Over at the LA Times book blog, Carolyn Kellogg examines the dilemma of cover art, and making sure that literary fiction novels sell … perhaps at the expense of being taken seriously from a visual perspective.
Citing evidence such as GalleyCat’s side by side comparison of Sue Hepworth’s Zuzu’s Petals, and Bookninja’s contest to recast classic novels to appeal to popular markets like “romance, chick lit, thriller, scifi, fantasy, celebrity kids, etc”, Kellogg’s entry follows a 7 October article in The Independent that questions whether authors are being asked to “dumb down” their work to appeal to a larger readership.
Sarah Dunant is quoted in the article touching on something that has captured my attention for months now: the use of any and all celebrity on the part of the author to market a book: “Looking at publishing … it has been saturated with the notion of the creation of celebrity as a marketing opportunity … There has to be a box, a place they can put you. I just find it annoying but it doesn’t stop me from writing exactly what I wish to write. This conversation between Margaret Drabble and myself was part of the larger observation that everything needs to be packaged, that writers cannot be who they are.”
Dame Margaret Drabble is quoted, “I write literary novels but I can sense my publishers have difficulty in selling me as a genre … whether in literary fiction, or women’s fiction or shopping fiction. They don’t quite know whether I’m highbrow or literary….”
Brain is exploding, here. Point the first: the culture of celebrity affecting authors seems to only be growing, and I wonder at what point this fixation on celebrity and author-as-product will reach its apex and die the hell down already.
Point the second: visual recasting of novels? The Zuzu’s Petals example is fascinating. I didn’t think the first cover what all that awful, but apparently cartoon cherry blossoms and lithe women carrying mammoth handbags really captured bookstore retailers attention. I don’t necessarily see how that’s “dumbing down,” unless cartoon + obvious marketing ploy to women = dumbing down.
So retailers are still dictating title promotion and sale? If it looks good, it will be featured prominently? So will every novel go the way of older historicals, and sell with man-titty clinch covers up and down the bookshelves? I mean, if it works for older Gore Vidal novels what can it do for Oprah and Dan Brown? Ultimately, it’ll be a question for the ages – what should be bigger on the cover: the authors name, or the big buxom man titty?
Look, as readers, are we or are we not judging books, and authors, by their covers? I mean, if we’re going to be handed a superficial set of requirements as gatekeepers to our browsing selection, let’s just own it already and openly only sell books that that come with a solid cover art sample and, for God’s sake, a Botoxed author headshot with as much airbrushing as possible. It’s not the book – it’s the celebrity potential of the book image and the author image combined that move sales.
Now, who wants to slap a man-titty on their favorite non-man-tittied novel?
Thanks to Jane from DA for the heads up.
First I’ll second Polly’s point- forget covers, can we have some title variety? The most recent egregious example being Kresely Cole’s lastest few. I was talking about them with some friends recently and we just couldn’t distinguish between the titles. We called the first one “Hunger” and the rest, “you know, that one with the guy with the sensitive horns,” or, “you know, that one with the freaky ghost.” Then again, the suspicious similarity of Cole’s covers just creates this confusing synergy with her suspiciously similar titles. Same thing goes for Eve Silver’s books.
Re: Can you judge a book buy it’s cover? No.
Are covers/binding/other stylistic details vitally important to the way I experience, connect with, select, remember, shelve, and fall in love with books? Yes.
I remember those halcyon days of youth when I was a total David Weber freak. I went through high school wanting to grow up and be Honor Harrington. No joke.
However, the only reason I was ever exposed to him in the first place was because one of his books had the only cover in the new releases section of sci-fi/fantasy that showed a fully clothed, uniformed, and serious/competent woman on the front. Right away that cover signaled “kick-ass serious woman protagonist” to me.
Are there books painted with half-naked bondage-type female figures sitting in sci-fi/fantasty that also contain “kick-ass serious woman protagonists”? Yes, but I’d never find them by accident. It took a serious rec from a good friend to get me to pick up the excellence that is Lois McMaster Bujold back when she was packaged in bizarre and grotesque covers? (Anyone else terrified by the cover of A Civil Campaign?)
Romance cover art is an exciting thing in its own right. Sometimes I scoop up old Lovespells or Silhouettes simply because the cover art is so retro or the format is unique in the history of the genre. Some of the really old stuff is being redefined as art in its own right- there’s a guy who bought the painted originals of pulp and romance/suspense covers back when no one wanted such “commercial” fare. Now his collection is worth a ton and a museum agreed to take some of it off his hands.
