Smart Bitches, Trashy Books

Wow! Two totally different messages with those covers. I think the first one is just gorgeous but it doesn’t convey “angry, sweaty or contentious” to me…the second one on the other hand, does up the passion wattage.

Has SBTB developed a points system for romance covers? Since we are just coming off the Olympics I’m imagining something on a 10.0 scale…

The second has Hugh Jackman on it.  All other points are surely invalid.

Oh gods, you’re right! It DOES look like Jackman! No wonder I’m drawn to it!

Nope, sorry, Hugh doesn’t have a bald chest.

From the Fuck Yeah Hugh Jackman blog, which is exactly what it says on the tin.

I’m as dykey as dykey can be, and all I can say is that blog works for me.

Honestly?  Seeing the two covers together is what’s sold me.  Anything that can convey both messages must be worth reading.

Does it say I am a shallow pig if I prefer the mantitty cover?

I can live with that.

I like the simple beauty of the first cover, but I would pick up that book expecting something Heyerish or Austenish, with the chase level of intimacy that implies.  Now, having a hot sexxoring surprise would make my day, but others who want the low level of heat promised by that cover might be a titch unhappy.  Better to go with truth-in-advertising waxed-up Hugh.  He’s purty.

I like the first cover, but I would probably be expecting it to be a novel about restraint and subtlety, rather than a passionate romp.  It does at least look like a book set in a particular time and place and I would be expecting some level of historical research to show through.  I’d buy this.

The second cover doesn’t particularly suggest angry, sweaty or contentious either, I’m afraid.  Just cardboard cutout romance hero/heroine from some indeterminate time in the past with minimal historical accuracy.  I’d be unlikely to buy this based on the cover.

Oops, that should be “chaste” not “chase.”  Although nothing wrong with a good chase before intimacy, either. ;)  Just finished Cole’s “Pleasure of a Dark Prince” and the hero chases the heroine to great, um,  effect.

Also the link to History Hoydens doesn’t seem to be working.

In the second cover, for some reason, I am bothered by the window in the background. Is it too modern? Is it the wintry landscape? I don’t know, but it seems somehow… off.

captcha: really97. Yes, that window definitely looks as if it were really made in 1997.

It’s true - it is a shaven chested Hugh Jackman, and I think he might be snuggling Kylie Minogue!

I’m a HughWaxedMantitty girl and proud of it. It also pleases me that the curtains match the sky, tho I’m not sure if the whole curtains-matching-rug thing applies in historicals (or if he particularly cares right now).

I like the first cover.  I would pick it up at least and look at it.  It appears to have been the Trade edition while the second one is mass market.  Are people who buy the trade edition supposed to have a different sensibility from people who buy mmpb? 

I wouldn’t even pick up the second one.  It’s like what the publisher did to Laura Kinsale’s latest—not retro enough to even be campy.  Are the publishers just recycling covers?  If there were a few bats fluttering around outside the window I would have thought 1990’s vampire romance for sure.

Yep, I really don’t like it.

And why is the guy’s shirt pulled back and tucked in his pants in that odd way?

Oh, wow… the Contra Costa Times? Really, that’s the best quote they could come up with… sorry, I’m just having flashbacks to reading that paper every morning at the breakfast table….

For the pure nostalgia, I’d have to say the ‘hawt’ version for me. It would probably have be that one even without the cover quote.

And, treehugger, you’re right. It is Hugh Jackman!

I thought Fe-model #2 looked like what’s her name…she married Charlie Sheen, I think? She was in Drop Dead Gorgeous? Furk. Celebufail.

I think I prefer the second version, though it looks like umpteen other historical covers, I’m afraid. I’m also a whore for typography, and neither of these covers is really joining my ligatures. Sarah’s right, though—the second cover definitely went through the list and ticked off all the most important items. Full credit for base-coverage.

I was just thinking - OMG - he looks like Hugh Jackman.  So I’m all up in there!  LOL

Oh man, the second cover with the Hugh Jackman lookalike would definitely get my vote.

I like the first cover. I especially like the juxtaposition of the delicate, Austen-ish coverart with that tease of a title.

First cover for me.  I dunno if it’s being a Brit, or whether it’s just me, but I like to have a book that at least looks as if it’s got some story in there.  The second cover shouts ‘LOOK!  THIS IS ABOUT A COUPLE HAVING SEX!’  Which does not a ‘story’ make.

Spamword:  morning89.  Which is about how old I felt, this morning.

I might buy the first cover but I’d shake my head in icky-tude over that second one. And his nose in her eye makes me wanna say ouch.

Based on the author’s description, the first cover is misleading, but at least I would have been drawn to it while browsing and would probably have picked it up to see what the plot was. The second wouldn’t make me pick up the book out of the extensive lineup of ‘guy and a girl who do it a lot’ covers.

Are we awarding additional points for “chick’s clothes falling off in several places and yet still tastefully concealing her lady bits”?

I would never in a million years have picked up the first cover. It screams “English class assigned reading” to me and since I only ever liked one book I ever read in English, I pass those books right by. Also, I really hate it when the cut off the heroine’s heads. I think there’s some subconscoius violence there.

The second cover I don’t like - I mean, I wouldn’t hang it on my wall - but it communicates to me that this is a book I might enjoy. This cover would get me to pick up and flip through the book. It’s like how I don’t really LIKE the look of my neighborhood diner (it’s a bit dirty and grungy with stained linoleum and the upholstry is torn) but when I see a place that looks like that, I KNOW they make good fries, so I go in.

A vote for the first cover here—it’s lovely and tasteful, and suggests a degree of historical accuracy in the content, whereas the second just says “cookie-cutter fake historical” to me.

