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?
My favorites covers are the ones that don’t scream romance. They have a feather, or a necklace, or a pillow, or some other item that might be in the novel and then a subtle coloring. That said, if I had to pick between these two, I would go with the American. The UK version looks too sedate to me. It makes me think of Jane Austen, and while I appreciate her works, I prefer anachronistic modern sensibilities in my historical romances. The US version is a little gaudy for my taste, but I still prefer it.
I wanted to vote for the green mystery cover (it is quiet and does not assault my eyeballs), but once I saw that dragon was an option there was simply no other choice.
Sorry I skewed your poll results, but come on. Dragon.
First of all I enjoyed all your comments. Better even than the covers. I voted for historical accuracy. Also I love fireworks( I have secret dreams of getting married on the fourth of July.)
I feel like the shirtless man is somewhat hidden.
Like someone above I get Regency’d out. Points for setting a book some other time.
This all being said the only times I look at covers is at bookstores or during the book club when SB Sarah says look at the cover. In a bookstore, I would probably pick british cover because its more sedate for me to be seen in public with it.
(But historical accuracy is important!)
I am also as a Pink Carnation fan; yes I am annoyed they are switching covers in the series, but as I feel like the books are suddenly becoming PG, I am bothered by changes in content.
Has anyone noticed that the guy in the UK version looks a bit Jay Leno-ish? And really, who could go wrong with dragons?
Whether all readers know the difference between Regency and Georgian costume or not, do you think Hachette would ever put out a cookbook devoted to Thai food with a cover featuring tamales?
I can’t believe how many commenters prefer the UK version. I didn’t read through all of them ….just about 30 or so and was really surprised.
Yes it is a historical romance and I think it’s imperative to have the clothing at least in the right century!
I love the US cover, maybe because I’ve already read the story and the dress and the fireworks hold significance to the story. I like it when the cover isn’t generic but holds meaning to the story it’s supposed to represent. The UK cover says nothing about the story that is within the pages. To me that is a bigger fail than the clothing.
This could be a cover for a Heyer or an Austin novel…and anyone who has had the pleasure of reading a Hoyt romance knows that they are steamier. The cover should reflect that as well. Otherwise I feel like I’ve been deceived as to what to expect. I would only expect love scenes behind closed doors with the UK cover.
And what’s wrong with a man’s naked chest on the cover. I’ll take that kind of view all day long 🙂
I know a few people also commented on how they hate when a series changes the look of the covers midway through. In a recent conversation with the author she said that the next printing of Wicked Intentions will have a new cover, where the heroine is much larger and less of the background….so anyone buying now will more than likely have covers that “feel’ the same.
I also hate it when covers in a series don’t go well together….but what I hate even more is when they switch a series from mmp to hardcover in the middle. Not a way to reward reader loyalty!
What I focused on initially is that the UK cover-man is a bit shorter than his lady, whereas the US cover the man is significantly taller. Is that a common difference between US/UK covers too? I know fellow Americanas that demand tall men… Is that less important to our sisters in the UK?
(Everything I read these days are 80’s-written, WWII-era, East-Asian location romances [3 in a row!]. TOTALLY not the right gal to judge period costumes of Western Europe, though I think it’s awesome to read the critiques!)
I prefer the one that doesn’t chop both their heads off. The UK version suggests an incompetent photographer, and is a bit creepy; if done deliberately, it suggests that only the bodies matter, not the personalities (faces convey personality). Great if it’s a novel about slave trading or organ harvesting, not so much for a romance.
I received this book last week. I read it immediately. Elizabeth Hoyt is a favorite author of mine. I love the American cover and the peekaboo picture inside. The items in the pictures are parts of the story except, as Sandra said above, Griffin keeps his shirt on until later!!!
I don’t understand the UK cover at all. Maybe the artist didn’t read the book first?
The US version is more appealing to me. The cover couple look more natural than the ramrod-straight UK cover (I know British people have a thing about the stiff upper lip and reserve, but, seriously y’all. It’s cool to unbend enough to snuggle.)
And the US cover is easier to read for me. I glanced at it and new it said ‘Notorious pleasures”, whereas the UK one’s leany-pink thin script took me a second more.
The US has a more attractive cover for me—more color, better pose (the UK couple look like some celebrities trying to hustle through the paparazzi), and easier to read. Done.