Do I buy a book just because I like the cover? No, I buy a book because I want to read the words between the covers. However, when browsing in a bookstore, the books I pick up to read samples of are either: 1) authors I know and like; 2) books that have been recommended on sites like this; or 3) books with covers I find attractive. For unknown authors, the cover is what gets me to open the book and read the first chapter. If the author’s voice doesn’t speak to me, the book goes back, but if the cover strikes me as ugly, dumb, or condescending, then I probably don’t pick the book up at all.
I understand Ms. Dahl’s point that publishers are in business to make money, and the more books they sell, the more money they make. What I resent is the self-fulfilling prophecy that certain kinds of covers sell more. I buy lots of books despite the cover, not because of the cover. A case in point is the first in Elizabeth Hoyt’s new series. The female with her dress falling off did not appeal to me one iota, but if I wanted to buy the book that was the only choice I got. I resisted for a long time, but in the end I decided I was being silly and bought it, even though her publisher will now have one more sale to chalk up (falsely) to the cover.
I’ve been reading SM for a while but never commented before, but today I saw this romance cover on the Failblog and knew you all needed to see it!
3 Handed Fail!
I’ve been reading SM for a while but never commented before, but today I saw this romance cover on the Failblog and knew you all needed to see it!
3 Handed Fail!
Ack! Typo fail. Of course I meant SB not SM!
I totally agree with TinaC.
The first cover art for Zuzu’s Petals screamed “boring” to me. The second cover was more interesting and I may have read the back as a result – who knows whether I’d have bought it? (BTW, just what are “Zuzu’s Petals”? Is this a euphemism or do I just have a dirty mind?! *g*).
The first Susan Elizabeth Phillips novel I bought was boring as all lookout but I picked it up at a book exchange after a recommendation from a website – after that, I didn’t care what the covers were because I knew I liked her. But that first cover, if I hadn’t gone there specifically to try and pick up one of her books? Never would have picked it up.
Oh, I saw a copy of Mr. Impossible by Loretta Chase in Borders last week which had the WORST cover on it – it was so cheesy I thought that people would stay away if they didn’t know the author.
Now, more importantly, *ahem* is “embiggened” a word???
LOL!
Kopper, I am so with you on the Amputated Body Parts cover. Enough, please.
Did Gellis really catch it for her historical accuracy? I can scarcely believe it, but if she got nailed on that, what hope for any other writer? And were there books with 13th century English raccoons & potatoes?
Say it ain’t so, Joe!
As a *reader* who doesn’t like clinch covers, I totally understand this. And I’m not arguing that publishers are right and readers & writers are wrong. I swear!!! The fact that publishers are big corporations interested in big profits isn’t right or wrong… it just is.
I’m opinionated about this because I consider myself both an artist and a business woman. I’m proud of the fact that I write the best book I can write and then I put my big girl pants on and become a hard ass, you know? I plan my writing schedule three years in advance, I negotiate contracts with not the least bit of sentimentality or guilt or affection, and I don’t consider my books my babies. I wouldn’t sell my babies on the open market. I wouldn’t put my children out in public to be picked at and criticized. And if my art was pure, I wouldn’t go to a publicly-traded corporation to see it shepherded through the world.
You wouldn’t believe the stuff I hear on writers’ loops. “I trust my publisher when they say they’ll take a look at my royalties in a few years and raise them if they don’t keep up with the market.” Seriously? No, really. SERIOUSLY? The final step on that spectrum is this surprise that publishsers are not all about the art of the written word. As I said, I think individual editors love books. And I know that individual editors often don’t get much say in the final cover and no say at all in marketing.
BUT, all that said, it has nothing to do with what you as a reader want. But just because you and I don’t like clinch covers does NOT mean that the majority of readers don’t. It does NOT mean that these readers are all just waiting to be shown that there are “better” covers out there if only they’d wise up. Lots of people really, really love clinch covers, and they pass up books with “tasteful” covers in the same way you pass up clinch covers.
(Oh, and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with those Jane Austen covers! They’re pretty and reflect the content.)
As far as I am concerned, the real issue becomes why is there no other option than a boring field of clip-art greenery and a too-familiar simplistic chick-lit shopper? If cartoon-y and pink sells better, couldn’t the Art Department – radical thought – use an artist to make a clever and engaging drawing that indicated the real character and reflected the actual contents of the novel?
