It seems the vast knowledge of the Bitchery when it comes to all things cover art is not a secret, especially among the publishing houses. I received an email from Lauren Naefe, Online Marketing Manager at HarperCollins, who asked if I consult the Oracle of the Bitchery to help settle an in-house debate. It seems the cover art for a particular book is under discussion, and there are two hotly-contested candidates for the coveted position. It’s like deciding the Democratic presidential nomination, only with Bitchery, cussing, and fun! How perfect for SuperTuesday, eh?
The book in question is Confessions of a Beauty Addict, the fiction debut of Nadine Haobsh which comes out November 18. Haobsh is the beauty editor who was outed by New York Post as blogger behind “Jolie In NYC”, a hugely popular blog about all things involving beauty secrets. Her nonfiction advice manual, Beauty Confidential was published in October of ‘07.
The summary of Confessions of a Beauty Addict reads as follows:
When Bella Hunter, Beauty Expert and all around magazine editor wunderkind, loses her job for spilling top industry secrets to Page 6 she thinks her life is over. And, to top it all off, she’s managed to dye her hair bright orange. At her wits end and desperate not to return home with her tail between her legs, Bella accepts a job a Womanly Wear: a magazine her mom reads. But how can she face her glamorous ex-co-workers now that she works in an office where khaki (not Cavalli) is the way of life? Bella is out to wage war on the beauty world one bad makeover at a time, armed with only her Marc Jacobs shoes, three meddling best friends, and a flighty supermodel boyfriend. At odds with her stuffy (and undeniably gorgeous) publisher, Bella begins to realize that she may be fighting the wrong battle.
With that in mind, here are the two covers that the folks at Avon A are battling over. Which do you like? What comments do you have for either one. Lauren has graciously offered 2 advance copies of the book to the two readers who offer the most helpful comment – so speak often and as much as you want.
Sarah: My opinion? Re: the blue cover – which one is the beauty addict? I hope it’s the chihuahua. I appreciate the play on Tiffany blue and the dripping-gem opulence of the creatures featured, but I have no idea what this has to do with the plot. That said, half the cover images of the romances I read have fuck all to do with the plot, so I’m betting this one will win just because cute dog + nice gems = browsers will pick it up to read more.
And as for the pink one, I am pleased the model has paid scrupulous attention to her waxing regimen, given the position of that skirt.
But oy, that font. Right up until the hot pink doodle font I was down with this cover, but man, that font. It’s so corny and jarring and utterly not attractive. I can understand the effort at contrast setting the doodle-font against the groomed couture of the image above it, but man. That font just kills the cover for me. It hurts my feelings. I take that font very personally, and am offended as an American by that font.
So if I pick between Blue and Pink? I go with blue. Even though I like the image of the pink one more, I hate the font so much that it turns me off the cover entirely.
Candy: I like the composition of the blue cover better—it wins on just about every front, from font usage (side note to the people who chose that kuh-ray-zee font for the pink cover: Why didn’t you just use Comic Sans and put us out of our misery? Chrissakes) to the way the faces are framed to the choice of angle to the use of whitespace. If I had any beef with the blue cover, it would be with the use of the chihuahua and the bedecking of said chihuahua with godawful gewgaws. I look at that, and I think “Oh god, another Paris Hilton wannabe.” And really, who wants to associate their heroine with Paris Hilton? Unless being a vacuous coke-snorting trainwreck who provides an instant win on the STD Bingo card is a good thing.
The blue cover (despite the negative associations I have when it comes to over-pampered toy dogs) also wins for me because it looks different. It’s not pink. It’s not some faceless woman (I mean, really, how many chick lit/romance books out there feature some faceless woman’s legs and/or shoes? I love shoes, and God knows I love me some beautiful legs, but enough already). It actually features (parts of) faces, and the faces are fun and interesting. If I were in a store, I wouldn’t stop to look at the pink cover (unless it was to marvel at the rather horrid font), but I’d stop and look at the blue cover.
What’s your verdict?
This discussion can obviously run and run.