I would be waaaaaay more likely to pick up the first cover. But that doesn’t make it better. If the author says the second cover conveys the story within to greater effect, I believe her. Covers should appeal to their target audience or we feel bait-and-switched.

Also, to Trix:

I’m as dykey as dykey can be, and all I can say is that blog works for me.

*snort*[. That cracked me up.

I like how the title they chose to identify the author as having written is different on the books, too. The more proper cover identifies the author as that of “The Book-Seller’s Daughter”. The hot cover identifies her as the author of “The Slightest Impropriety”, a more risque-sounding title.

I’d pick up the first cover and give the book a chance.  I’d probably overlook the second cover entirely because it’s so cliche’.

From what I’ve heard, Rosenthal’s books have a high level of eroticism AND a refined literary style.  Therefore, neither cover fits.  Or, they both do.  We need a mash up!

Based on cover art alone, I’d pick up the second one.  It says hot romance, and that’s what I like.

I would need a good recommendation for me to buy either cover. That said, the first cover would actually have me purchasing with more speed. The second one is so “stereotypical’ that I would assume it is yet another of the books that I have read before. (I really grew to dislike ‘formula’ novels a while back).

I like interesting covers while man titty/hawt position really just makes me ‘eye roll’ and keep on walking.

The second.  Despite its cliches, I still think it’s pretty, and to me the people look like Hugh Jackman and Billie Piper.

The first cover is pretty, but very much suggests Austen. However, I admit it.  I am shallow.  I’m all about the Hugh Jackman de-haired mantitty.  Yes, please.

I strongly prefer the first. The second is just tacky looking, and I’d be embarrassed to be seen reading it anywhere outside my own private bath tub.

It’s like how I don’t really LIKE the look of my neighborhood diner (it’s a bit dirty and grungy with stained linoleum and the upholstry is torn) but when I see a place that looks like that, I KNOW they make good fries, so I go in.

That is PERFECT! I gather the second cover better represents the book’s content to mainstream readers than the first? While it is a clinch, actual romance readers know the clinch is so common, its presence doesn’t mean the book is all clinch, all the time. There’s story to be had between the shaved chest and the O face. The rest of the world isn’t the audience.

Which one I picked up would depend on what I was in the mood for. To me the first says historical fiction; second says historical romance. But ITA it’s interesting this one book got both cover styles.

I am a million times more likely to pick up the first cover - mostly because I can read it on the subway without having to endure looks from people who think they know the first thing about me and my reading habits.

Which isn’t to say I would NOT buy the second cover…just that if I had a choice, I’d go for the first!

Having already picked up and read the book based solely on the first cover I prefer it.

I look for books by author name, and the second cover has AUTHOR NAME right up there in big ugly type. Title is more better in whatever that script font is. As to the pix—save me from another cliche!
You know how marketing can go subliminal on you? That’s what happens on the first cover—heroine with weak hands and no brain, only a corset squeezing her ribs to mush to make her protuberances protrude. Then there is that strange veiny pinkish littlehead thing about to plunder the silks under her elbow…icky…especially with that little prim mouth all shiny in coral lipstick…so, no I wouldn’t pick that one up and read the back cover. Sorry Pam.
Cover two and Hugh, okay, disclaimer here, I don’t know who he is, but I’d look twice if I saw that cover guy somewhere. Anywhere. The stupid pose and the window and the yogabunda leg? Gah!
I’m an artist, and the one thing the first cover has going for it is the color palette while on #2 (maybe it’s my screen) contrasting that weird blue with that gold dress is an assault on the eye. But nobody’s really looking past the mullet, right?

I… I think I judge books by their covers more than I ever thought I did, because I’m judging those two in totally different ways.

I might pick up the book with the first cover, but never the second.

Tangential to the topic but I’m finding ‘Proof of Seduction’ heavy going; the story itself is great but the quality of the book in terms of paper, layout, print etc. etc. etc. is pretty abysmal.

It’s probably not being helped by the fact that I’m reading ‘Tea Time for the Traditionally Built’ at the same time; it is beautifully produced, and a pleasure to read.

I do appreciate that quality costs, and that seemingly effortless functionality means people are making a great deal of effort behind the scene, so to speak, but it’s only when there’s a ‘compare and contrast’ in front of you that it really registers…

The first one is Margaret, Countess of Bessington by Lawrence.  I like portraits and thought I had seen her before.

Actually she is an apt choice:

Margaret Blessington, countess of, an Irish woman of letters, born near Clonmel, Sept. 1, 1789, died in Paris, June 4, 1849. She was the third daughter of Mr. Edmund Power, and when only 15 years old married Capt. Farmer. The marriage was an unhappy one, and within four months after her husband’s death in 1817 she married Charles John Gardiner, earl of Blessington…. She formed an intimate acquaintance with Lord Byron at Genoa; and at Paris, where she lived for some time with her husband, Count d’Orsay, was an inmate of their house. D’Orsay had married and afterward been separated from a daughter of the earl by a former wife. Soon after the earl’s death, which took place at Paris in 1829, Lady Blessington went to reside at Gore House, Kensington. Her social position was somewhat compromised by her intimacy with Count d’Orsay, but she gathered at her house a brilliant circle of the notable people of the day. Her expensive manner of living greatly impaired her fortune, and she resorted to the pen mainly for the purpose of enlarging her means.

  This BTW came from http://chestofbooks.com/reference/American-Cyclopaedia-7/Margaret-Blessington.html

Heeh. I would probably NOT pick up either cover unless rec’d because they both seem so standard.
But now I have to try the author.
Is this sequelish, btw? Should I read the Edge of Impropriety first?

