While looking for covers for the Chesty-Back challenge, I found a new designed cover for Joanna Bourne’s The Spymaster’s Lady.
Now, I loved this book, but the cover was patently ridiculous:
Knock that oiled chest-baring ab-master off the cover, and substitute something more professional and perhaps boring, and I promise you, linguistics students could study this narrative as a representative work on how to accurately portray the differences in languages…
Oh, that cover made me sad. More than once I’d recommended the book to people who were curious about romance and had to say, “Ignore the oiled abs. Ignore the cover. Hell, spray paint it green. Just don’t look at it and look at the words inside instead. I promise they are SO much better than the cover.”
Here’s the old cover:
And this is the new one, coming out 4 May:
Which do you like better? I confess, I’m not sure that the second one says “romance” either. It’s almost a literary fiction/historical fiction look to it. What do you think?
Ooh, you did say soon! Only a month, yippee! Something to read when I go away in June. I’m stockpiling books I really want to read for when I have the peace and quiet to actually concentrate on them.
I think the flintlock on the Sharpe cover is a tiger—I’m sure the Tippoo’s men in the book had rifles like this. I think I remember the Tippoo’s Tiger in that book too—the pipe organ that’s also a mechanical ‘toy’ of a tiger mauling a redcoat (it being a while before there was anything good on telly in Seringapatam).
Looks like the Sharpe covers have all been redesigned too, for something a bit more generic. Shame.
I LOVE the first cover and dislike the second cover (though the pink dress is nice). I want to look at handsome men, especially with their physiques showing! And, yes, I’m a big fan of the fabulous Fabio. I understand the comments about the title referring to a “lady” but there being a man on the cover, but, hey, the title also refers to a “spymaster” who’s a man so I think the first cover makes sense.
I wouldn’t even pick up the book with the second cover. There are so many books to choose from and I choose a good-looking man! I’ve found many great books and authors that way (and, okay, a few duds).
book89—I have more than 89 books in my TBR pile!
On the first cover I find myself looking desperately for nipples on that poor guy. With how much of the chest is bared you would think you could see at least a portion of at least one nipple. Plus the abs look like they go up way to far into his pecs. Also, ummm the title is Spymasters Lady, but there is no lady present.
Based on title alone I like the second one better. That being said the second one looks too stuffy for me to grab in the bookstore. I would look at that and see, dry contrived regency. The first one would at least make me pick it up and read the back of it.
Oh god, where to begin . . . the Empire waist is about the only thing right with it. *sigh* The bodice shape is entirely wrong. Hello, it has freaken darts! The design of it is also anachronistic. And she’s clearly not wearing a corset, as the position of the breasts is incorrect. The skirt shape is wrong (too narrow, not enough fabric, A-line). The construction is wrong. The fabrication is wrong and it appears to be trimmed with rick-rack. IMO it’s a disaster. What I call “perioid” rather then period.
Here are two examples of gowns c. 1800 (hope this works)
Hmm, not so much. HTML is so not my friend . . . let’s try again:
Third times a charm, LOL!
I like the second cover better. But I have to say eBooks are like getting your immunization against judging books by their covers. Since I migrated to mostly digital, I’d say the majority of the books I’ve read are books I would have ruled out based on their cover if I was doing the old brick-and-mortar thing.
I love Mercy Thompson but all I would have seen is a midriff baring woman covered in tattoos. Nothing wrong with that, just not my cuppa. I would have assumed some sort of carnie-meets-dominatrix-and oh yeah there are werewolves vibe.
For whatever bizarre reason, I’ve always steered away from cover art with actual models in favor of some sort of illustration. I have no idea what that’s about, but it definitely has kept me from breaking into romance books even though I like a good love story.
So huzzah for eBooks and internet browsing, where I find out about the book before I decide it’s a big fat cheese fest because of some deep seated prejudice about what kind of book it is based on the cover alone. I love tools that make me less prone to idiocy.