Historical fashion flubs on covers are my biggest pet peeve. And there’s nearly a century of difference between these two covers. Also, does anyone else find it weird that the UK cover has the couple in an extremely stiff, starched-up position? The woman’s practically standing at the ballet barre, preparing for plies. OR, she’s stiffening because she’s realized the hero is a turtle-man from Planet XANATOR 3bs *click-click-whistle-whistle* 5, who is going to try and drag her back into his camouflaged-as-period-clothing shell! He is an ALIEN INVADER!!!!! Run, dear heroine! RUN!!!!! Oh…on second thought, she might look so stiff because she’s already been turned into an alien pod-person after she realized he couldn’t possibly be a wondrous English gentleman because of his historically inaccurate clothing, and he was forced to infect her virally with his transformational venom to preserve his cover 🙂
Also, he has a double chin. And he’s shorter than her (but his shoulders are taller than hers?). AND the cover’s screaming Bella Lugosi “I VANT TO SSSUUUUUCK YOUR BLOOOOOD…and play with your uber puffy sleeves!”
The US version wins if only because it doesn’t say all of the above. But I love the red dress, and the hero has his shirt UNBUTTONED but still TUCKED IN!!!! YAY!!!! And although he could be leaning in to slurp from a throbbing vein in her neck, she at least doesn’t look like she’s been transformed into an alien rent-a-womb. And ze fireworks, zey tell us it is wuv! twu twu WUV!!! as in “sparks will FLY!!!!” and then explode and disappear as our lovers have a falling out…
I hate it when they chop the heads off! (Are you listening, marketing department?) As much as I (an American) prefer the UK version (potato-rage couture issues aside), I will not buy any more headless books. Not even if the alternative is trashy and vulgar.
Though, US, can we please limit ourselves to 1 font? I am not a toddler and I don’t want to be yelled at in mutiple typefaces or squiggly lacy graphics (not that my toddler does either, but she might think it’s pretty).
In fact, given only these choices, I wouldn’t buy either of these books based on their covers, which is a shame, since I bet I’d like the stories. I love me my romances, but I would have returned to the genre much earlier in life if the covers weren’t so offputting. There’s a reason romance is selling thru the roof on ereaders.
I actually liked the look of the UK cover better until I found out it was set in 1737. The UK cover say’s Regency to me and had I purchased it and then found out when it was set it would irritate me very much – I hate covers that are widely inaccurate. (I wouldn’t notice smaller inaccuracies). That said, I think the US cover is ugly. The colors are way to bright and I don’t care for either of the people portrayed but it does seem to fit the era better.
I don’t particularly care about the historical inaccuracy – wouldn’t even have noticed it if it hadn’t been pointed out to me – so my vote totally goes to the UK cover. While I appreciate that the US one actually has something to do with the story (shock!), it’s just so ugly. The big lettering puts me off – as someone said upstream, stop shouting at me! – as does the shirtless dude.
Agree. HATE the generic nature of the UK cover. It’s completely bland and without any sense of story or even Personality—those people are missing their frickin’ faces, for frickssake! The US cover image fits the title. The UK one should be called “Notorious Boredom.”
I like the UK one….
Hard to decide which cliche I hate more – headless or shirtless. Probably headless, because at least there’s some eye candy with shirtless. The only time I make a decision based on a cover if the cover artist is Kinuko Craft, then it’s an automatic buy.
De-lurking to say that due to the shirt-less state of the guy on the US cover, I have to go with the UK cover, even though the clothing surely surely does not go with the story’s date. Too bad though, because if he had had a shirt, I’d be all for the red ruffles.
So do I, Tessa. It’s a lunatic idea, but bizarrely fashionable at the moment. And I am glad that you, too, dislike multiple typefaces; I was beginning to think that I was the only one who cares about the typography. NYT bestselling tag, author name, words of praise from Lisa Kleypas, also defined as NYT bestselling author, series reference, using two fonts (one of them ugly), about 6 different point sizes, caps, italics, bold, italic caps — it’s a godawful mess. There’s too much text on the cover of the UK one as well, but it isn’t quite so riotous.
Really, six of one, half-dozen of the other. The ghastly covers of so many romance novels constitute a major reason for the contempt in which they are held by some people. They assume that the books must be as appalling as their wrapping-paper.
Wasn’t the heroine of the book very tall? (Even a bit taller than the hero?) And very stiff-upper-lipped? In that sense the UK cover could be more accurate (though badly photoshopped). I think I’m in the dragon camp for this one, both covers seem about equally unappealing. The UK version for the dress and the general stockphotoness of it all, the US for the shirtless man – vilting girlishness in the poses. My copy is the US one and I too was a bit disappointed to find they’d changed the style so much from the first book in the series. Most importantly though: I liked the story a lot! 🙂
Am I the only one who kinda likes headless covers? They help me visualize the characters as the author describes them and/or in a way I find attractive.
BenP
Don’t worry about historical accuracy, Hoyt doesn’t either. Her books may have dates on them but that’s about as far as she gives lipservice to period.
That said the UK cover is just misleading readers.