Let’s say I’d never read a book by this author before. If I picked up the first cover, my assumption would be something along the lines of Historical Fiction in the lines of Phillippa Gregory or somesuch. What that speaks to me is no guarantee of HEA. I’d probably assume one of the main characters dies tragically.  So if I’m in the mood for classic romance, I would not pick it up because I NEED the HEA.

The 2nd cover is stereotypical romance, but HAWT works for me. Also notice how the guy is hiking her leg up to hide the hardon ;)

Some mish-mash of the two could work, but without that I’m more inclined to pick up the 2nd cover.

The secound one .

I picked up the book on the basis of the first cover.  Was pleasantly surprised at the hot sexx0ring in it. I prefer it to the second cover.  The second cover may accurately telegraph the sensuality level, but there are plenty of books with covers like the first that have the same sensuality level. What is telegraphed by the first cover (which was, IIRC, on a trade pb) is literary quality. 

Also I find it embarrassing to be out and about with mantitty covers.

I’d pick up the first cover but not the second. Loathe the bare-chested mullet look and ‘hawt’ covers. They are just naff. But the first cover is a bit dull too.

Is this sequelish, btw? Should I read the Edge of Impropriety first?

Disclaimer: I’m a Hoyden with Pam and she’s a friend of mine.

It’s not sequelish. Edge was published after anyway, and both Edge and this one were RITA finalists (Edge won last year!). But I do have to say, Edge is my favorite thing Pam’s ever written, so I say read it too, LOL! I have a thing for the sexy professor trope. *sigh* What’s a girl to do?

Pam is also published as Molly Weatherfield (aka one of Playboy’s top 25 sexiest authors of all time).

As to the question at hand: I’m a devotee of cover one, but I’m excited that cover two (and being mass market) will expose Pam’s fantastic book to a wider audience.

I’m in the “he looks like Jackman” camp. Which is a happy camp.

Sorry, but I hate the new cover. HATE HATE HATE. Groping shirtless people, yeah that’s original. But bear in mind, I’m a fan of sweet romances that don’t involve a lot of sex, and even THOSE get sweaty groping people covers (Meredith Duran’s and Jo Goodman’s novels are particularly heinous examples) so I tend to hate the mantitty covers on principle because they’re so often splashed on books whether or not they match the actual content.

I mean, as this article says, this particular cover matches the content and the themes of the story in “The Slightest Provocation,” than I can respect the cover.

But, in my aesthetic opinion - it looks boring and unoriginal and pretty much interchangable with about a HUNDRED other romance novels out there so it’s not really doing the job it’s supposed to - i.e. bring attention to your book.

Second cover for me, just because it looks more modern, and I’m leery of anything old-school in the romance genre (Jane Austen excepted).

Ken and Barbie having sex on a bookcover seriously creep me out. I only buy books with covers like that if I know the author and am convinced I will like it. Otherwise, it just spells hot wallpaper historical to me. Given that wallpaper historicals seem to sell, I can see why the author is happy about it, but the book is anything but wallpaperish. There is a lot of history in that book.

Apart from the nightmares I get from looking at plastic mantitties I really hate the odd colours of these covers (this one is only on of many),  way too acrylic.

I have the book with the first cover but I like the second one better.  And a question???  Why do you call his hair style a mullet?  I’ve noticed that you seem to use that word a lot when it doesn’t really apply and I wouldn’t call that a mullet AT ALL!!  I think his hair style is loverly!!  A mullet is when it’s short all over except for the back, but his hair is longish all over.  As someone who prefers some length with a guys hair (the better to play with) - I doth postesteth the use of the word mullet for this guy’s hair.  It looks nothing like the achy breaky doo of a much younger Billy Ray Cyrus.

Cover #1 would get a “pick up and read the back”

Cover #2, I’d probably pass by unless the author had been rec’d. Too trite and too fake looking. I’m also with the “too embarrassing to read in public” camp.

@Milena - maybe what you’re picking up on and why the window looks so off is the lighting in the picture. It’s a cold winter day outside, teeth-chatteringly blue everywhere, and they expect us to believe that the summer sun is casting down golden warmth on our naughty couple? Really?

What the lighting in cover #2 says to me is that this is a modern romance which takes place on a historical film set. That’s the only way I can see so much blue light outside and so much golden light on the window seat.

But maybe picking up on the color of the light is a photographer or an artist thing.

I, personally, prefer the first cover over the second. It’s much more appealing to me than the second one is.

Hm. It might be Hugh Jackman, but I’m thinking it’s more likely Sean Bean from his ‘Sharpe’s Rifles’ days…

Either one works for me.

Honestly, I think the first cover is prettier than the second, but i wouldn’t buy either of them.  The first, while being pretty, makes me think that this book might be boring.  The second is totally cliche, and i doubt that i would even notice it among a sea of other cliche covers.

BTW, I agree with KristieJ, that is not a mullet, although I think he needs to have his hair shaped a little bit—it is too much on the shaggy side for me.

I love the first cover, and loathe the second cover. The book sounds interesting, but I will try to buy the older edition, I really loathe the new cover. I am all for Hugh Jackman but not on cheesy book covers. Cheesy movies that is something else.

The new cover to be honest looks old fashioned to me, like an Avon generic cover (is it? I have no idea), more genre. The old cover was a lot classier - but it is a sexy picture also, the decolletage is the focal point. What is it though with all the eyeless chin-only ladies in pretty frocks type of covers?

I would never look at the book with the first cover, unless I change my reading habits and want to return to Jane-Austen-type tales of manners (I love Jane Austen but prefer the original).  But the second book would be in my hands and in my shopping cart in the blink of an eye.  It says hot romance to me and that’s what I like.  But even more, I like a barechested man with muscles!