Hi Kalen—
You are, as ever, my fashion goddess.
And just to be clear, Jo makes no such horrible fashion faux pas in her books! We’re just talking about the art dept here.
I think it may look more like the empire waist gowns of the 1960s than the 1800s. But at least they got the waistline in the right place and the dress isn’t just a sort of frilly thing with a ginormous leg slit 1/2 covering only her torso which we see a lot of.
Can’t say either cover does much for me, but then the only time I will buy a book based on its cover is when the cover artist is Kinuko Craft. She is an absolute guarantee of quality as far as I am concerned. I suppose it is because she is so expensive only the publishers who are totally committed to the book will pay to have her do the cover.
Now that I have moved almost everything to the Kindle, the cover is less and less important. I have everything from Aeschylus to The Adventures of Sally all in the same bland black cover, and no one knows what I am reading unless I want them to. Not that I care, I’m just sayin’
Ooh, I prefer the new one hugely! (And REALLY wish I could have bought that version.) So much less embarrassing to read in public, and I love the mischievous expression on her face – makes it obvious that there’s a strong heroine leading the book.
That first cover is just *bad.* So I’m glad they’ve replaced it. I’d be more likely to buy the second one, although her facial expression is annoying me somehow. (Maybe I’m now too used to the faces-cut-off covers du jour?) But if you say it’s a great read, I may just be forced to get a copy. 😉
Hey, isn’t that Ridge from The Bold & the Beautiful in the first one? Yeah… Really bad.
See, I LIKE cheesy covers, so I love the 1st one. I’m MORE likely to buy a romance book with a) flying random animals, b) improbable positioning of the human body, c) bosoms heaving (does not matter if it’s male or female character), and d) bright colors and weird items than one which looks “respectable” and “literary.”
I WANT it to look awful and cheesy – I dunno, that’s just always been my preference.
I like the second one better. The title is the Spymaster’s Lady- it’s pretty weird to put a man on the cover as they did on the first one. I also like how proper the gown is (but not the window-curtain fabric they used to make it) and the choker. However, the model isn’t how I pictured Annique. She looks too proper and tonnish. Annique is hardened and wiley.
Since a better, though much too long, title for the book would be ‘The Brilliant Spy, her late mother, the Enemy Spymaster, his Spy Sidekick, and the Invasion Plans’ and it starts with Annique single-handedly breaking herself and the other two out of a bare cell in the Napoleonic Paris equivalent of the Lubyanka, using only guile, superhuman senses, and the skilled application of violence with improvised weaponry; and then continues on from there, but with Grey and the others now matching her blow for blow, neither of those covers are much use.
It’s not the figures, they’re actually fine, it’s the backdrops and the symbolic objects. Trees in a Pastoral Idyll? Country houses? A shawl?
The symbolism should be of intrigue, blood, violence, fear, despair, patriotism, and persistence despite all, rather than peace, tranquility and ease (especially in the second one).
Seriously, one of the classic clinch covers with the violent weather, impossibly tangled limbs, clothes falling away, and the mysterious galloping horse that appears nowhere in the story itself, would give a better sense of the book, simply by having more action, movement and stuff happening in it. Not that I’d wish one of those on my worst enemy.
If I had to pick one of thos two, I’d actually go for Mr. Bare Chested as that one’s a little less passive and a bit less suggestive of country house parties.
I’ve always disliked the first cover: I bought the book because of the great reviews it got – if I’d met it in a bookshop I wouldn’t have lifted it off the shelf.
The new cover, I’d lift. And I agree it’s good to see her face, and good that she’s an interesting looking person.
(In the pictures of the cover of the next book, it looks like the heroine’s face falls off the edge in the actual cover – I would prefer the draft cover that shows her face. Doesn’t matter though – the book was pre-ordered aeons ago, with the very last of my Christmas-present-Amazon-tokens. Can’t wait.)
