Bitchin' Blog Posts
Book Covers, Celebrity, and “Dumbing Down.”
by SB Sarah | by SB Sarah | October 09, 2008 | Thursday at 11:30 am | 65 CommentsOver 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.
Filed: General Bitching
Tagged: writing, shopping, publishers, promotion, fantasy, celebrity, authors, art
Sparky said on 10.09.08 at 01:27 PM • [link]
The very idea as author as celebrity drives me insane. I hate celebrity status already - I’m nototious for being completely unable to recognise (or care) about even the biggest stars.
If I follow an author it’s because I like their work - I don’t want to be sold their “brand” ye gods. I don’t want the books I love from the skilled author I stalk to be reworked for “marketability”
I suppose it’s all part of the “lowest common denominator” appeal that has afflicted television, but is’ depressing
As to covers - we all know covers are a disaster surely? We read blurbs, sneak a peak between the covers, go off reviews and friend recommendations - but judging covers? There’s a reason we have the saying! I think 90% of people know waaaay better than to worry about the cover of a book
Actually I’d like some of my books to tone down the covers - sitting in a doctor’s office with oceans of mantitty on display makes me cringe (silly snobbery)
Teddypig said on 10.09.08 at 01:47 PM • [link]
More Mantitty! In fact let’s give Merriam-Webster a make over.
I’m thinking a shirtless dude in glasses. What you think?
GrowlyCub said on 10.09.08 at 02:01 PM • [link]
I don’t read either women’s fiction nor Chick lit. I’d definitely have passed on this book if I had seen the second cover, but obviously for the wrong reason (would have thought it was chick lit).
The first cover isn’t clear-cut women’s fiction, but it might not have kept me from reading the back blurb, which the second one most definitely would. I can see why an author might be upset at having a cartoon cover, if the book is not chick lit, since cartoon covers have become associated with that subgenre, even though I find the idea that women’s fiction is more high brow than chick lit kind of funny in an unfunny way. So, we get piled on for being women readers and writers and now we are doing it to each other within the genre? Stellar! :P
In the end, both covers signal to me that there won’t be anything interesting behind them.
It’s better I not get really going on the ‘dumbing down’ that started in the mid-90s, because some publishing execs decided us ‘bon-bon eating housewives’ couldn’t hack historical accuracy.
My blood pressure still rises at the thought of Gellis not getting a contract for more Roselynde books because they were too historically accurate and books with pet racoons and potatoes in 13th century Britain getting published instead. Or books where the author can’t be bothered to find out how to use titles correctly or where characters act in such an anachronistic fashion my eyes bleed, etc. etc.
RfP said on 10.09.08 at 02:55 PM • [link]
Bookninja’s contest is the least of it. Their inspiration is the real-life repackaging of Jane Austen. The new Headline Books chick lit editions came out in 2006.
Zumie said on 10.09.08 at 03:01 PM • [link]
I admit, if a book has a pretty cover, chances are I’m going to pick it up. Likewise, if it has a weird title, it was also be checked out. But I also tend to go on recommendations from authors I like a lot, to balance it out.
Mantitty just makes me giggle and move on, generally.
Tina C. said on 10.09.08 at 03:04 PM • [link]
Okay, honestly, if you don’t know an author, what is it that makes you pick up a book you’ve never heard of before? Proximity to authors you do read? Divine intervention? For me, generally, it’s an eye-catching cover. Sure, sometimes I’ll be grabbed by the title or, in desperation (and if the selection is really small), I’ll read the back of each book, one by one, until I find one that interests me. It’s much more likely, though, that it will be the cover that caught my attention for some reason, which leads to reading the back cover, which may lead to reading the first few pages, which may lead me to buying it. Does that make me shallow? Does that make me “dumb”?
I’m not saying that you’re saying that, SBSarah, but it certainly seems that Bookninja is (“Are top novelists being rebranded to meet the purchasing habits of an embiggened sector of stupid readers?”), along with the usual condescension towards those of us that *gasp!* read genre fiction instead of non-stupid literary works. (“So take your favourite literary novelist and “rebrand†one of their titles to appeal to more popular sectors: chicklit, thriller, romance, scifi/fantasy, celebrity kids book, etc.”)
