Reader Cate alerted me to the differences in Elizabeth Hoyt’s covers between the US and UK versions. Have a look. This is the UK version:
And this is the US version:
Cate went out of her way to order the US copy even though she’s in the UK, because she really, really dislikes the historical inaccuracy of the cover: “This is a book set in 1737 – I know that because it says so on the first page(!).So why then have Piatkus given the book a set of cover models who look like they’ve just walked off the set of Pride & Prejudice? Or does one historical era fit all ? – a bit like a kaftan!”
I confess to not being as savvy as Cate, but I’m also not sure which cover I’d prefer. On one hand, the US cover very clearly says historical romance – but the UK cover, and the title as listed in Amazon.co.uk, seems to market it as a mystery/romance, particularly the additional reference to mystery in the title: “Notorious Pleasures: A Maiden Lane Novel: A Wesley Peterson Murder Mystery.”
Which do you like better? If you were out book shopping and browsing, which would you be more interested in?
I’m sorry—I messed up the results. I couldn’t help but choose the dragon. 😀
Must be their marketing to the American consciousness, but my first thought when looking at the red one was “Ooooh fireworks!” I do love me some sparkle.
I’ve never been so glad I’m historically challenged…I would have no idea what dresses are worn in what era! I hate the look on the UK cover – the historicals I read are 90% between early 1800s – 1830 – and I always envision the women in the fuller, lower cut, prettier dresses because I think the bland, hanging-straight-down-with-little-girl puff-sleeves is ugly. I don’t need the dresses as full as Scarlett O’Hara’s (which was the mid 1800s!) but regardless of how they really did dress, to me they wore bigger, fuller, nicer dresses, from 1700-late 1800 when I think the bustle made it’s debut! If it’s a medieval, to me they all dressed like Olivia Hussey in Romeo and Juliet (don’t care if I’m right or wrong). When authors describe most clothing, I’ve no idea what they are talking about, so I use the color, substitute in my mental dress of choice, and I’m happy! All that said, however – I don’t think I’ve ever spent more than 5 seconds looking at a cover and once I start reading couldn’t tell you what the cover looks like (certain 8 pack abs covers do tend to stand out a bit, like Lora Leigh’s Nauti series covers).
Hate both.
The US one is the usual ghastly, florid, vulgar mess of figures and too much text in too many sizes and typefaces (and is the dress all that accurate for the 1730s? Just asking). The UK one is a lot tidier and not in-yer-face vulgar, but sadly limp, uninspired and boring. I actually ‘read’ the dress as modern (21stC), not Regency, and certainly not George II, of course.
The difference in public taste in cover art between the US and the UK runs very deep, and is evident in non-fiction as well as novels.
This blog entry from a few years ago is an interesting study of the US/UK taste dichotomy in covers. I (and most Brits) tend to see American cover-art as fussy, gaudy and messy; I presume most Americans see ours as bland and boring.
http://www.intergalacticmedicineshow.com/cgi-bin/mag.cgi?do=columns&vol=carol_pinchefsky&article=002
Although the covers shown and contrasted are science fiction rather than romance, it is easy to see the same culturally distinct design principles at work.
I’m not fond of either cover. US is too clinchtastic and please, enough with the shirtless guys. But the UK cover doesn’t even read romance to me. With her hand at her neck and his hand just barely touching her it looks more like the butler is catching mi’lady as she faints when the brash young American asks for coffee instead of tea.
I’m from the UK and I think the UK cover is just wrong. It’s boring and false advertising. I did email the publisher to query why they were 100 years out in the costumes. I think it is as bad as putting modern clothes on a historical. Speaking of boring, check out the UK version of Devil in Winter – dull dull dull.
Everybody loves dragons. It’s a universal thing.
After looking again at the covers, I lean toward USA. First, I honestly can’t keep accuracy details straight and they aren’t what I look for in a historical romance – but I am very well aware I may be a minority in that one. I’ve said before: you can have the duke drive his Porsche to Almack’s and I won’t blink, but if his dialogue is cliche-ridden and the motivation and plot are hokey, I’m done. Gimme his Porsche.
The reason I lean toward the USA is because of the dress and the color – a red dress, the pose, the way the male is standing behind her – all say “strong woman” to me. I already know Hoyt writes strong women but that cover also telegraphs that to me in color and composition. The UK cover is more staid, she’s being restrained, and for heaven’s sake, her dress blends into the wallpaper. Not the heroine I’m looking for.
Unless she’s secretly a dragon!
In spite of the inappropriate clothing styles, I much prefer the UK cover version. I’m not a fan of the overwrought candy box US romance covers. I usually put my book plate over them, just to avoid shuddering. On library books, I use post-it notes.
Dear Bitchery,
Thank you for making my day better. After having to take a $50 cab ride to get to work (late) due to the subzero engine killing temperatures I was in the type of bad mood that only you can cure. XOXO.