I haven’t read the other comments, but I’d totally pick up the second cover, not the first. Like you said, SB Sarah, the second one is coded “romance” for me. The first one coded “literary fiction” and I’m so uninterested in literary fiction (usually w/o HEA?) that I have skipped right over this book so far. I would and probably will pick it up with the new cover. Should I be ashamed? Dunno, but that’s the way the coding works for me.

Well I’m with the other commenters who have said first looks “Heyer-ish” and the second looks like your typical “trashy” romance. To me, if the cover is that formulaic, the story is likely to be as well (yeah, I know it’s not fair to judge a book by it’s cover…). BUT at the same time, if the author thinks the second cover more accurately depicts the lovers in the story, there is something to be said for that. Bottom line for me though is that I wouldn’t touch the second unless I knew the author or had read a B+ (or better) review by one of our bitches. I would at least pick up and read back-copy for the first.

But I do have to say, Edge is my favorite thing Pam’s ever written, so I say read it too, LOL!

I will start with Edqe then. :)
Thanks!

i like them both.  i’d buy the first one because it matches best with the cover for the other Rosenthal i own.  i’m a little anal that way.

Take my view with pinches of salt, since I’m not a romance reader still—

I like the first cover. It’s pretty and to me at least, intriguing.

The second one’s an Exactly What It Says On the Tin cover—not that there’s anything wrong with that. But I’m not sure I’d give it a second look; there’s lots of clinch covers out there and that’s not even the most striking or outrageous one.

I’d like to see a combination of the two, personally. I envision a cover done in a style reminiscent of paintings from the time, only I see a skirt being raised up above the ankle by a girl with a twinkle in her eye, and a man who can’t help but look and be dazzled. I’ve seen some on historical fiction about Napoleon’s lovers, etc, that would work really well for this style of romance, for me.

I own the book with the first cover and having read it, I still prefer the first cover (it just seems to fit better with the story).  It looked so beautiful that I had to search for the actual painting and saved it to my desktop as a background.

Nothing against the second cover as it is really gorgeous, but in this case I don’t think it fits.

As I read romance to get all the love and hot sex I don’t get IRL the 2nd cover would attract me more. However, unless I’m hooked on a certain author or the book was recommended to me I probably wouldn’t read it solely on the fact she has brown hair. It’s easier for me to imagine myself in her place when the heroine has blonde hair.

So much of my book buying is based on author name recognition or recommendations from other readers. A cover has to have something unique about it to make me pick it up if it’s by an author I haven’t read before.

Based on the covers alone, I wouldn’t buy either of these books. The first (as others have noted) gives off a Heyer/Austen vibe, and I haven’t been in the mood to read either of those for about 20 years, so I’d pass right by that book without giving it a second thought.

The second cover looks like a clone of several hundred other covers that come out every year. It reminded me, too, of the Kinsale cover for Lessons In French. The difference is that Kinsale is an auto-buy for me, so I saw the name, ignored the cover and bought the book. I’ve never read Pam Rosenthal so I’d probably walk past that cover without even noticing it. In fact I probably have, assuming it’s shelved somewhere between Quinn and Stuart.

The good news is that there have been enough recommendations here that make her writing sound like something I’d like, that I bet I recognize the name next time I pass that shelf and I’ll probably buy a book or two without ever looking at the covers.

I’ll go OT for a moment to jump on the non-mullet bandwagon. I rarely see a true mullet on a romance novel cover. Mullets have two lengths only: short in front (

<2 inches, or so) and long in back (>

10 inches, or so). No layering in between. Mostly what I see on book covers is a shag, which, really, is a much better name for a ‘do on a romance cover, don’t you think? A shag is a fairly gradual layer from short in front to long in back. Shags started back in the ‘70s and the cut has been around pretty continuously since then. What’s changed is the way they hair is styled after the cut.

Crap. Didn’t think about how that would look like formatting…

I just went and got this from my library but I had a hard time finding it because it was supposed to be in the paperback section with all the rest of the romance novels but was in the general fiction section instead.  (Although, I haven’t read it yet so maybe it’s moe general fiction than romance?)  I feel like the second cover is better if she’s trying to appeal to an audience of romance readers.  The first cover seems somewhat boring and not something I would usually pick up if I was in the mood for a good romance.  Or at all really.  Just so blah.

Trix - Thanks for the li k to the Jackman site!

I was going to say I would like a third cover option, but that is just me. The 2nd one makes me think, lusty male and an unexperienced gal about to be taken for a wild ride with hot sex.
My mind just may be in the gutter though.

It also pleases me that the curtains match the sky, tho I’m not sure if the whole curtains-matching-rug thing applies in historicals (or if he particularly cares right now).

@Jessica Anderson - I almost coughed out my Girl Scout cookie when I read this.  Bad Jessica Anderson! because Samoas are to be savored.  Good Jessica Anderson! because I want to read your books now.

I prefer to be seen buying and reading the 1st cover.  Can’t help it.  But I agree that from the author’s description the 2nd cover seems more appropriate.  Maybe it should be one of the covers that flip open.

@stevie - I really enjoyed “Proof by Seduction” and agree with your assessment of the quality of printing.  My book’s pages seemed really deeply sunk into the spine.  It took me awhile to get used to it.

TaraL—the “shag” do, heh heh~

As for Pam Rosenthal—she is a FABULOUS writer! No matter what cover marketing puts over her words, they are sexy and literate and hawt and all that. Definitely an author that would appeal to Smart Bitches of all kinds.  :)

Isn’t it weird how we *do* judge books by their covers? Malcolm Gladwell’s BLINK is a pretty thought-provoking book about why we make some of the snap judgments we do. Interesting stuff, and certainly at work here.

Thanks for the “provocative” post, Sarah~

(Although, I haven’t read it yet so maybe it’s moe general fiction than romance?)

