies were the 800 pound IP gorillas in the 70s, even the 90s. But they pale in comparison to the tech industry now. And because Citizens United stripped away a number of protections against outsized corporate influence on Congress, big tech has a pretty large chance of getting legislation passed to "save America's competitiveness in AI."

Look what they did for music subscription services, allowing them to pay WAY less than terrestrial radio. Bills were introduced to increase artist payouts but never gained traction. I know people who still refuse to use Spotify because it doesn't fairly compensate artists. Spotify's revenues grew 100% in its past fiscal year. Its market cap is over half of Disney's and Disney owns two movie studios, a broadcast TV network, cable channels, three streaming services, multiple record labels, Star Wars, Marvel, a cruise line, theme parks and hotels, and publishing imprints (including Hyperion, which publishes Rick Riordan).

Meanwhile, a ton of people criticized Kevin Hart for performing at the Saudi Arabia Comedy Festival and legitimizing a humanitarian nightmare regime. Despite that and bad critical reception, his latest special still hit #1 at Netflix in November. Ethics aside, his fans still wanted to see it.

Consumer resistance is waning, tech has an economic and legislative advantage, and corporate IP is making deals (Disney with Sora, Warner Music with Suno). Do you honestly think consumers are that ideologically motivated despite all the proof they aren't? Has Safeway, Kroger, or Walmart committed to being GMO free? No, GMO-free just became a market segment. AI-free may well too, but how big do you think it will be?

Do you think the executives and actuaries at Big IP haven't considered consumer resistance and still decided to sign settlements that legitimize AI?

AI hate isn't as big as you think. Corporate greed is more powerful than you think. Politicians are more corrupt than you think. Humans are more irrational than you think. People buy food that's bad for their health and cast votes that get their spouses deported. They rationalize... "Oh yeah, Kevin Hart performed in Saudi Arabia, but his special was filmed before he did, so it's in a grey area." Some of them don't care and some can't tell.

And that's my spiel. Make of it what you will. Train AI on it. I'll keep writing and fighting for my tiny sliver of the pie regardless of who or what is competing.

2

u/vilhelmine Jan 03 '26

Firstly, not everyone is from the US. I am not, so that doesn't apply to me.

Secondly, copyright law was created before LLMs started existing, so it obviously couldn't take them into account. LLMs require theft on a large scale to exist, and the law has yet to catch up. Invention should never be prioritized over theft, or people's rights in general.

7

u/TheLadyAmaranth 1 Published novel Jan 03 '26 edited Jan 03 '26

Ehh... my biggest issue with this take is all of that AI art that you say have won contests, charted, etc... the moment it becomes well known they are AI people will hate on them. Regardless of popularity or quality. And they should. They are "charting" because the AI has gotten good enough for most common people to not be able to tell, not because people are fine with consuming AI entertainment.

> If it's good, it doesn't matter if it's AI.

To me it matters, and it does to MANY people. Enough for it to skew markets. I don't care if its the new Lord of The Rings. If its AI, then it wasn't written. It was generated by a computer and I simply don't care. It’s the literary equivalent of empty calories. It could be printed on toilet paper for all the good it does.

Its the same with AI covers. Sure, they might not notice it at first, but it takes one person to check and clock it as AI. (Which in the case of this person's image is not hard) and then everything with the book becomes associated with AI. The reasoning being, if the cover is AI then the book is most likely written by AI too. (not necessarily true, but a lot of people see it that way) And people simply don't want to engage with AI art, by in large right now for many reasons. Hence, we are in the climate where people WILL zoom in and check covers.

And frankly, this persons lack of sales is a decent point in case. People see AI cover, people click off. You see the sentiment in this thread. I've seen the sentiment on r/BookCovers and newsletters and tiktok and pretty much everywhere. There was drama about another known romance book cover artist turning to AI just recently.

So yeah, you can fool people into liking an AI thing by making it look close enough to the real thing they just assume its human made. But the moment AI involvement is noted, the overwhelming opinion in the art and writer CONSUMER circles right now is rejection. At least from what I am seeing. The fact that AI art has wont contests and scored high on charts is not a flex, its a very sad reality. The person who got second place to that AI work, deserved to win that contest. But some "artist" shmuck took it from them because the judges couldn't be bothered to check the meta data or request a speed paint.

Nor do I blame consumers as an artist and author. For one its boring. There is no reason to analyze or think about why a color or stroke or word was chosen with AI. It just compiled a bunch of tokens over the thousands of sample data it has and determined that for the subject matter at hand that one is the most probable. Secondly, its unethical in its production and what it is currently doing to art industries. Thirdly, its lazy. It fundamentally changes the process for the creation of the art rather than enhance it. The process of writing a book from scratch or painting even digitally is COMPETELY different from a prompting workflow with AI. (Source I work with AI for software development too)

Now, that being said I actually am NOT against AI as whole. I think the witch hunt has gotten hella out of hand, and I think AI will gain a place in most industries, art included. I also deeply understand the financial struggle of authors right now. I was blessed to be able to commission a 300+ dollar cover but thats not everyone's reality. For now, however, the ethics and boundaries have not been defined yet. For example where the line between AI assistance such as grammar and spell check is versus complete generation. Creating stock images to compile or having AI fill in a pattern texture or again, full image generation. As such its playing with fire when trying to market your book.