I don’t understand those who say that they would NOT READ THE BOOK because it has a nauseating cover. Would you refuse a piece of very beautiful and valuable jewellery simply because it had been gift-wrapped in really, really ugly and tacky paper? Same thing.
To my taste, the covers of nearly all category romances are revolting, but I ignore that when I decide whether to read a book, because the cover is merely ephemeral wrapping-paper. If the book were to be re-issued years later (which does happen with many older category romances) it would have completely different cover art (Crusie readers will know of some examples in the re-issues of her 1990s categories, such as Charlie all night and Manhunting). Cover changes, book stays the same.
the marketing people think the cover is there to attract the dim-witted reader and make her pick it up. No, it is there to be firmly ignored, albeit after and an initial gasp of anguish, while potential reader dips into the WORDS to decide whether she wants to buy the book. The cover is there to hold the pages together, and to be covered up with brown paper in extreme cases.
I would not read the book that is in question here because I I can tell from summary we were given that I should hate the actual story, so even the most elegant and grown-up cover, subtle and eye-catching at once, would not seduce me into buying it.
The cover issue really is one that the publishers of category romance need to address; it comes up with such tedious regularity on discussion forums that it is obvious it is a cause for concern amongst many, probably most, readers, and it is without any doubt at all the chief reason for arrogant and opinionated people who have never read a romance novel despising the genre and assuming it appeals only to the half-witted. These are covers for the half-witted and infantile: some of the books are pretty dire, too, but many are not, and if we want to find the gold amongst the dross, we must close our eyes to that tacky wrapping-paper.
While individual and cultural/national tastes vary, it should be possible to devise covers that would represent the genre without making a substantial proportion of its readers want to avert their eyes. But in the meantime, it is unfair both the the authors and ourselves if we allow the bad decisions of certain elements within the publishing industry to dictate our reading choices simply on the basis of the ghastly picture they have slapped on the front.
Apologies for several typos in the above. A preview function would be nice…
Amelia, art folks often pick from the same pool of stock images. Check out this post of srz cover de ja vu: http://www.novelish.com/publishing/cover-deja-vu/
And while the pink is apparently v blatant, it is not a “fake cover” thrown up here for a contest. This book comes out in November. It’s February.
But anyway.
I did really like the comment about the dog sitting on a table dripping with jewels while the girl is flipping through her closet in the background.
I think we are all well aware that images, both photographic and drawn or painted, are often re-used. There are plenty of cases in which this is perfectly appropriate: if a publisher is putting out the 7,486th scholarly study of the works of J.M.Turner, then naturally we expect to see yet another reproduction of a familiar Turner painting on the dust-jacket. Likewise with photographs of places and buildings on travel books or books about many other non-fiction subjects, from the popular to the academic.
My feeling is that, novels being fictional, the creations of the writer’s unique imagination, it is usually more suitable for the cover-art to reflect that circumstance by also being unique, whether it is expressed in the form of a photograph, a drawing or painting, or an abstract graphic design (let’s hear it here for the abstract graphic design!).
Call me old-fashioned, but I think that when somebody has crafted a cast of characters and a complex plot out of her own mind, painstakingly written it all down and polished every word and sentence, and coped with the ups and downs of the editing process, it is a bit depressing for her finally to have a standard stock photograph that has already been used umpteen times elsewhere dumped on the front of her book.
I’m glad I don’t write fiction. 😉
Back to the drawing board please.
I’ve mostly just been lurking here—I love all the entries and reviews—but I just wanted to stay that I definitely agree that both covers are awful. Neither one will successfully sell this book.
The overall tone of the book, based on the blurb, seems light and comical. The cover shouldn’t confuse the issue. Maybe something more in the style of a fashion magazine would be appropriately eye-catching given that this is about an editor?
The photographs are stock images. In my opinion, the pink font wouldn’t even belong on the cover of a children’s picture book. Blue and pink color themes for this sort of book seem like dull, safe choices. Why not bright orange?