It’s a romance . . . a very HOT romance.

I’m not a huge fan of either cover, honestly.  The portrait in the first has been used for at least one reference book on the Regency era: High Society in the Regency Period, by Venetia Murray (Penguin, 1999).  To me, it screams ‘stodgy’.  The other has a slight edge: resemblance to Hugh/Sean (Sharpe, yeah!!) and shirtless would get my attention, but the waxed chest and predictable position work against me picking the book up and reading the back cover.

I prefer to be seen buying and reading the 1st cover.  Can’t help it.  But I agree that from the author’s description the 2nd cover seems more appropriate.  Maybe it should be one of the covers that flip open.

I actually think the first cover suits the book, but I don’t think covers like that suit the majority of romance readers. I think Candice Hern’s fabulous Merry Widows trilogy suffered because they had very historical covers similar to option one. Some of us really love these covers, but I think a lot of people have a knee-jerk negative reaction due to the period portraits = historical fiction and stuffy lit-rah-chure they were forced to read in high school.

My first editor said to me during our cover discussions: Honey, you want that book to get chucked into the cart with the diapers and detergent. Prissy paintings aren’t going to do that. Hot guy on the cover will. And as much as it kills me to admit she’s right, she is.

This is yet another reason why I love my CyBook! I can read something with a mind-bogglingly trashy cover and no one is the wiser. *grin*

First Cover!

But I’m probably in the minority.

Also I find it embarrassing to be out and about with mantitty covers.

Me too!  I want a book I can read on the bus or on a plane without feeling the need to hide the cover.  And the cover models almost never appeal to me.  Even with this one, I don’t see the Hugh/Sean resemblance, I just see plasticky fake-looking hairless torso in a historically inaccurate shirt!

Long time lurker—thought I’d pop up and say my 2 bits.
I like the first cover because like some of the other ladies have said, it looks a little to “fake”.

Also may I point out that dress looks like Belle’s ballgown? It was the first thing that came to my head when I saw the picture.

I, too, am torn.

The first cover is more aesthetically appealing, but I wouldn’t pick it up if I were looking for a romance. The second, cheesy as it is, promises to deliver a historical with lots of sexxing and a good old fashioned HEA. I know what I’m getting with a cover like that, and since I rather religiously pursue that type of book I’m likely to pick it up and read the back.

I’d pick up the first one, too, because I also happen to enjoy the type of book that one hints at.

I suppose that’s why my trips to the bookstore end up lasting for hours, with my husband shifting his weight from foot to foot and asking imploringly, “Can we go yet?”

spamcode= day57.
Day 57… still in the historical section, nestled against the bookcases, reading each back one by one… almost done with aisle 35… Ben brought cookies and tea this morning, so I’m well provisioned to continue my quest…

I’m not a fan of covers screaming cheesy sex.  The first cover might be a bit demure, but I’d definitely choose that one.  There’s something about knowing there’s a bit of class with hint of naughtiness. 

As a friend once told me - “girls are hot when they show some skin but you see everything. I’ll hit on the one in the turtleneck because it’s like unwrapping a gift - I just want to see what’s underneath.”

Same goes for books.  Subtle over overt.

I would pick up the first book but not the second. However, I might be a bit surprised if the content of the first book matches the second’s cover (yes, I know they’re the same book.) Much as I like hot, sweaty, steamy, etc. I do NOT like to buy or carry around or even own, mantitty covers. Call me a snob if you must ;) If there was a cover that was appropriate to the content but was somewhere in between the two covers shown, I would buy it.

Having not read it, but now inclined to do so, the older cover appeals more to the classy bitch in me yo.  The new cover, while more provactive yes, looks….too modern.  I’m a vintage classy bitch?  I like the old historical stuff…and the more accurately period?  THE BETTER.

I pay little attention to covers on principle, which is just as well, since about 90% of romance covers are horrible, and both of these fulfil expectations in their very different ways.
I do wonder how one is supposed to know from the second cover that the book is an historical romance;  some of you apparently knew, but how?  I see absolutely nothing in the clothing, hairstyles or background details that indicate a date other than the present.  Yes, the dress is long, but long dresses still exist. Give us a clue!
I also disapprove of the extreme cropping of the painting on the first cover.  That is a philistine thing to do.

@AgTigress, I completely AGREE.  As someone who does a bit of historical recreation in her spare time (wait…spare?  what’s spare?) I disapprove of generic period-equse wannabe looking clothing.

www.sexual-napalm.com

@AgTigress

I think the pose, weird shirt arrangement (you can kind of see where the “puffy pirate shirt” was tied back if you look close; and yeah, that’s a detail worth preserving, LOL!), and bad prom dress are all cover speak for historical romance here in the States (oh the horror). And sadly, that cover could and would be used for a book set at any point in the 19th century! Regency duke? Sure. Romantic-era soldier? Yep. Victorian robber baron? Why not!

Is it sad that I’m taking comfort in the fact that he’s not wearing a belt? Cause I am (even as I try not to stare at the lace trim on her prom dress).

I’m a historical costumer as well as an author, and if they’d let me, I’d send them the right costumes for my cover shoot!

Off topic…can I just say I love that romance writers actually read this blog and make comments.  I’ve discovered so many new writers this way!  @Kalen Hughes, I just got Lord Sin and can’t wait to read it.

Fascinating discussion. Since opinions are divided, Pam is really fortunate to have two covers out to appeal to two different groups. We all should be so lucky. As several comments have observed, there’s a generic historical romance style. These covers have little or nothing to do with the content and say nothing about the quality of the book, or even the period. Yet clearly people make decisions, at least on whether to consider the book, based on the covers.