PS: Dragons all the way. And probably the US cover since I agree that the proportions are all wonky on the UK verson. Her neck really is 2x too long and his looks like they took away a few inches. It’s just odd.
I think that if there could be some sort of hybrid between the two—the dress cut and color of the US cover, a shirt on the man, please, for the love of all that is fluffy, the slightly more restrained style of the UK cover, and Dear Ceiling Cat, *definitely the US fonts (who the hell picked that lame calligraphy font, anyway? and in *pink? how the hell does that match the rest of the colors? *ahem* my design issues, let me show you them), although perhaps just *two typefaces, rather than three—that’s the one I’d go for. With a dragon. A SPARKLY DRAGON.
*ahem* Rambling comment is rambling. Whoops?
OMG! Snarfed my coffee at Sarah’s DWAAAAAGONNNN! comment.
Like the UK restraint. Hate the freakishly long neck and inaccuracy.
Ashley, I have never thought of masks in terms of hoo-has. UNTIL NOW. Thank you for making me see what cannot be unseen.
Also, if you’re bothering to do the whole shirtless man thing, why not go all the way to full-on man titty?
As much as I find the historical inaccuracy off-putting (seriously, being that far off in time period is something that would truly irk me) the worse offense of the UK cover is the drabness. The colors are bland (beige dress – ugh!), the headless automatons are bland, and their poses say “feeble waif girl” to me. The heroine looks like she’s falling asleep on her feet or perhaps passing out from boredom.
Of course, if she truly were secretly a dragon then the UK one would win by default. Provided she went on a cottage-burning rampage, of course.
Doesn’t anyone else think the English man has a face like a kumquat?
LOL. I agree with you 100%. I’m not into historicals, but since we are truly judging books by their covers, the UK is soooooo bland. Me likey the pretty colors of the US version better. As far as the big fonts…look around. All of the US ones are doin it. If you’re an established author, your name will be in big shiny caps…names sell. (Heck, look at Nora Roberts’ books….I can’t remember what any of her covers look like…mainly because they all feature her name in big bold print.
Please forgive my typo…I meant to say the UK
VERSION
is soooo bland. *blushing*
Historical accuracy aside, I much prefer the subdued, tasteful British cover to the gaudy, sleazy US one, and would be more likely to pick up the former as it has an air of mystery about it and doesn’t scream “cookie-cutter historical” to me. (And FWIW, the second cover isn’t all that historically accurate either; it looks like a Simplicity Patterns rendition of “period” costume.)
Miss, Jez said ‘kum…’
I have this idea that our national differences in book cover taste could be down to the weather. Our weather is so often grey, misty, foggy and dim that we see misty, subtle colours as being more realistic, and find the more highly saturated colours of the US covers a bit cartoon-like and hard to believe. Whereas people from regions with stronger, clearer light see stronger, clearer colours as more realistic, and think ours are wishy-washy and dull.
That’s my theory anyway 🙂
The heroine looks taller than the hero in the UK version and I agree the colors are drab.
But there is something off about the hero on the US cover. Don’t know if it’s just the angle, or his head seems to small, or what.
So I voted for needs a dragon.
Well, I wonder if the debate indicates that the cover-producers know what they are doing. I’m from the UK and the UK cover looks like something I would pick up. Classy, period romance – though admittedly, I would be expecting Regency romance from the clothes. The US cover, by contrast, screams to me vulgar, sex-filled romp. But it’s interesting to me to see that so many commenters read the two covers differently. I’d love to have a poll that showed how the preferences split between readers from the US and UK.
Yes! Although at first glance I thought it was a purse, which made me beyond happy, so I was a little disappointed it was only a mask.
I think the US one is lurid and ridonkulous, but I like that about it. It’s not like anyone who sees the UK cover isn’t going to know it’s a romance novel. I’ll take shameless over pretending-not-to-be-embarrassed any day. If you’re going to eat a frog eat a big one.
I just realized that the English dude’s chin looks like Jay Leno…
Alex, there is some truth in this. The quality of light and its effect on colour intensity, plus the landscape colours arising from the predominent types of vegetation, are fascinating topics. But Brits are accustomed to — and love — the vivid and saturated colours of the Mediterranean countries, while plenty of Americans live in areas where there is a cool, clear, but pastel quality to the light (thinking of the Seattle/Vancouver region). (Wonderful light and vegetation colours in Australia, so different from Europe: all those silvery greens of the gum trees, and the pink and blue. Sorry, getting distracted).
No, it’s more about the symbolism rather than the reality. Gaudy, clashing colours and madly busy designs read, to many of us Brits as ‘loud, vulgar and childish’; restrained colours and cleaner lines read as ‘adult, mature, serious’. Shouting and screaming and jumping up and down, as opposed to cool, subtle understatement.