When I see Nathan Kamp’s pretty pouty face and bare chest, the word “spymaster’ is not what springs to mind. “Cheesecake model’ is more like it. Spamword is attack37. No comment.
Ugh, I don’t like the second cover. The dress just looks tacky—like something I made over the weekend from a “so you want a regency dress” pattern (if such things exist). And the model is just so bland, which Annique never was.
I loved the book, didn’t much like the first cover, and really don’t like the second cover. But I’ll take the first one, hands down. It’s cheesy but not bland.
Eh…if the writing is good, I consider the half-naked man a bonus. If it’s bad, it soothes the wound since you shelled out money and, at the very least, you’re now the proud owner of something fun to look at. But I realize that’s just me…
This is going to sound like a really dumb question, but what’s that in his pants? NO, not that! It’s tucked into his waistband on his left side. Is that the handle of a pistol?
the second is less tacky, but neither cover conveys anything about the story. It needs an action cover, a picture of them jail breaking, or fleeing through the French countryside, whatever.
I do have a pattern in my favourite costume book from a few years later with darts in the bodice of both dress and spencer. Also notes that frequently ladies of fashion did not wear corsets during this period—that, coupled with their form-revealing dresses made them seem quite scandalous to a generation used to the panniers and towering wigs of the previous century.
That said, it does look like a dress from maybe five or ten years later. But given the screaming inaccuracies I’ve seen and read in historicals—including one where every detail of dress and even building style was about two hundred years out of date—a few bust darts here and there make no nevermind to me.
Weird thing I’ve just remembered: a friend brought some Regency fashion plates to a writing lunch a few months back, and in them the women were depicted with very wide bosoms—lift and separate, then separate some more. There was no hint of cleavage in these illustrations. We were trying too work out when it might have become desirable from a fashion point of view for the boobies to be squished together instead of yanked apart (frankly, it looked kinda painful).
Completely UNTRUE! This whole oft-quoted nonsense makes me insane. There is a VERY brief period in PARIS (not even all of France and CERTAINLY not in England) when some women (not very many, even then and there) wore little bust supports instead of full on corsets (c. 1795-1800). Lazy historians have taken quotes about this very specific set of women from a very specific place and extrapolated out across the entire era and all of Europe. Sloppy scholarship at its best. It’s like saying 20 American 20-somethings never wear underwear because Paris Hilton and Britney Spears keep getting caught flashing their bits.
By the way, here are images of the bust bodice (it’s like a small vest that supports the underside of the breasts) that WAS worn by these women and a painting of a woman who is likely wearing something similar under her gown (note, both these images are French).
Yes, because they were wearing the fashionable “divorce corset” which “divorced” the breasts from one another. You can find ads for these being sold during the period and there are numerous examples in museum collections.
Yes, but Annique is French. During that period.
And I’ve learned never to accept any opinion as completely definite on any aspect of any period in history. Maybe my book is right. Maybe yours is. Maybe when The Doctor turns up at my door with his Tardis I’ll pop back to 1800 and find out for myself.
I’d take either of these covers over the Sweet Temptation cover featured on the adroll at the side of this page. That one seems aimed directly at sweaty guys with hairy backs pointing their …er… little mouses at porn sites.
And Kalen, the photo of that exquisite dress! Now I don’t have to imagine what the sweet young things at Almacks were wearing…
@ Kalen and Cat:
You ladies make me grin. I have a friend who is totally into this, too, and she is a Romance reader. She got an MFA in something I don’t quite remember but she went on to do costume design for theater production. She cannot STAND Much Ado About Nothing, one of my all time faves, because the costumes are all wrong.
As for me, my fashion sense is so limited that if I have personally matched my socks to each other, much less my outfit, I feel like I’m on target.
I am loving the visual aids, Kalen.
I’d be way more likely to read the second one, I think. The title says romance while the cover says historical.
The first one says ‘romance set in an allegedly historical period with no attention to historical detail’. Also, why don’t his abs line up?