I’m sorry, I find it a bit insulting, this presumption that anyone that picks up a book because of the cover is “dumber” than the author’s preferred readership. I would think that an author would want everyone that possibly could read or would read their book to do so, regardless of why the book was picked up originally. Do I think that every author needs to be “branded”, wrapped up in the appropriate cover, and shipped off to take on the genre ghetto to which it has been assigned—no, obviously not. But we seem to be missing the point of Carolyn Kellogg’s blog entry and that is that the marketing department was right in the case of Zuzu’s Petals. While I may not be likely to pick up yet another pink, sassy-girl-out-shopping cover, it DID increase the sales of the book:
Perhaps I’m missing the point, but isn’t that what an author wants in the end—someone to read their books? Because, frankly, some of this makes it appear that authors only want the right (ie, not dumb) people reading their books.
KimberlyD said on 10.09.08 at 03:04 PM • [link]
*raises hand sheepishly* I am attracted to attractive covers and I may not pick up a book with an ugly or boring (IMO) cover. For instance, I like those Jane Austen covers above. I definitely won’t read a book with a crappy premise in the blurb, or I’ll read a few pages to get the feel of a new author. But ultimately, the cute cover is what draws my eye and causes me to pick the book up.
And I probably miss out on a lot of good romances because I tend to avoid man-titty covers. Before this site, I didn’t know how little choice authors had in their covers. But man-titty covers repel me. Cutesy, artistic, thought-provoking, highly colorful covers draw me in.
Iasmin said on 10.09.08 at 03:11 PM • [link]
I can honestly confess for romance novels that the cover is the least likely thing to attract me to read it. I read those almost exclusively based on recommendations or merely goign through them one by one and reading the back description. That will draw me more than anything else.
But is it true for other genres? No, I confess its not. Anything in the sci-fi fantasy arena with good cover art I’m more likely to pick up. And there are a few cover artists that I’ve been known to avoid simply because I loathe their style.
But the actual content dumbed down? Bah. I don’t believe it. How many young kids were told they couldn’t handle Harry Potter and completely dove in despite the fact that most people thought the books were too old for them?
RfP said on 10.09.08 at 03:14 PM • [link]
I really don’t care how classics are packaged, but that 2006 Telegraph article I linked above focuses more on the way we *read* Austen. They get diverted into bitching about covers, but they do make some points I agree with, including that much of the new Austen mania is really about Colin Firth, not Jane Austen, and that it’s been appropriated as a modern paean to female empowerment. From the Telegraph:
GrowlyCub said on 10.09.08 at 03:14 PM • [link]
True enough, but how many of these folks will buy another book by this author since they may have had expectations (chick lit) that were not fulfilled by the book?
The same issue applies to books that are labeled ‘romance’ but do not have either a HEA or HFN ending. The label may get people to buy the first time, but they might not come back for more if their expectations were disappointed.
This topic just came up over at Karen’s blog.
I think there’s a lot of funky cover ‘science’ and labeling going on right now and I can’t say I like it much.
Melissa S said on 10.09.08 at 03:20 PM • [link]
AHH! You’re asking me to go against my artist gut instinct! I do think the cover art and book design are important, but that’s only because I want to be the one designing them after college. But I can understand the frustration of putting together a story and then having retailers make you simplify everything around that story in order to get it to the consumer.
Retailers and Publishers don’t think their consumers have smart brain think. This is really what it boils down to. While the author is trying to make a connection with their readers, the publishers feel like they need to translate it for the audience.
DianeN said on 10.09.08 at 03:32 PM • [link]
Sometimes I feel alone in this, but I frankly don’t care what’s on the covers of books, and that includes couples in a clinch with mucho mantitty shown. Sure, some of them are over the top, and I enjoy good cover art snark as much as the next person, but I’m not influenced to read or not read by how the book LOOKS. I’ve been reading romances (and many other genres, literary fiction included) for so long that I don’t think twice about that. And I also don’t care if people see me reading a book with ripped bodices and heaving loins on the cover. I figure that if someone I don’t know wants to judge me based on what I’m reading—and their own false assumptions and prejudices about it—they’re free to do so. No skin off my nose, you know? I do agree that perhaps pulling a book with a lurid cover out of my purse to read in church or at some professional event is a bad idea, of course, but anywhere else? Why not? As for the marketing value of cover art, meh. I don’t just pick up the ones with covers that appeal to me. If I have 2 books in hand and I like one cover and think the other one sucks, I am no more likely to buy the pretty one. I decide what to read based on what’s between the covers, not what’s on them!