I have to agree with Liz L on the Kresley Cole titles and covers all running together in my mind – Gena Showalter is having a similar problem, but at least all those covers are different colors. However, Showalter’s covers are *pretty* and Cole’s are not. I picked up Gena’s books on my own, Kresley’s because of a recommendation. Roughly equal amounts of man-titty. Now, since I’m reading these books on the train, in public, if I’m going to be reading a novel with a man-titty cover, can it at least be well-done and look good? At least a little artistic? Publishers reading, take note – when you’re reading in public, books are an accessory, and I wouldn’t be caught dead with a handbag as ugly as the covers of the first three titles in the “Immortals after Dark” series. (As a subway reader, I’m wondering if this accessory=book connection is why we’re seeing so many cartoon shoes and purses on contemporary covers).
Ms. Dahl – if you’re stuck with a clinch covers, the one on your second novel is very nicely done. I don’t like them either, but usually I don’t like them because they’re badly rendered (and embarassing to be seen with in public, but oh well). Not the case with that one.
Anyway, to the question of publishers being in the business of selling books no matter what – yes, I agree that they are business people first and foremost. But self-publishing isn’t the solution until you’ve already made a name for yourself, and not just because they have marketing expertise, etc. It’s because the publishers, in knowing what sells and polishing the book for the market, protect the readers from novels that aren’t ready to be read yet. If every author published their own books, readers would basically be reading the slush-pile, and paying for it (in more ways than one – my head hurts at the very thought). At any rate, if publishers are using different covers to connect readers with books they’ll like, I think that’s a good thing. If publishers are using different covers to connect readers with books they don’t like, then they won’t get much repeat business (one hopes; I know I wouldn’t buy another Zebra clinch cover if I opened it and found “Pilgrim’s Progress” inside).
Safeword: fiscal14 – don’t waste your money on a book without reading a few pages in? Or has the bot been watching today’s news?
Gads, I feel like I’m being such a bitch about this, and I keep coming back to see if anyone’s called me on it.
I do feel sympathy for those writers who’ve been around for decades and seen so many boutique publishers gobbled up by conglomerates that want more, more, more! I do. But I have to assume that, like us lowly genre-writers, literary writers are paid in cold, hard cash and not baby angel tears or something. (The nectar-like piss of Zeus, perhaps?)
It’s about filthy lucre for them too, much as it might disgust them. *g*
Victoria, for some reason people think that writing should be above financial considerations. The husband told me that when people ask what I like best about writing, I’ve got to stop answering, “Getting paid,” because people look horrified.
Perhaps if I’d grown up with a trust fund, I’d feel differently.
Hey, I’m so excited that you all had something to say about the book covers post on Jacket Copy. I do think that thrillers are the worst cover offenders—they’re always SHOUTING AT YOU in GREAT BIG FONT. I hope Bookninja gets some good entries, like mantitties on “Angler,” the bio of Dick Cheney.
For Kaetrin – the phrase “Zuzu’s Petals” comes from “It’s a Wonderful Life,” the 1946 film with Jimmy Stewart. The phrase has something to do with his character, George Bailey, coming back to the real, tangible world. Zuzu’s his daughter, and it’s not dirty at all, although I can see how it sounds that way.
Oh, Jesus. *Hysterical, horrified laughter*
Marta, I’m glad I’m not the only brutally practical romance writer around here! I can’t stand to be romantic about business! Ugh.
And Jocelyn, thanks so much! I’m glad all the titty is in perfect proportion. (And since I’ve reached the giddy portion of my day, GrowlyCub, I’m so glad you overlooked the man-hungry satin sheets! You’ll be intrigued to know my first contemp cover features a gloriously headless heroine, just to complete the genre cliches!!! Ha!)
…does she have a purse?
People seem to think this about all artists. There was a small kerfuffle in Edmonton (Alberta) several years ago when they were building a section of freeway, and spending large dollars on imported Italian tiles to make a particular stretch less stultifyingly ugly. You know, nothing but concrete for a couple of kilometres.
Several community members piped up with the suggestion that local artists donate their work and create murals along that stretch instead, and wouldn’t that be lovely, and then we wouldn’t be spending so much money on Italian tiles. To which several artists said, howzabout local artists get PAID to create said murals?
The tiles are there. And, being Italian, are bearing up very well under the wear, tear, salt, and weather.
The best spiel I’ve ever read about this misconception about the separation of art from commerce was from, believe it or not, Axl Rose. He said in an interview (a good twenty years ago), “I don’t care if you’re a burger-flipper, if you’re getting paid for it, you’re a commercial burger-flipper” (or something to that effect). Which is to say, your art may be a timeless work of awe-inspiring wonder, but if you’re a professional artist of any variety, it needs to pay you enough to live on. Otherwise, it’s not your career, it’s your hobby.