@Laurel – she probably coughed up a hairball watching Cate Blanchett in Elizabeth and Elizabeth: The Golden Age[/]. Mild attempt at vaguely period-inspired costumes with weird electric Day-Glo colors.
I used to play with the Society for Creative Anachronism, and most of the people are pretty tolerant of any honest attempt at period costume, but then there are the authenticity police who make it their business to call out anyone who isn’t “period.” The only way to shut them up is to tell them that telling people what isn’t period isn’t period.
My standards are pretty low in book covers. If it is vaguely reminiscent of something vaguely of the period, I don’t mind. What I really like is art work from the same time period showing scenes of daily life that the characters might have been involved in.
@albireo: I don’t know about his abs, but why is there a teepee in the background?
hour78: I have spent at least 78 hours laughing at the Smart Bitches
I’m not basing my opinion on a books (aka tertiary resources), and certainly not on a single one. I base mine on actual research and scholarship (the study of primary sources). When someone shows me the documentation for the assertion that women of this era did not wear corsets/stays, only THEN will there actually be something to discuss, as I’ve plenty of documentation that they did wear them. This is not opinion, it is fact.
Documentation is always helpful with this sort of discussion. I teach a lot of workshops on historical clothing and undergarments, so I have done extensive research and have a giant horde of images of extant garments. It’s my specialty.
I was never able to go there. The first one was too awful for me to even be able to contemplate watching the sequel.
Love it.
She’s beautiful, and she has a head!
Kalen, my point was simply that historical facts can ever be entirely disproved. Especially when they concern the lack of something.
Laurel: Much Ado About Nothing —do you mean the Branagh/Thompson version about 15 years ago? There’s no particular period defined for that film, and at a guess there isn’t supposed to be (if there’s a newer version I’d love to know: it’s my favourite play). It’s always interesting to me when Shakespeare is filmed/played in a period that’s neither Shakespearean or modern. Some plays lend themselves very strongly to different periods in history—a 1930s gangster Macbeth, for instance—but sometimes the costumes seem to have been chosen because they’re, like, pretty.
I speak as a former drama student who did A Midsummer Night’s Dream in Regency dress purely because of the popularity of Colin Firth’s Darcy.
I recently got incensed about a renewed production of An Inspector Calls, which is set in a very specific week of 1912, just before the Titanic sailed—this fact is mentioned in the script—and yet the fashionable female character is wearing a dress about ten years out of fashion. Drives me demented, but I can’t even mention the fact to most people without gales of hysterical laughter.
I bought the book in spite of the first cover—what bothered me most is that the man on the cover looks absolutely nothing like the hero of the novel! I’ve got nothing against strategically placed man titty, but I do like the cover to have something to do with what’s inside the book. 😉
Granted, this very rarely happens, so it really shouldn’t surprise me.
Is it just me or do these two covers look like they’re giving each other googly eyes?
Original: “MM YES, BEHOLD MY MANLY AND WELL-OILED ABS.”
New: “Sort of want.”
I picked up this book at a store because of this conversation.
I was not disappointed.
Mmmm. Greeeeey.
Like, Keemeers, started looking at the book because of this thread. I’m enjoying it so far (only the first couple of chapters) but…“Annique?” Srsly? I haven’t found out her “real” background yet, so I’m sort of hoping that she’s really Anneke, from Bruges, and is secretly fighting to free Flanders from French domination. Because if she’s French wouldn’t she be “Annette”? The French were and are to this day NOT creative about names. I’m hoping the name “Annique” gets an explanation, or it’s going to irritate me in an otherwise enjoyable read.
Oh, and put me in the second cover camp. I like the sneaky smile and the eyebrows, although the background is meh.
Useless mental note #3492: Kalen Hughes is PASSIONATE about period wardrobe inaccuracies. Every time I look at one of your books I’ll remember this thread and tehehe. Love the visual aids!