Jenyfer Matthews said on 10.09.08 at 03:33 PM • [link]
True enough, but how many of these folks will buy another book by this author since they may have had expectations (chick lit) that were not fulfilled by the book?
That’s what occurs to me. However, the sad truth is that retailers don’t really care about what expectations are fulfilled or not, so long as they make their sales…
Tina C. said on 10.09.08 at 03:44 PM • [link]
Okay, it seems to be the assumption from a lot of the people that giving such covers to literary works (I dare say, “real” literature?) causes all these poor, misguided, “stupid” readers who are just trying to get their chick-lit or romance or what-have-you fix to accidentally buy the wrong “product”, as if they meant to get toothpaste and got hemorrhoid cream instead. However, unless the back cover blurb was completely misleading, for that assumption to be true, the people that bought the book would have had to do so based solely on the cover art. Seriously, who does that? Who buys a book solely based on the cover art without reading the back cover on a paperback or the inside flap on a hardback? Without reading the first couple of pages, even, to see if you like the writing style? If it was a library book, I might buy the possibility, but we’re not talking about a library book. We’re talking spending money on something based solely on the cover art. Isn’t that an incredible leap of logic to make? To make that grand jete of a leap, you have to assume that anyone who would pick up a book because of that particular cover is so silly and/or so intellectually deficient that they don’t bother to look any further into it to see if this is a book that they want to read. That strikes me as—and I really hate using this term given the way it’s bandied about in American politics—elitist to make these assumptions. It’s disrespectful and insulting to assume that the readers who happen to like chick-lit and who happened to pick up this author’s book because of the chick-lit-like cover and who then decided to buy it simply weren’t discerning enough to realize what they were getting and lord knows, there really aren’t enough readers in the world as it is, so should we be insulting and disrespecting them?
Jennie said on 10.09.08 at 03:51 PM • [link]
Aren’t crappy covers the reason fabric book covers were designed in the first place?
Silver James said on 10.09.08 at 03:53 PM • [link]
Dumbing down? Uhm…yeah. I still have a rejection letter in my files from the early nineties. From a well-known publisher, the letter stated that my writing was too sophisticated for their general readership. *blinkblink* Happily, things have changed somewhat within the genre as a whole and there are smart, sophisticated plots within the romance genre now.
Book covers. What a can of worms! I am more likely to be turned off by a book cover than provoked into picking the book up for perusal. I don’t mind mantitty but anything juvenile or “Hello Kitty” makes me skip on by without a second glance. Titles catch my eye.
The Billionaire’s Secret Mistress’s Secret Lover’s Secret Baby
would send me running in the opposite direction.
Keeping Secrets
? I would pull the book out and at least look at the blurbs. Unless it had a cutesy cover. Color me mature. Well, except for the mantitty.
GrowlyCub said on 10.09.08 at 04:03 PM • [link]
Tina,
I’ve picked up books after carefully checking out the labeling, reading the blurbs and starting on the first chapter which all clearly indicated the book to be one thing and then ended up hating it because it was not what all those indicators proclaimed it to be (in my case, it promised to be romance but had a tragic ending or ended up with the couple separated, or horrible things happening to them). I don’t think having been snookered makes me less intelligent, it shows the advertiser lied to get a sale. And as far as I’m concerned it was the last one ever and I’m not shy about telling other people about that experience to keep them from suffering the same disappointment and thereby potentially costing that publisher more sales.
The same goes for covers. I haven’t read the blurb for this particular women’s fiction book, but since blurbs are in general completely useless and deliberately vague in an effort to appeal to as many people as possible while not including any buzzwords that might turn people off it’s not impossible to assume that it’s generic enough that a reader who’s browsing might not pick up on the fact that the cover is promising one thing and the content is something else. That has nothing to do with the buyer’s intelligence and everything to do with advertising shorthand that we are all trained to recognize and which serves a useful purpose if it delivers what it promises.