I find it interesting that there was an earlier version of the US cover with the couple smaller. I was quite surprised when I saw the final cover because it’s such a dramatic departure from the cover of the first book in the series, which was much more restrained and more one-color.
/a
Can anyone name any other product or service where the packaging is so universally irrelevant to the contents that there is a saying about it??
Apologies for the rant, but I promised myself I would ask if it still bothered me in the morning, and it does. Why is the publishing industry so willfully blind to the marketing advantages of having the wrapping relate to the contents?
Or even, should it come to it and all this noise about publishing brands, to the publisher? Or the author? (Personally, should I ever get published, I’d like all of my book covers to be simple, Art Deco graphic elements. (Like I’d have any choice…sigh.))
I looooove romances, but I hate the covers. I hate having to sneak them on the train, I hate having them scream MAN-TITTY on my bookshelves. (Inside the book, oh yeah, but not for my friends/husband/parents to see. I like what happens in my brain to stay private.).
For a medium so much about imagination, why do they insist on bludgeoning me with luridly-colored, period/story inappropriate images photoshopped from some image library?
Why is it a standard defect of the genre that you have to work to get the cover images out of your brain while you read the story?
Why don’t the powerful authors stand up (or sit down at the contract-negotiating table) and insist that their covers reflect the period, characters and tone of their books?
Enquiring minds want to know. Ok, end of rant. Sorry.
TESSA: you are so, so right!
I think the US cover looks a little generic and busy. The other one is prettier imho
Something odd happened, and it wouldn’t let me post my whole comment. Trying again.
TESSA: you are so, so right!
The publishers are to blame, because they have a patronising view of romance readers as ‘silly, uneducated women’, and design the covers accordingly. They are wrong, of course. Notice how the cover-art changes when well-known authors who once published in category romance move into mainline publishing houses.
For beautiful examples of abstract, Art Deco style covers, take a look at four 1996-1998 novels by Jayne Ann Krentz: Absolutely Positively, Deep Waters, Sharp Edges and Flash. Elegant, eye-catching and, above all, grown-up. Here is the one for Sharp Edges:
http://www.amazon.com/Sharp-Edges-Jayne-Ann-Krentz/dp/1439154473/ref=pd_sim_b_3
🙂
Tessa: I kind of like the crazy over the top explosions-of-chiffon-and-man-chests covers, they remind me of grandmas…I can almost smell the tuberose…AAAAK. On a more intellectual note, who doesn’t love a good juxtaposition of masculine perceptions of the female romance reader’s desires (the cover) and the actuality of what draws the woman to the story in the first place (a nuanced tale that is nothing less than a modernized interpretation of 12th century romance traditions) 🙂 thus, and verily and truly we may say, that the man proves himself to be more superficial than the female, as she adores the tale for itself, and he believes she does so for the cover (because…maybe that’s the part that he likes…) I love me a good dichotomy 🙂 or just the word dichotomy…suh-WHEEEEET!!!! Although, I would add a giant dragon to the US cover, it could be the source of the fireworks 🙂
AgTigress: Oh! I love these, especially the “Deep Waters” one. Thank you. And yes, excellent point about how an author’s cover change as soon as they move to a mainstream publishing house.
I never stopped reading sci-fi or fantasy (although I did hide most of the rainbow unicorn/flaming sword covers), or mysteries, or spy/conspiracy thrillers (yeah, I’m a bit of a genre slut) for that matter. I do think it was the covers (and the raised eyebrows & comments you get when in public) that drove me away from romances.
I was a serious young woman making my way in the world, if I spent x amount on my clothes, y amount on my hair, there was no way I was going to undo all that with a sparkly pink cover splashed with font carnage and random nudity. Especially when it HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE STORY.
Ok, I really will be quiet now. Gotta work on my book that will be so utterly awesome as to merit a decent, relevant, cover. Sigh.
I like headless covers. Headless covers do not stop me buying a book.
But and being totally honest under the cover of anonimity: models´ faces might stop me buying or reading a book. If they are not attractive to me, if the facial expressions are insipid or ridiculous, or (even worse) if they reminded me of some celebrity or person I dislike.
So headless covers please for me. I have put off buying books because of the faces on the models.
With no other info than the picture, the US cover is more eye catching. Plus, it doesn’t look like literature. So, if I am looking for straight up period romance, the US cover it is. I really do hate it when the cover is so far removed from what’s in the book. I think it is so tacky that the publishers don’t do a better job matching the cover to the contents.
Lynn S.>
I too am bothered by the changing of the Pink Carnation covers.
Still not as bad as changing out the positively gorgeous original covers of PC Cast’s Goddess series for the porn star covers.
Goddess of the Rose original:
http://www.amazon.com/Goddess-Rose-Summoning-Book/dp/0425208915
Goddess of the Rose now:
http://www.amazon.com/Goddess-Rose-Summoning-Book/dp/0425227103/ref=pd_sim_b_6
Really?!