The cover issue really is one that the publishers of category romance need
to address; it comes up with such tedious regularity on discussion forums
that it is obvious it is a cause for concern amongst many, probably most,
readers, and it is without any doubt at all the chief reason for
arrogant and opinionated people who have never read a romance novel
despising the genre and assuming it appeals only to the half-witted. These
are covers for the half-witted and infantile: some of the books are pretty
dire, too, but many are not, and if we want to find the gold amongst the
dross, we must close our eyes to that tacky wrapping-paper
AgTigress, you nailed the coffin shut with this comment! As did SBSarah with her open letter to Harlequin on changing the titles of books depending on country of release. As this forum proves, smart bitches do read these books. We aren’t YA, or the “typical bored housewife” (is there such a thing in RL?). We are bright, intelligent women with careers (even if that career is staying home and raising children). Like you, I probably wouldn’t read this book after picking it up. But if the cover turns me off, I would never even pick it up in the first place. And that IS a disservice to the writer!
I hope the publishing community finally wakes up and smells something besides their own designer perfume. It doesn’t matter how it’s scented, BS still smells like BS and I think we get handed a lot of it as fans of the genre (and the writers, too).
And I vote for a preview function, too. kthxbai
Definitely the blue, despite the Paris Hilton association. The over-waxed crotch and the hideous font kill the pink, and blue in the sea of pink always catches my eye.
There is nothing wrong with using stock images on book covers. But, given the wealth of options available in image catalogs, the imagery used on these covers is not terribly effective in either case.
One of the reasons I disliked the two cover choices was that they appear to use stock images with no attempt to individualize them for this particular book. It doesn’t take much thought to grab some generic images and slap them on a plain background and add type. The blue cover at least shows some attempt to create a scenario, as little as it seems to relate to the book’s synopsis. The white cover doesn’t even do that, for me, because I don’t find that image to be particularly evocative. It’s overused and thus generic.
That being said, I think Photoshop practically exists to tailor stock images for just such uses. If you have to have Skippy Sue with the short skirt, why not place her in front of a row of shop windows, suitably blurred, of fashion boutiques? Or in the cosmetics department at Macy’s? If you want the kissy face, why not choose a better dog? Or a compact/mirror/or any number of items suggested by previous posters?
Instant interest, just add some imagination.
The book sounds very fun from the blurb, but neither cover really works, IMO. The pink one is very generic, and the font is very high school. The blue one is better, but the blurb doesn’t mention a dog at all. And that’s a dam’ ugly dog for a beauty addict, if you ask me. (And it ain’t looking too happy, either.) I’m not crazy about her wanting to make out with it. I like the idea of changing the dog to a compact.
I don’t understand those who say that they would NOT READ THE BOOK because it has a nauseating cover. Would you refuse a piece of very beautiful and valuable jewellery simply because it had been gift-wrapped in really, really ugly and tacky paper? Same thing.
Totally different things. One is a gift and the other one you have to pay for so I don’t think it is the “same thing.” If I received a book for free, I might read it regardless of cover, blurb and so forth.
In a bookstore where hundreds of books are competing for my attention, the cover can make a huge different. I would pass over a book (and have) because it is not visually appealing to me. I don’t have the time to pick through every new book on the table and read the blurb or the first few pages. I’m allotted, oh, approximately a few seconds before my child heads back to the train table and wreaks havoc without supervision.
If all the books had a plain paper cover with no distinguishing marks between them, then yes, covers would never matter. But covers are often the only thing that compels a reader to pick up a book in the bookstore instead of passing it over.
I don’t think it makes a statement on the intelligence of a reader or the discernment of a reader but is a reality check for the mass amounts of women who have so much to do in the very short time of the day that is allotted to them.
Blue didn’t do much for me at first, since it didn’t seem to jibe with the description of the plot. More like ‘Confessions of a Park Avenue Princess’ or something, I guess. I see that cover and think ‘Hoity-toity bitch with a ridiculous toy dog’. Graphically, it looks cool, and I would think more people would pick it up while browsing.