Romance - HEA
mystery - there’s a puzzle/crime and the good guy/gal solves it
thriller - the hero saves the world from a terrible danger
SF - weird/cool stuff happens in the future/alternate reality
fantasy - good triumphs over evil
literature - you will feel bad and/or inferior after you finish reading (ok, so I’m a reverse snob, what can I say? :) Not all books in a genre can be reduced to this simple shorthand, but a vast majority can.
Marketing is meant to manipulate us and sometimes we ‘fall’ for it and buy something we won’t enjoy. Does that make us less intelligent? I don’t think so. My point was that I want as much truth in advertising as I can get and that includes not putting labels, covers or blurbs on a book that brand it as something it’s not. It’s a two way street. The publishers want my money and I expect them to deliver what they promised via their marketing shorthand.
Victoria Dahl said on 10.09.08 at 04:23 PM • [link]
Yes, this is exactly it.
The publisher is not interested in connecting you with your perfect set of desirable readers. The publisher is interested in selling every book possible to the highest number of consumers. It’s a business.
I know I say this over and over again, but it’s true. The published book is a product. Commercial or commissioned art or a mix of the two, but it’s something you sell. If you want to preserve your artistic integrity, don’t sell your work.
I’m sorry. Maybe I’m just brutally capitalistic, but I understand that my publisher buys my book to make money, not to stroke my artistic hard on. And the publisher does not design covers to offend the sensibilities of people like me who don’t like man-titty, they do it because the mantitty sells more books regardless of how I might like it to be.
God, I feel mean.
ME2 said on 10.09.08 at 04:24 PM • [link]
Apparently I am in the VAST minority seeing as I have never bough a book because of the cover . Nor have I not bought a book because of the cover.
I have to say that I am so happy for blogs and the internet because it turns out more people are far more anal retentive than I thought I was and/or have been told I am. Yay me!
Victoria Dahl said on 10.09.08 at 04:28 PM • [link]
I mean this “All my publisher cares about is selling more books!” drives me insane. Yes, that is what they care about. Maybe not your individual editor, but if we’re talking about the pub as a whole… It’s called the bottom line.
I am NOT saying that the writer should assume this attitude. I’m saying don’t be surprised that it’s a business.
Lexie said on 10.09.08 at 04:40 PM • [link]
I work in a library and I just shelved the Zuzu’s Petals with the first cover and assumed it was a depressingly serious, learn-from-my-pain type of book. The second cover makes me want to go back and pick it up. I tend to enjoy quickies…um, easy reads- humor -nothing overly heavy or depressing. If I’m reading something serious, I want to know ahead of time. (I’m still planning vengeance on the friend who recommended Atonement.)
I’m much less selective about what I bring home from the library as opposed to what I purchase. So, I’d definitely take a library book based on the cover alone. But when I’m paying, I’m definitely going to read the back, the jacket, a few pages…then decide.
GrowlyCub said on 10.09.08 at 04:41 PM • [link]
Victoria,
I understand that your publisher wants to make money and there’s nothing wrong with that, but I do believe they’d like to make money on not just one book by you but many and to do that your books have to deliver on the expectations your publisher creates with their advertising.
Your books are actually a case in point on why good marketing is so important. I would have *never* picked up either of them to peruse the blurbs in a store or bought them if I hadn’t seen the positive reviews of the second one. I bought it IN SPITE of the cover and title and several of the reviews I read started out saying something like ‘don’t let the cover/title scare you off’.
That does seem to imply that you might have lost sales due to cover and title. It’s entirely possible that sales lost by folks who share my preferences are much smaller than the sales won by readers who like mantitty covers.
But I always suspects it’s the chicken vs the egg thing going on. Are the covers selling the books or are readers buying because that the covers the books come in?
Btw, I’m not picking on you, I really enjoyed ARGTP and I bought TTAS because of that enjoyment and I hope to read more books by you in the future.
As far as I’m concerned I’m buying most romance titles in spite of their atrocious covers and titles, because of reviews or prior experience with the author’s writing. I rarely do impulse buys/browsing (mostly because I live 60 miles from the closest bookstore) for which covers will indeed be the initial hook that determines whether or not I even look at a blurb/first chapter.