Anyway, buy Pam Rosenthal’s book, in which ever cover appeals more. She’s a great writer.

To avoid the embarrassing mantitty covers I have to say I LOVE my ereader.  I’ve got a nook but I’m sure any ereader would do.  No one knows what smut you’ve got going on in there. 

On my original post I was too busy drooling to the Hugh Jackman-ness to comment on if I’d actually buy either one of these based on cover alone.

My answer is NO!  As many have said the first cover looks to much like a nice little literary historical and the second cover looks too much like a thousand covers you’ll see in the romance section of the bookstore. 

I very seldom buy based on covers but on author and recommendation.

Personally I like the first cover better. It still says “romance” or at the very least “chick book” but doesn’t scream “I’m filled with sex YAY!” (the second comment is not something I like my books screaming when I’m reading them in public - mostly because I think it’s rude.) To me, the first cover implies there’s something about the female protagonist I want to learn, whereas the second just says there’s lots of sex in this book, and it might have a historical setting.

I would pick up the first one if I were in the mood for an Austen-ish story. It is a pretty painting but I would expect witty repartee at the heroine’s expense until she died of consumption or somesuch. Like a previous poster, I need that HEA. The second one, maybe, if I was in the mood for lots of sexxoring. My ereader has freed me from worrying about embarrassing covers. I generally don’t buy anything these days unless I know the author already or it is recommended, which this blog does nicely. I will probably be adding this one to my bookshelf based on the comments here and not the cover. But I will also probably start to look closer at books with the first type of cover in the future and not dismiss them unfairly.

First cover for me.  I dunno if it’s being a Brit, or whether it’s just me, but I like to have a book that at least looks as if it’s got some story in there.  The second cover shouts ‘LOOK!  THIS IS ABOUT A COUPLE HAVING SEX!’  Which does not a ‘story’ make.

I’d pick up the first book no matter what mood I’m in, but I’d only pick up the second if I’m specifically in a ‘trashy romance’ mood, and even then it would have a tough time fighting it out with all the other similar-looking covers.

I confess some curiosity: I’m primarily a reader of straight historical fiction, rather than romance, so I’d be more likely to go for the first cover. But does the first cover really broadcast that the characters will end up dying horrible deaths? In my experience, a great number of women’s historical fiction is just romance with less mantittiful covers. I might assume that the first cover contained less explicit sex, but that’s certainly not a hard and fast rule (heh).

Personally, I’d characterize the first cover as bland generic romance, and the second cover as tacky generic romance. But knowing that I read in those genres, generic is enough for me to take a closer look.

Off topic…can I just say I love that romance writers actually read this blog and make comments.  I’ve discovered so many new writers this way!  @Kalen Hughes, I just got Lord Sin and can’t wait to read it.

Well I hope you like it!

The first one is more interesting even though it doesn’t scream hot romance.  The second one looks just like every other anonymous historical romance cover.

@Caitlin,
That’s probably just me that sees a cover like that and goes to unhappy ending with painful death. I’m pretty sure that my psyche was horribly scarred by Tess of the d’Urbervilles while in college. Covers like the first one always remind me of that. As I said, I have been judging them unfairly.

@bounababe:

You weren’t the only one to say something along those lines, which surprised me because I got more of an Austen/Heyer vibe. Then again, I generally have less attachment to a HEA, so maybe I just don’t notice these things.

The first cover is beautiful and tasteful. It looks like historical fiction that actually contains some history. I would definitely pick it up from the shelf and and read the blurb.

Hugh Jackmann look-alike aside (and he doesn’t have Hugh’s beautiful chest hair), the second cover looks just like any cookie cutter historical romance out there. If I were to spot it in a store, I would immediately dismiss it as “another of those historical romance with a lot of sex and very little history”, which are the reason I pretty much gave up on the historical romance genre. I would only pick up this cover from a shelf, if the author was someone I’ve read before and enjoyed or who comes highly recommended.

So for me it’s 1 all the way. 

Spam word: cars49 - 49 cars are the only thing that would make cover 2 less historically accurate.

The second cover is an example of why people think romance novels are just “porn for women.”  99% of the book could be about that developing relationship, but the cover screams “LOOK, PEOPLE HAVE SEX IN THIS HERE BOOK.  PROBABLY IN GREAT DETAIL AND USING MILDLY AMUSING EUPHEMISMS.”  So, from that angle, it doesn’t appeal to me.

On the other hand, it does show Hugh Jackman and Billie Piper gettin’ frisky with one another, and that may, in fact, be so crackfic that it’d be worth the 8 bucks to me . . .

Seriously, though, I’ve typically tended to pick up books that DON’T show mantitty, and I actually like books that use pretty period paintings for covers.

I’d pick up the first one - I think the cover is lovely.  The second doesn’t do it for me I’m afraid.

Having said that, it’s not usually the covers that I use to choose which books to read - reviews are generally the way I get to new authors.

@Jessica Andersen - Actually, the whole “curtains matching the rug” or “cuff and collar don’t match” thing is a myth. It is actually perfectly normal and natural for the hair on the head and the pubic hair to be two different colors.

It’s kind of like how my brother Mark has blond hair, but when he grows a beard it grows in dark red!

But does the first cover really broadcast that the characters will end up dying horrible deaths?

It doesn’t for me, not necessarily at any rate. Though the reedition of Forever Amber a few years ago had a very similar cover and that novel certainly has a lot of more or less horrible deaths.

It’s also interesting how many people associate covers like the first with classics and are turned off. True, the historical painting look has been associated with classics for a long time, but in recent years it has also been increasingly common for straight historical fiction and even historical romance. What is more, I’ve read my share of dull and downright depressing classics (Emilia Galotti with it defence of honour killings probably takes the cake, though I hate All Quiet on the Western Front more), but I’d never automatically associate classic with depressing. It makes me wonder what horrible books were forced on the readers in question at school.