But having said that, both of these covers are undoubtedly poor. To me, the dress on the UK cover is totally modern, not even Regency, and the colours are dreary rather than subtle.
I dislike pictorial covers for novels anyway. I prefer simple and elegant typography on a plain background.
Yes!!!!! I thought the exact same thing.
I’m finding it fascinating that the votes for one cover or another are continuously so evenly split.
Ignoring historical accuracies, I prefer the UK cover. I think it is because the wording on the US cover overshadows the figures and looks too busy.
I wouldn’t pick either one. They both look boring to me and bring out the worst ADD tendencies in me. Can’t get into historicals unless they have dragons, elves, unicornies, zombies, or aliens.
I just read the book today. I bought the American version on Amazon.de, because it was cheaper (5,70 € ) than the British one (9,40 €). I do like the American cover better. No headless people, right hair colour, right century dress. I also think the sensuality level of the book is better represented by the American cover.
Although I dislike historical inaccuracies, the US cover seems so overwrought. It’s the embodiment (encoverment?) of what I think of when someone says “scarlet woman.” (Not that I hear that phrase used often, if at all.) The swooning face, half-dressed man, red dress, and mask merkin are all a turn-off for me. I don’t really like the UK cover eaither, it is fairly bland, but at least the model isn’t trying to hid her crotch, like we don’t all really know what’s going to happen in this book anyway.
Oh this, so much this. That’s the cover I want. Please give me back that cover. It was pretty and matched the first. Hate when covers looks change in the middle of a series. Like with Lisa Kleypas’s Hathaway series I loved the first three covers (book 1 had my favorite cover of that year) and it was bad enough that they switched up for the last two but they made them so bland, boring and paint-by-numbers.
I preferred the UK cover (looks like my kind of book!) until I found out what time period the book’s set in. There are some time periods that I love, some I’m sick of but tolerate, some that I have no interest in—if the costume on the cover misleads me, then I’m a pissed-off reader.
“Paint-by-numbers” wasn’t exactly what I meant there but was the best I could do because the word I wanted was just out of mental reach. Of course I immediately thought of what I wanted to say after I hit submit. Generic—the last two covers in the Hathaways series were generic.
The red one hurt my eyes. I probably wouldn’t have noticed the errors on the UK version.
I prefer not seeing the covers: go ebooks!
Dragons make everything better.
I’m sorry, but the US cover just says “Yet Antoher Historical”. The UK cover would attract me sooner, with its contrast between the extremely restrained couple (no, not that way!) and the pink curly font; I’d be curious to see what happens behind that cover, much more than with the red-screaming-in-your-face version. And yes, I would then laugh at the historical inaccuracy, but… If I had a buck for every historically accurate cover I own I wouldn’t be any richer.
Is there anything about the UK cover that says pleasure? Let alone notorious pleasures? And if it’s a murder mystery then I say chin guy did it!
But screw the covers! Why is this book not available for Kindle in the Netherlands?! I hate it when they do that. Sure I can order a dead tree version from the German Amazon (since they seem to think Holland belongs to Germany there are no shipping costs…) but I WANT IT NOW!!!
If I were judging the book solely on the cover, I don’t think either of these would entice me to pick the book off the shelf. They both look like covers we’ve seen a thousand times.
The UK cover looks like an awkward prom photo. I like a simple cover but this one has no style or personality at all. It’s telling me this book will be politely romantic, but it won’t be an exciting read.
The US cover is pretty ridiculous, but it does make the book seem a bit more lively. But for the love of Zeus man, put your shirt back on. The waxed chest isn’t exactly historically accurate either. Still, I prefer this one. It just seems more interesting.
Dragon, bitches. Everything’s better with dragons!
Well my blissfully OTT red Georgian(ish) American copy of this book arrived today. -And I couldn’t be happier.
When I sent Sarah my original letter, I was -and still am -incensed that the (UK) publishers just couldn’t be arsed to even be bothered to give this novel a cover that even gave a passing nod to it’s setting – 1737 . So it has a cover that strongly suggests it has a Regency setting ( trading standards anyone ?) & if, like me you’re Regency’d out – & if I didn’t know that Hoyt writes about those wonderfully down & dirty early Georgians, I would have passed this book over.
– And as for those of you voting for Dragons …… They’re a flaming nuisance & a bugger to shift from the bottom of the garden……Worse than a fairy infestation every time !
The US cover. I don’t care about historically accurate covers. I just want a cover that screams “This is a romance novel!”, and the US one does this more effectively. I want romance novels to be easy to pick out, because I want my happy ending. I don’t want to pick up something thinking it’ll end well, only to have our couple not end up together or someone dies. Seriously, if I want to go on a crying jag, I’ll watch a movie; it takes two hours as opposed to eight. (But for a happy ending, I’ll commit the time.)