Tina C. said on 10.09.08 at 04:43 PM • [link]
Yeah, it’s happened to me, too. Oh, and don’t even get me started on The Nanny Diaries, the “hilarious” tale of heinous people doing heinous things. God, I hated that book and no, I didn’t think it was funny, let alone “hilarious”. I wasn’t trying to say that you, personally, or anyone else that has been snookered by slick advertising and mislabeling to think a book is something it isn’t is lacking intelligence.
I was trying to say that many people seem to assume that there is something intellectually deficient with people that initially pick up a book because they like a particular cover. At least, that’s how I took the Bookninja’s blog entry, since it started with “Are top novelists being rebranded to meet the purchasing habits of an embiggened sector of stupid readers?” (And I have to think that “top novelists” means “novelists writing real books” as opposed to “best-selling novelists”, or why would their respective marketing departments be trying to “rebrand” them?). I also think that many do assume that people that like certain genres aren’t discerning enough or intelligent enough (barring completely misleading marketing) to realize what they are getting if a literary book gets a genre-like cover, but I’m sorry that I was reading you as assuming that.
However, I don’t think that everyone that picks up the chick-lit’ed-up Zuzu’s Petals is going to feel cheated. Instead, I think that perhaps they will greatly enjoy it and will have discovered a new author they would not have known about otherwise, if not for the chick-lit’y cover. Perhaps some will feel cheated if it doesn’t meet their expections for that particular genre, but I think you can’t assume that they all will. If the author is good and the story is engrossing, in my opinion, that makes up for a lot in terms of “expectation”. Silent in the Grave, by Deanna Raybourn, was marketed as a romance but it should probably be considered more of a mystery with romantic tendencies. It doesn’t have a lot of the romance conventions and I might have been disappointed about that, considering I picked it up thinking it was a romance. However, the writing, the story, the language, the everything, is so very good! I added Raybourn to my “must-buy” list because of that book.
Again, I’m sorry to have insulted you. That wasn’t my intention.
willa said on 10.09.08 at 04:44 PM • [link]
A publisher won’t make money on a book if they trick the reader into buying it, the reader finds out the book is nothing like it was billed as, and gets a refund.
A cover should accurately reflect the book it is on. A cover that lies about the content is a bad idea.
I don’t know about that ZUZU’S PETALS book—I can see that the first cover has a blurb that it’s “Side-splittingly funny.” That first cover certainly doesn’t LOOK like the cover of a side-splittingly funny book. The second cover looks more like it. So in this case, perhaps the second cover is a better choice because it better reflects the content. Possibly. Since I haven’t read it, I can’t say for sure.
And Tina C., I disagree. (Ha, that rhymes!) It’s not a case of thinking that dumb people will read a smart book and get mad. It’s more a case of wanting a book that is one thing, and getting something else entirely. I know that if I get a book that looks hilarious and fun and bouncy and rollicking and instead I get a book about death and misery and complete humorlessness, I’ll be mad. I might even really enjoy the book—but I’ll still be mad about the switcheroo.
As to whether readers are really that “dumb,” there is actually a law that states that someone cannot design a book to look like another book—in other words, you cannot design a book and title a book to make it look like THE GODFATHER, with the same cover elements, the same typography, and almost the same title, because someone will pick up the book thinking it is THE GODFATHER, when it is not. Are people really that “dumb?” The law says so.
GrowlyCub said on 10.09.08 at 04:55 PM • [link]
Tina,
no problem. I hadn’t followed the bookninja link and was talking at a different angle from/to? you. :)
As far as the advertisers thinking we are all dumb as goal posts, yes, I do believe they do and in my more despairing moments I think they aren’t too far off, after all Janet Dailey still has ‘the #1 bestselling female author in North America and third bestselling author in the world’ on her website, and Cassie Edwards has a 100 books in print regardless of the fact that either cannot be bothered to use their own words.
Anybody know if Dailey’s claim is really true? But I digress.
You are most certainly right that some readers might pick up a book expecting one thing and while not getting that finding a new author that they will follow from then on. I’d lie if I said that never happened to me.
The marketing/labeling issue is one of my hot buttons, grin, and I’ve become a lot narrower in my reading preferences over the last year (I took a 5-6 year hiatus starting in the late 90s from romance because I couldn’t find anything I wanted to read any longer), so I react very negatively when I don’t get what I sign up for. Most readers are probably a lot more forgiving. :)
Sorry I got a bit heated. Didn’t mean to!