Pink is all wrong because it seems to be targeting the tween/teen market, especially as regards the font. The girls who pick that up will think ‘Ooh, I want to be a beauty addict when I grow up!’ I felt old looking at that cover, and I’m 27. I would be embarrassed to be caught reading that. Not so much with blue.
On the opposite side of the age argument, the blue cover seems almost matronly, like ‘First Wives Club’ more than young, hot beauty editor.
But covers are often the only thing that compels a reader to pick up a book in the bookstore instead of passing it over.
Jane makes a really valid point here. The cover is among what I call the “Holy Trinity” for book sales. I was just having this discussion with my husband’s uncle who was asking about the origins of my pen name, specifically, the part about using “Caridad” vs. “Barbara.” I explained how it hadn’t been my choice, but that ultimately, I didn’t think it mattered all that much. When he asked why, I went back to a conversation we’d been having earlier in the evening. (Hand to God, this is the conversation we had.)
“What book are you currently reading, Uncle Charlie?”
“The Kite Runner.”
“What’s the cover look like?”
“Cityscape, blue-green sort of tint to the sky, the title in red.”
“What’s it about?”
“Boys in Afghanistan.”
“Who’s the author?”
“Uhhhh…”
“Khaled Hosseini?”
“Yeah, that’s him!”
“Do you know what else he wrote?”
“A Thousand Splendid Suns.”
“Cover?”
“Similar to Kite Runner.”
“Author’s name?”
“Uh…”
I finished up the conversation with, “Look, what you really need to sell a book is a good cover, a good title, and a good back cover blurb. The author’s name, until they’re seriously household, matters very little.”
Kind of ego-deflating, but it is what it is. 🙂
For those of you who claim that the cover art is what impels you to pick up a book, I can tell you that it does not work that way for everybody. Seriously, it doesn’t. I do not browse bookshops in that way at all, and never have done, and it is highly unlikely that I am the only woman in the world who selects books without reference to the cover art. As I have said, if I took any notice of the covers, I should NEVER, EVER have picked up ANY category romance, because I invariably find the covers embarrassing and unaesthetic to a greater or lesser degree. It seems to me a very haphazard way of book-shopping, to rely on the pictures on the cover.
In my youth, library books for adults, including fiction, were usually re-bound anyway in plain standard bindings, so choosing by cover picture was impossible if one was over the age of about 10. Maybe that is when my habit was formed.
I select fiction on a combination of prior knowledge/author’s name, the recommendations of friends, published reviews, and finally, after narrowing down by that means, finding the book and reading the blurb and a random selection of the internal pages. I have always done it that way. The best way of using time effectively in a bookshop is to have a plan before one enters! Buying non-fiction is even more dependent on prior knowledge, and again, cover image is not relevant. Subject, author, reviews, publishing house, even – life is too short to wander around looking at the pictures. Internal illustrations must, of course, be assessed for quality in non-fiction works, but that is something quite different.
Art matters a lot to me; I am a visual thinker, not a verbal one, and poor design offends me, but when I am looking for a novel, I am concerned about the words within the covers, not the rubbishy tat that someone has stuck on the front.
‘Totally different things. One is a gift and the other one you have to pay for so I don’t think it is the “same thing.†If I received a book for free, I might read it regardless of cover, blurb and so forth.’
But what you are saying there is that you acknowledge that a gift wrapped in ugly paper may have something good and desirable inside, but that if you have to buy something yourself, you expect its desirability or otherwise to be precisely commensurate with its external appearance. I can’t imagine reading a book I didn’t like simply because I had got it for free. What for? Either it is good or it isn’t: that has nothing to do with (a) its outer wrappings or (b) whether it has been received as a gift, borrowed, bought or stolen.
I am baffled.
AgTigress, while I understand your point of view, I believe that your method is rather in the minority of book buyers.
IMO, most casual book buyers will grab a book because of cover art and/or in-store publicity/promotional material. This is an important enough percentage of the total market that it should be addressed, wouldn’t you think?
I readily accept that there are buyers who pick up books based on the cover image. I think they are using a very poor method of selection, but I certainly don’t deny that this is a possible approach.