And artists need to eat, too.
No… She has a laptop! *g*
headless cover
No… She has a laptop! *g*
http://victoriadahl.com/books.php#TMD
This seems to fly in the face of most authors’ royalty checks. Lots of authors have a long backlist, and still never earn out their advances. But they keep writing and publishing. Why? I don’t think it’s for the filthy lucre. If it was, they’d be in a more stable, financially secure job.
Mark me down as another one who has had a series of Headless (or at least “eyeless”) chick lit covers. I actually prefer them to the “cartoon” look, but that’s my taste. The cover of the first book has been through three incarnations: one was rejected before publication by marketing (so yes, it does happen, I have proof), one appeared on the hardcover and was later deemed both “too pink” for the anti-chick lit bash and “too scary” to attract readers who would probably enjoy the light suspense in an otherwise comedic and romantic novel. So yes, it is about attracting the “right” readership, in the sense that it’s about attracting the readership who is most likely to enjoy the book between the covers. The third concept did the trick and the three subsequent books in the series have all been variations on that theme.
In fact, I’ve just received my first cover with a full face on it—in the YA fantasy genre.
I think covers are VERY important, and I have bought books because of the cover. Now when I say that, I don’t mean that I saw the cover and put the book in my cart. I mean that a cover drew me in, so I picked it up and looked at the back cover copy. That drew me in further, so I read a page. Further, so I bought it. But nothing would be there without the first step. A cover’s job is to make you look at the cover copy. The cover copy’s job is to make you look at the book. And so on…
Oh, believe me, willa, I understand that. Boy, do I understand.
But when writers are lamenting the commercialization of literary novels, the complaints are about their publishers & the publishing world. In this era of the Internet and very easy, high-quality self-publishing, there are cheap ways to get your work in the hands of consumers without a filter, if that is your driving ambition. The purity of the words. The absence of lurid covers. Complete control of the primary recipients of your novel. No unwashed masses mistakenly consuming the product.
If you really, really want to see the book published by an institution, you could forgo any compensation at all and just turn it over for the benefit of the world.
Of course, I’m not arguing that writers should work for free. My point is this: let’s not pretend it’s not a commercial enterprise tainted by filthy lucre. Let’s not be surprised that the publishers aren’t looking to just break even on your work of eye-hurting brilliance.
After all, I don’t think Jane Austen’s publisher took her on because he thought she had something important to say. He saw money when he looked at her work.
Control the books and you’ll control the children. Control the children and you control the world.
Things have been routinely left out of education for decades, though in the years since I left highschool it’s been getting worse much faster than before. People on a game I play ask me “who’s that?” when I play my cleric Jeanne D’Arc and my archer Robin D’Loxley, but they instantly recognize the name Tom Riddle when I play that particular mage. The girls that read Twilight are trying to stir up a fight by claiming that Meyers is the new JKRowling or that Twilight is vastly superior to Harry Potter because the guys are somehow sexier and yet the main character is the most irritating, wangsty, loathesome little bitch I’ve ever had the misfortune of reading about.
The future generations are losing what we have learned. They don’t think any of it is as important to know as what tomorrow’s latest “in” fashion is going to be. It doesn’t surprise me anymore that these publishers are trying to dumb things down, because it’s been happening over the years.
Control the books and you control the children. Control the children and you control the future.
The reason the one with the girl sells for Zulu is because it’s thought to be more feminine. You’re reading a a quick rainy day novel that you can discuss over cookies and cake at a reading group. The other cover makes the novel look boring even with the bright colors. With how other novels are being made you would have no idea that the novel fit with them by looking at the first cover.
There is more free-flowing, unfiltered information now than there has been in… well, forever, I’d argue. There is no longer a filter. That’s why the music business is going (thankfully) down, down, down. We can make our own decisions about what we want to buy now. Same goes for books. E-books, fan-fic, self-pubbed. It’s ours for the taking anywhere in the world. All of this in response to the homogenization of our world, just as it should be. It’s human nature. We’re awesome that way.
Don’t demonize fluff. There’s nothing wrong with it. There was nothing wrong with it twenty years ago when I was reading Sweet Valley High or fifty years ago when my mom was reading Nancy Drew. (Yes, I read it too.) And a hundred years ago? Well, books were only available to those who could afford them. The Golden Age of literature was only golden for some.
It’s okay. We will be all right.
There was a wonderful article in the June 2nd Newsweek about the alleged dumbness of our culture, btw. Complete with a burning copy of War and Peace.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/138536