Victoria Dahl said on 10.09.08 at 04:55 PM • [link]
Don’t worry, I don’t feel picked on, I promise! I think my covers are a really good example of this, actually! As a reader, I don’t care for clinch covers. I LOVED IT when pubs started trying out the beautiful flowery/tapestry type of covers. LOVED IT! And those covers still work great for authors with A Name. But editors will tell you over and over again that, in general, they don’t sell nearly as well as clinch covers. It’s their job to know.
I don’t think it’s hard to see that they’ve tried different types of covers. If they put out two brand-new authors, one with a beautiful, subtle cover and one with a brazen clinch cover… Well, they only need to do that experiment a few times to come up with their answer.
Is there a market for beautiful, subtle covers? Absolutely. That’s why you see them. Is there a market for clinch covers? HELL YEAH. And it has nothing to do with whether or not you or I personally like it.
Let me be clear about one thing though. I don’t want to portray myself as a writer who cares nothing for quality and only wants to make money. I have a series of 3 books I may never sell. My most recent editor read them and said, “Don’t you think the light humor doesn’t work with all the darkness of the plot?” My answer was, “No. It’s my favorite thing about the books, actually.” No sale. No problem. I don’t want to change those books, so they may never sell. But I’m not going to change them and then whine about how my pub doesn’t respect my art!
Victoria Dahl said on 10.09.08 at 05:00 PM • [link]
And after all that bitchery, I need to back up a little. I’m speaking specifically of the author relationship with the publisher. Every reader has a right to her own cover preferences. I know I do. Just don’t assume pubs use clinch covers because they think you’re dumb! They don’t care if you’re dumb. *g*
And, yeah, misleading covers are one thing. But you can have a flowery cover for a historical romance or a clinch cover, but neither is misleading. And yeah, if that Zuzu’s Petals is FUNNY, the artistic cover was the misleading one! Yikes.
Victoria Dahl said on 10.09.08 at 05:27 PM • [link]
God, can you tell I’m supposed to be writing? Someone tell me to shut the hell up and go away.
I think my statement above sounds totally condescending. But what I meant was, sometimes I think it’s their ONLY job. If I can’t trust that they know more about marketing and sales than I do, then what’s the point of signing with a publisher? I could self pub and do it myself. And people do choose that route.
Vuir said on 10.09.08 at 05:51 PM • [link]
This can’t be proven. Bookstores ordered more books and promoted the title more heavily, but that doesn’t mean that more paying customers will buy the chick lit cover, than would have bought the old one.
Presumably, the stores will return a lot of the unsold books when the promotion ends.
Suze said on 10.09.08 at 05:51 PM • [link]
Teddypig, I think you’re on to something. A pictorial dictionary, featuring mantitty. The Merriam-Webster Mantitty Dictionary. We could cure everyone of using “prone” inappropriately by having a picture of a toothsome male demonstrating the position. I’d buy it. (Also the supine position…)
This is definitely true for me. I like the classy covers on books by authors I already know and trust, but mantitty covers catch my eye and tell me what kind of story to expect, if I don’t already know the author. No so much clinch covers, but mannequin covers.
I like the covers that show the torso, or whole body, but cut the head off, so that I can insert my own interpretation and not have the model’s features inflicted on me. No out-dated hairstyles or questionable makeup can be seen if there’s no head above the jaw.
Actually, Suzanne Brockmann’s first Troubleshooters book had this kind of cover with, one assumes, Tom Paoletti as the torso, and not showing his balding head. I wouldn’t have picked it up if it had shown a balding hero.
In categories, the covers are all essentially the same, and what causes me to pick up a given category (in order to peruse the back blurb) is a) author’s name and b) title. Some I don’t pick up at all, regardless, because I don’t like the line (e.g. Steeple Hill. blech.)
I guess what I’m trying to say is that, yes, covers must be eye-catching in order to attract my attention so that I pick a book up out of the crowd. But you can’t please everyone, so stick to the conventions of the genre at the very least, and hope for the best.
Victoria Dahl said on 10.09.08 at 06:04 PM • [link]
Suze, you said this far better than I. Not that there’s not room for experimentation, but in general, go with what works.