And yes, I think they should be catered for. The publishers should take a bit more trouble with those cover images, and should not regularly insult the aesthetic sensibilities and intelligence of their readers by packing their ‘product’ in designs more suitable for little girls who are still playing with Barbie dolls.
I prefer the blue cover: Clean images. Clear typeface. Nice allusion to what our heroine has lost. It’s a nice concept.
The cover suffers from a dissonance between the hand-drawn looking typeface and the clean image and photo. Also, why are we looking up this woman’s skirt?
But, I wonder what either of them have to do with the description you posted.
I wish there was a chance to change it. Here are a couple of options:
1. Have the model in a khaki shirt-dress ala the kind her mother would wear but with changes made to it to have it reflect current fashion. Oh, with all the accessorizing required by a true fashionista.
2. Have the model in a chair in a couture suite staring (with an expression of dismay and deep chagrin) out at an office full of writers who exhibit no concept of dressing in the present.
3. Have a model wearing a couture suit looking askance at a rolling rack of loaner dresses to be used at the next cover shoot with an expression of horror or consternation on her face.
I have more ideas….:)
Okay, I know nobody’s looking anymore, but from the contrail caboose end of this discussion, I’ve got to say I DETEST YAP DOGS, PARTICULARLY MEXICAN HAIRLESS TACO DOGS. Emphatic Yuck.
Too bad. The blue cover is gorgeous if you Wite-Out the kickable. If the heroine kisses (bleah) the creepy canine in the story—then thanks for the warning. Otherwise, why? Paris worship? Soo last year.
PInk cover: cliche, and ugly typeface.
Magic 8-ball says: Try Again.
I DETEST YAP DOGS, PARTICULARLY MEXICAN HAIRLESS TACO DOGS.
While I respect your opinion, as the owner of a small dog I confess I take a bit of offense. My AKC Champion Min Pin also does agility and earthdog. He’s a superb companion. He is not “yappy.” He’s a happy, sweet dog who likes children, adults, and other dogs.
I’ve owned Dobermans (most decidedly NOT small dogs) for 25 years. So it’s not like I don’t like big dogs.
Oh and the breed of dog on the cover, chihuahua, is never hairless. There are several hairless breeds, but not that one. Anyone wanting to see some fun purebred breeds should turn in to Westminster Monday and Tuesday of this week.
The pink cover and this one are the exact same: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780767927666&itm=1
The font on the pink cover is hideous.
I love the blue – so unusual and pretty! And I love the dog!
I agree with the poster who said the pink cover was *it* until the uber-freaky pink font at the bottom. WTF? It looked more like a teeny-bopper novel than a grown-up novel.
As for the blue cover, I’m liking it, but it’s rather Skippyjon Jones-esque.
http://www.amazon.com/Skippyjon-Jones-Judy-Schachner/dp/0525471340
Come to think of it, Skippyjon Jones, would be cuter than the Chihuahua.
Stealing a rhinoceros should not be attempted lightly.
Others are able to wait up to 36 hours after taking cialis medication tadalafil a sex counselor, and links to sexual health organizations by CIALIS® (tadalafil) … More ED Info and Support.
Cialis – Warnings & Precautions. Cialis – Clinical Pharmacology. Cialis – Overdosage & Contraindications. Cialis – Indications & Dosage. Cialis The top generic cialis the far East. Cialis info cialis news release Sept
Cialis ® is a prescription medication for the treatment of erectile dysfunction. … Cialis Info- Cialis News, information and articles. Cialis official
Deciphers the medication tadalafil (Cialis), a drug used for the treatment of impotence. … Cialis Eases Erectile Dysfunction After Spinal Cord Injury
Get all the latest news about Cialis. Latest FDA news and Information. … the company responsible for developing Cialis, made no bones about sharing this .
Get all the latest news about Cialis
Cialis or Tadalafil Citrate is used as a sexual aid in men
CIALIS, and therefore until further information is available, CIALIS is not recommended for the following groups of patients: …