I love everything I’ve read by Pam Rosenthal, all with very “nice” historical/literary looking covers.  But I knew after the first one I read what I was getting into, so it didn’t matter what the cover looked like.

I agree with Kalen Hughes and Miranda Neville above (both authors whose work I also like!) that it’s great for the book to be available in both covers.  The more people who read this book (and her others) the better!

I’d buy either one (if I hadn’t already) because they have the name Pam Rosenthal on them. I love her writing. (Thanks for the tip on the pseudonym, I will definitely go check that out.)

I think both covers fit my idea of her writing somewhat. Her writing is restrained and classy, but the stories are very hot also. I prefer the first cover because it reads “quality” to me, which I associate with her writing and her books in general. Unfortunately, the second cover suffers from type issues and anachronistic costumes. From an art/design point of view the second cover would make me wince every time I looked at it. And I would look at it because…well I find Hugh Jackman attractive, even with waxed torso, atrocious tailoring and bizarre knotted shirt stuff going on. Not to mention that chick from Lost attached like limpet to his front-ness. Just…wrong.

Am I the only woman here who thinks Hugh Jackman isn’t really all that good looking? He’s a decent actor - no Jimmy Stewart or Alan Rickman, but pretty good - but looks wise, I think he’s rather - plain verging on ugly.

Kalen, thank you for your serious and enlightening answer to my question.  It makes good sense that there are subliminal symbols or signifiers of ‘historical’ in that second image that I just don’t get, because of my different cultural conditioning.  I know you are a real costume expert:  I am not, though I am an historian, and I could certainly distinguish an 1817 costume from an 1870s one at a hundred yards.  The key thing is that I have a literal mind, and expect to see actual objects or styles indicating a date, rather than subtle, allusive signals.
Those of you who have not googled the Lawrence portrait which has been so violently hacked about to create that first cover should take a look at it.  Lawrence was a great artist, and to treat his work like that is scandalous.
Final point:  it still seems to me that there are an awful lot of readers who actually pay attention to the covers of novels and expect them in some way to indicate what the book is like.  WHY?  All the evidence is that any ‘message’ they send about the content of the book is likely to be misleading at the very least:  these two covers for the same book illustrate the point very neatly.
Discussing the covers, the wrapping-paper, as artefacts in their own right is interesting and amusing, and may tell us a lot about culture and symbolism, advertising and marketing, but expecting them to have much to do with the novels seems to me unduly optimistic.

I bought the first cover because it was beautiful and because it was by Pam Rosenthal—that was really all I needed to know.

I understand those who like the second cover because the male model reminds them of Hugh Jackman, but I think he looks like Hugh Jackman’s downmarket cousin (there’s something a little off in his face to me).  Plus, as others have said, it’s such a cliched cover that it tells me little about the book other than it’s definitely a romance and there’s probably sex in it.  If it weren’t by Ms. Rosenthal I’d pass it right by because my eyes have glazed over after seeing a gazillion similar covers lately and there’s no way of knowing how to choose among them.  In the end, it comes down to reading a chapter before buying, as I do with all my book purchases, but whether I’d pick it up in the first place is doubtful.

@Alley: That was a seriously awesome response. Although I think the fe-model looks more like Denise Richards (one of the posters way up top couldn’t remember her name).  But yeah, eight-buck crackfic ahoy.

I don’t know that either cover would entice me to buy or completely turn me off.  I like to think that the back blurb and the front excerpt (if there is one) have more weight.  What I can say is that the first cover makes me think that the *publisher* took the *author* more seriously, or somehow gave her work more literary “weight.”  The second cover says that the publisher wants the author to sell to the historical romance reader, whether or not her story is more heavily weighted towards historical fiction or romance with historical backdrop.

As a consumer, I’d probably pass right over the second cover.  It has all the appropriate historical romance cues on it, but those cues are also distributed over just about every historical romance on the shelves, hence, it appears to be interchangeable with every other historical romance on the shelves.  Nothing about the cover makes me want to grab it versus the ones on either side of it with similar shag-mullet clinches and mantitty.

I’m sad to report that my buying habits have gotten me into a position where my cover perception influences whether or not I’ll pick or click to the blurb.  If the cover looks like every other cover out there, I probably won’t bother, or if I pick/click, it’ll be because of randomness rather than interest.  I would love love love to see more individual covers that reflect the unique aspects of the stories inside.  If there’s a way to express in cover-language what makes a Pam Rosenthal story different from, say, a Stephanie Laurens story, that’s what I want to see.

I’m not crazy about the first cover (like a poster above, I don’t like the chop-chop done to the original painting), but I’m more likely to pick it up to see what makes it different enough from the usual that it *doesn’t* have a clinch-cover.

@AgTigress

I tend to VASTLY prefer the covers on British and Australian editions of romances (and historical fiction) for exactly the reasons you point out, but I’ve learned over the past few years (basically since I started pursuing publication) to understand what American publishers are trying to telegraph to American readers. Clearly I’m not now and never have been the target audience for the pseudo-historical clench cover, but it’s also clear to me that they SELL. And as an author, I want people to read my book, so I’ll take a cover that’s less than ideal to me if it works to get the book into the hands of readers.