Vuir, I think this is really a good point too. Not the question of what the reader would prefer, but the question of how book buyers respond. Do clinch covers sell better because store buyers respond to them and put more out of the shelves? Possibly. But I can’t imagine there’s time or money for a truly pure market experiment. Then again, I can’t imagine there haven’t been focus groups, etc.
robinjn said on 10.09.08 at 06:14 PM • [link]
Okay, I admit it, I judge a book at least in part by its cover, especially in non-romance genre books. If I don’t know an author, I’m far more likely to try a book that I’m attracted to the cover on than one I’m not.
In romance, the covers are so similar and the contents often so divorced from the cover that I tend to get lost, which is one reason why I hardly ever try new romance authors.
Just the other day I was in my B&N;and they had a rack of “Buy Two, get One Free” books. So I decided to try three new authors. One was Linnea Sinclair. I bought because the cover was all kinds of awesome (Gabriel’s Ghost). I ended up liking it and went to the library to try to find more of her work. I borrowed Games of Command. I would never in a million years have chosen this novel:
http://www.linneasinclair.com/gamescover.htm
The new cover? Full of win for me:
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Games-of-Command/Linnea-Sinclair/e/9780553589634/?itm=4
Once I have read something I like from an author, I can totally disregard covers. But if I’m just out cruising for something new, covers are very important.
Victoria Dahl said on 10.09.08 at 06:25 PM • [link]
Yeah, I have to say the naked people on my covers are NOT misrepresentative of the content, whatever one might think about the taste level. I do agree that misrepresenting the content is completely unfair to readers. I’d never argue for tricking someone into buying a serious book by slapping a funny cover on it. Never. Because that WILL hurt sales in the long run and it’s not good business practice. At all.
Polly said on 10.09.08 at 06:57 PM • [link]
A little off topic, but I really wish there was more variety in naming romance novels. Kleypas novel titles, for example, all sound the same to me (or at least, they all meld together in my memory). I remember the plots, mostly, but which title goes with which novel? I have to check amazon.
As for covers, I’ve been on a recent paranormal/urban fantasy kick (werewolves, vampires, and kickass heroines), and almost all of them have the same cover. It makes me giggle. Each has a woman with an impressive waist to hip ratio, wearing tight low slung jeans and a cropped top. Sometimes you see her from the front, and sometimes from the back. I didn’t realize it was such a subgenre till I saw all the covers looking the same.
The thing that bothers me most about the repackaging with girly covers is that it makes it so much less likely that men will read the books. It’s not dumbing down so much as pigeonholing. All the pink, flowers, and cartoony pictures? Rightly or wrongly, I have expectations of different cover “types,” though I’ve never bought a book solely based on the cover, or without reading the at least the back of it.
DS said on 10.09.08 at 07:00 PM • [link]
This year I have mainly bought ebooks—and the cover is much less important. I have in the past bought a book because I liked the cover—I’m a sucker for the pre-Raphaelites on books, but now it’s the title and blurb that can hook me.
Marta Acosta said on 10.09.08 at 07:57 PM • [link]
Ah, the eternal issues! Since when did it become a crime to want a pretty book cover? What is wrong with pretty? Oh, guys don’t take anything pretty or girly seriously. Yeah, that’s why trolls like Salman Rushdie marry babes like Padma Lakshmi. That’s why Cormac McCarthy married some chick about a century younger than him.
What the cover police want to say is: “Not only is your taste in fiction an abomination, but your visual taste also sucks majorly. Also, you’ve got Cheetos crumbs all over your face.”
Pulitzer Prize-winning A Confederacy of Dunces, which hasn’t been out of print in 30 years, has the most hideous, crappola cartoony cover I’ve ever seen. Why isn’t anyone complaining about how it demeans men to have stoopid cartoon covers on their prize-winning literature?
J.C. Wilder said on 10.09.08 at 08:35 PM • [link]
Actually a book cover is pretty important when it comes to getting bookstores (especially chains) to carry a title. I’ve seen buyers (meaning store / chain buyers) pass on picking up a book because they felt the cover was boring or just plain ugly. If you have one or two chains passing on your book then you’re screwed.