“Font carnage”: that’s a brilliant phrase, Tessa! May I borrow it, with appropriate acknowledgement, in future? The occasion will undoubtedly arise again!
I didn’t read category romances till I was in my 40s, although I had read Heyer, Mary Stewart etc., who were not then classed as ‘genre fiction’. This was at least in part because I found the covers so deeply embarrassing — and I am talking about standard, bland, mawkishly sweet, old-fashioned UK Mills & Boon, not even the gaudy, vulgar American bodice-ripper covers. Once I was middle-aged (and established in my career), I stopped caring so much, though I still took care not to flaunt them. I was never a Science Fiction fan, let alone a Fantasy one, but I think I would have been a bit less bothered by those covers.
As I said, many of the people who, in a very unscholarly way, condemn romance novels without actually reading them are strongly influenced by the tackiness of the covers. In the present case, although I hold no particular brief for dragons, I can’t help feeling that the addition of one would actually add some distinction to either of those disastrous covers.
😀
UK all the way!
AgTigress: uh, sure (drags toe of shoe in small dusty circles).
I do wish to say that I am not blaming the overworked, micro-managed, underpaid graphic artists in the publishing marketing departments.
I’ve had friends who had jobs in corporate design depts. (and were happy to have them) and I don’t think it’s fun to daily compromise all the stuff you learned in art school, the physical limitations of the human body, and even your personal design sense, in order to push out dozens of designs with too-short production schedules.
I just don’t understand why it is this way, and I wish it would get better. Every human responds to good design. There are cultural preferences, but we can all recognize when it works well with the product it packages. And it doesn’t have to cost more to be good, it just takes people who care.
And clearly we are a population of consumers with exacting standards for our O faces and man-titty…(smile)
@StarOpal. Good grief that’s a radical departure. The new Pink Carnations are merely bland but this looks like an upscale Ellora’s Cave cover. If I read the Goddess series I’d be beyond hopping over that sea change. One of the great things about ebooks, once you get past that first page turn you don’t have to deal with bad, offensive, or just plain wrong-headed cover art.
@AgTigress. Those Krentz covers are lovely, a bit font happy, but with the gorgeous Art Deco graphics, I can forgive that. Not sure about the move up though, witness the reissue covers for Amaryllis, Zinnia, and Orchid; and the bland boy toy covers for some of the Harmony World series. I wonder sometimes if it’s not a case of too much input from too many people and not enough power in the appropriate hands. Or maybe Castle is the mean personality in the trio that nobody likes, so they sabotage her covers.
For a cover that works, regardless of content, look no further than Jaci Burton’s The Perfect Play. Not a fan of bare-chested covers but this one could convert me. The angle of the body across the cover, the correct proportions, the use of black and cream fonts to tie in with the graphics, the colors of the background working with the skin tones and the football, and the beautiful backlit effect. A little less flourish on the calligraphic font maybe, but nothing is perfect. Not sure I’m interested in reading the book but I so want to own that cover. I’m a visual, tactile person so when I’m buying a physical book, I want it to have an appropriate physical presence. My idea of book heaven is a trade-size paperback with a silky, matte finish cover and a great story inside that cover. The Vintage Press reissues of the Lymond Chronicles, yum.
Good post and great comments.
I read this as “You can have the duck drive his Porche to Almack’s” and you know what? I didn’t blink either. At first.
Anyway I’m exactly the same about historical romances. Although I’ve been known to get really harsh on contemporary romances where the 20-something year old heroine is unable to send a text (unless its a brand new iPhone because … well I’ve been there) or lets someone else convince her without even blinking that she absolutely doesn’t need to worry about having a career because she’s going to find a nice man, settle down, have babies and be chained to the stove naked from the waist up. Bitch, please.
@ Lynn S.
I feel the same way about the Perfect Play cover! I was very tempted to buy the book for the cover alone even though the story is not my cup of tea.
I am in serious need of a cold shower every time I see it. (pfff, I think I may have to buy it after all).
The UK cover is so modest that I’d assume that the protagonists wouldn’t have sex within the pages of the book. And I wouldn’t buy it.
When it comes to romance, I want the hero’s Spectacular Schwang of Seduction (or the heroine’s Five Fingered Salute) to penetrate the heroine’s Luscious Lady Parts sometime between the Prologue and the Epilogue in anything from a coyly veiled to a deliciously Puurrpple scene that convinces me that these characters love (or lurrve) to love up on each other in Happy Wholesome Sexytimes, and thus should be allowed a HEA.
No sex, no cents.
StarOpal – I couldn’t agree with you more. The original covers (of the mass markets) were pieces of art. The redos were, well, just pieces.
PC