Kalen:  yes, from the writer’s perspective, better a ghastly cover that sells than a beautiful and tasteful (and relevant!) one that doesn’t!
My two most recent ‘popular’ books (non-fiction) both had what I thought were really great covers for the UK/World edition and HOPELESS ones for the US/Canadian ones.  I had no input into the latter.  But one just accepts that the publishers in the US go their own way, and that they presumably know their market.  Though having said that, American friends to whom I gave copies (of the UK edn.) all said that they liked the cover better than the US one. 
:-)

I prefer the first cover, but I bet it’s the reason I’ve never run into this book - putting it on reserve just now I learned it’s shelved as “fiction” instead of “romance” and I bet that has to do with the cover. Also, I get a lot of first-time-reads at thrift stores and no thrift store employee would put the first one with the romances.

On the other hand, I go right past covers just like the second at the grocery store all the time (unless I know the author’s name) because it just looks generic. And it may be supposed to say sweaty antagonistic sex, but so many covers make sexy promises and then have one sex scene in the book and one in the (postmarriage) afterward, I don’t believe those promises anymore.

Thank God for the internet - before internet review sites I read SO MUCH identically-covered crap to find the stuff I actually liked. Now I have all of you to rely on, and that’s way better than trying to decipher covers and blurbs.

@milena: That window is definitely not historically accurate.  The Slightest Provocation is set during the regency and plate glass wasn’t used much until the 1830s.  Therefore there should be beveled glass in the background, through which you wouldn’t be able to clearly see the landscape (or anything else) unless the windows were open.  Honestly, this is not a big deal on a cover (I can understand that aesthetics come before historical accuracy) but it’s a pet peeve of mine how frequently this mistake is made in historicals set in the early 19th c.  Every time a character can see something clearly through a window without opening it I get really annoyed.  Julia Quinn’s What Happens In London was particularly irritating as the heroine spends the first half of the novels spying on the hero through a window.  But that kind of thing is hardly a surprise from Quinn and I still enjoyed the book.

Without question, cover number one. I generally hate covers with people on them anyway, because it ruins my own idea of what the hero/heroine should look like. I love a great romance with lots of sexual tension and well written love scenes, but all of that is cheapened for me by the Fabio style covers. 

On a fromage scale, I’d give this one a nice “Dragon’s Breath Blue”, and so it’s fun from that perspective. But - I think this has been mentioned already by a few commenters - this cover makes it look like every other book on the rack, and when you are trying to stand out-to me anyway- this isn’t going to do it.

Wouldn’t pick up book with cover number 2 in a million years while cover number one looks just my style.

I too, thought of Candice Herm when I saw Cover #1.  It would definitely be my choice.  I think those 80’s-style.  mantitty covers are sleazy.  There was nothing dull about the Countess of Blessington:  everyone assumed that Count D’Orsay was having a menage- a -tois with her and her husband, and that once she was a widow, the two of them carried on, even though D’Orsays wife was living in the same house.  The truth is probably that there was NO sexual liaison between them, because she was frigid and he was too narcissistic to be interested in women, but as they say “When truth and legend conflict, print the legend.”  Spamword is doing79, as in “They were doign 79 things, none of them sexual”.

I probably wouldn’t pick up either cover. the first is pretty but boring.  the second one looks too much like all the other romance novel covers.  why can’t you have a clinch and have the hero with his shirt buttoned up?  or have them lying down?

“When truth and legend conflict, print the legend.”

OMG, I love this!!!

The first one would make me think it was like Lauren Willig’s series, The Secret History of the Pink Carnation and those books, which I enjoy. The second one wouldn’t stand out from the other historical romances, and since the historical is more important for me than the romance, I would prefer cover #1.
My word is who37—-must be about 26 regenerations from now!

In general, I vastly prefer UK to US covers as well, because they’re simply classier. There have been instances where I found a book I was looking forward to at the bookstore and still didn’t buy it, because it was the US edition and I preferred to wait for the UK edition.

another vote for the first one. The second one is awful.

#1 all the way.  #2 is just cliched, imo; no different from every single romance cover out there.  :/

Also, what is up with hero’s shirt?  It looks like he’s deliberately knotted it to show off his abs, kind of like how, in the 80s, girls used to knot their shirts up high to show their midriffs.  DO NOT WANT, yo.

They both look like historical romance cliche covers to me. My historical romances (an admittedly small section) either have the pastel painting version (option 1) or the two real-ish people with historical (ha!) clothes (option 2).

I personally like option 1 over option 2 because I usually dislike “real-ish people” on my romance covers of any genre. Option 2 does convey the passion more than the first one, but I wouldn’t feel betrayed by whatever level of passion there is if I picked up the first cover.

I may not be the best one to ask though because I only pick up historical romance books (which both covers convey it is) based on recommendations. Because everyone has been saying wonderful things about her writing, I may end up buying one of her books, in which case I would go with option 1. Neither cover would get me lifting it up in a store though.

Since I rarely read historicals (we’re talking Garwood and McNaught) for me the covers are for two distinctly different types of books: 

cover 1 - makes me think that it would be old time English romance ala Jane Austen
cover 2 - makes me think of an old-style Catherine Coulter (with the required rape scene)

so I’m guessing the cover 2 is to go after those readers who like hot historicals.

I think both covers equally attract different segments of the romance reading audience. One attracts the trashy lovers and the other attracts the historical loving lit majors.

If you want to talk about covers that are totally misleading, I’m more disappointed in the covers that depict the main male character as some ruthless executive in a suit, yet over the course of the actual book, he only wears wooley sweaters or t-shits and jeans.

...Yes I love men in suits and I am unashamed. They need more sex scenes that involve the love of the suit and the man in it. Not only talk about how hot he is, but talk about that bespoken double breasted wonder with herringbone pinstripes and that beautiful deep purple silken tie! (*sigh!*)

I think I’d pay more attention to the first cover rather than the revamped one. I tend to not take a lot of the covers with the hero and heroine tossed together like that seriously. With the old cover:

a) no one would know it was a steamy romance novel
b) it’s just prettier, IMO