A friend’s lowest selling book was killed by a mutant boy cover. It was the middle book in a series but because the hero was butt ugly (not in the book, just on the cover) her sales went into the toilet. Luckily she has rebounded and hit the NYT in the mean time. :)
Leah said on 10.09.08 at 08:55 PM • [link]
I definitely look at covers—and really like those which use old (or old-looking) portraits. Houses, too, for some reason. Clinch covers don’t bother me—I especially like those with beautiful colors. Just looking at Zuzu’s Petals…. I’d probably give the book a second look, just because I love It’s a Wonderful Life, but frankly, that first cover doesn’t do it for me. I look at that and think, “oh, someone’s going to die in a heart-rending scene,” and most of the time, I’m not going to volunteer for that. I like the second, “chick-lit cover” much better—I’d probably buy it. If there happened to be a sobfest tucked into the middle, I’d get over it, and if the book was good, I’d probably buy something else from that author. I have to say that, should any of my books ever be published, I would hope they’d have a “happy” cover, and not one that says, “read this: it’s good for you.”
spaminator: even83….yeah, the events of 1983 really have a lot to do with why I don’t like tearjerkers. That’s spooky!
kopperhead said on 10.09.08 at 09:22 PM • [link]
I know this is the trend, and I really truly understand why this (beheading) is done, but it just drives me crazy. Even with bodies (and heads) on a cover, I still tend to ‘see’ my own characters, not the ones on the cover. (I know the headless covers annoy me because I am a photographer (retired), but I’m just not over it yet.)
Maybe I judge a book by its cover for all the wrong reasons. Like someone else said, I am not picky about covers at all when I am grabbing a book from the library, but if I’m paying for it, it does matter somewhat, although the first few pages matter more.
karmelrio said on 10.09.08 at 10:23 PM • [link]
Great cover art won’t convince me to buy a book, but heinous cover art will definitely help convince me NOT to buy a book. I’m not a big fan of clinch covers or pastel colors. I can suck it up and deal with a tasteful amount of man-titty.
safeword: enough26, as in “Enough with the clinch covers already. We’re fighting for credibility here.”
Liz L said on 10.09.08 at 10:44 PM • [link]
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.
Susan/DC said on 10.09.08 at 11:18 PM • [link]
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.
Evie said on 10.09.08 at 11:32 PM • [link]
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!
Evie said on 10.09.08 at 11:33 PM • [link]
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!
Evie said on 10.09.08 at 11:34 PM • [link]
Ack! Typo fail. Of course I meant SB not SM!
Kaetrin said on 10.09.08 at 11:53 PM • [link]
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!
Deb Kinnard said on 10.10.08 at 12:01 AM • [link]
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!
Victoria Dahl said on 10.10.08 at 12:21 AM • [link]
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.)
Gwynnyd said on 10.10.08 at 01:06 AM • [link]
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?
Jocelyn said on 10.10.08 at 01:39 AM • [link]
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?
Victoria Dahl said on 10.10.08 at 01:40 AM • [link]
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*
Marta Acosta said on 10.10.08 at 02:03 AM • [link]
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.
Carolyn said on 10.10.08 at 02:15 AM • [link]
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.
Victoria Dahl said on 10.10.08 at 02:28 AM • [link]
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!)
Jocelyn said on 10.10.08 at 02:41 AM • [link]
...does she have a purse?
Suze said on 10.10.08 at 02:55 AM • [link]
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.
Victoria Dahl said on 10.10.08 at 02:58 AM • [link]
No… She has a laptop! *g*
headless cover
Victoria Dahl said on 10.10.08 at 03:00 AM • [link]
No… She has a laptop! *g*
http://victoriadahl.com/books.php#TMD
willa said on 10.10.08 at 03:55 PM • [link]
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.
Diana Peterfreund said on 10.10.08 at 04:30 PM • [link]
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…
Victoria Dahl said on 10.10.08 at 04:33 PM • [link]
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.
ehren said on 10.11.08 at 11:12 AM • [link]
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.
Review Romance Novel said on 10.11.08 at 04:51 PM • [link]
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.
Victoria Dahl said on 10.11.08 at 05:22 PM • [link]
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.
Victoria Dahl said on 10.11.08 at 05:27 PM • [link]
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
Care to comment?
Comments are now closed for this post.
Subscribe to These Comments