Bitchin' Blog Posts
Covers Across the Pond
by SB Sarah | by SB Sarah | February 09, 2011 | Wednesday at 11:59 am | 121 CommentsReader Cate alerted me to the differences in Elizabeth Hoyt’s covers between the US and UK versions. Have a look. This is the UK version:
And this is the US version:
Cate went out of her way to order the US copy even though she’s in the UK, because she really, really dislikes the historical inaccuracy of the cover: “This is a book set in 1737 - I know that because it says so on the first page(!).So why then have Piatkus given the book a set of cover models who look like they’ve just walked off the set of Pride & Prejudice? Or does one historical era fit all ? - a bit like a kaftan!”
I confess to not being as savvy as Cate, but I’m also not sure which cover I’d prefer. On one hand, the US cover very clearly says historical romance - but the UK cover, and the title as listed in Amazon.co.uk, seems to market it as a mystery/romance, particularly the additional reference to mystery in the title: “Notorious Pleasures: A Maiden Lane Novel: A Wesley Peterson Murder Mystery.”
Which do you like better? If you were out book shopping and browsing, which would you be more interested in?
Filed: Covers Gone Wild! (Non-Snoop Dogg Edition), General Bitching
Tagged: romance, mystery, historical, elizabeth hoyt, cover models, cover makeovers, cover controversy, cover comparisons, cover comparison,
Ben P said on 02.09.11 at 01:23 PM • [link]
Empire clothing on a novel set in the rococo period. Fail.
I feel sorry for the author when ass-clowns start sabotaging any attempts she may have made at historical accuracy.
Casimira said on 02.09.11 at 01:25 PM • [link]
In that case, someone at Amazon has made a mistake, because that is a different historical murder mystery series. A very good one, but not this one.
Ell said on 02.09.11 at 01:33 PM • [link]
It of course needs a dragon that’s rendered in a proper period style.
Overquoted said on 02.09.11 at 01:37 PM • [link]
I’d like a cover with historical accuracy…but I’d rather have the male model wear a shirt. >_O The U.S. one just seems like a stereotypical romance cover. Why is he shirtless, and why are there fireworks going off? I also appreciate that the UK cover doesn’t have the author’s name in all-caps. I don’t need to be shouted at, damnit. >: ( Overall, the UK cover just seems less “busy.”
Stefanie said on 02.09.11 at 02:23 PM • [link]
I like the UK one a lot, but if I was in the mood for romance I probably wouldn’t choose it because of the murder/mystery tag. I really prefer my historicals to be character-driven, straight-up romances. Plus, the red dress is so pretty.
This snafu reminds me of another inaccurate cover. I can’t remember the title or author, but its fairly recent because I was reading it in a drugstore. The cover was very pretty and white, with a girl and a guy sitting on a chaise. She was wearing a lovely empire waist regency dress and he was wearing the usual breeches and puffy shirt. However, the book was set in 1850s London—the heart of the Victorian era. That really bugged me because the styles are sooo different for women and men.
joanne said on 02.09.11 at 02:24 PM • [link]
Yup, Casimira is right, Kate Ellis is the author of the Wesley Peterson series.
Re the English cover? The she has loooong neck, he has no neck would earn a second look.
Niveau said on 02.09.11 at 02:28 PM • [link]
I’m not a fan of shirtless-clinch-from-behinds, so I would normally prefer a cover like that UK one.
But.
There is a huge difference between putting a dress from, say, 1804 on the cover of a book set in 1810, and putting a dress that isn’t even from the same period as the book in question on its cover. Doing the latter makes me think that the publisher isn’t putting forth much effort on behalf of its author, and that it doesn’t think all that highly of its readers, either.
So in this case, I’m going with the US version.
Lyssa said on 02.09.11 at 02:37 PM • [link]
Okay, you asked which cover I prefered and it was the UK one, simply because the US one hurt my eyes. Now with that said, if I had bought said book I would have been expecting a Regency. Unless the cover blurb mentioned time frame I would have been so disappointed. So big plus for UK understated cover, big, huge glaring negative for false advertising.
Naomi said on 02.09.11 at 02:44 PM • [link]
Speaking as an English person, romance covers here are usually somewhat “disguised”, I find. They never have shirtless men or couples in dramatic clinches, embossed lurid pink fonts or any of the sundry other trappings of a bad (i.e., GLORIOUS) romance cover. I have a lot of old Georgette Heyers from the 60s and 70s and I think this cover is aiming for that kind of reader/market, as well is the historical mystery market, which is huge in the UK. Even Mills & Boon covers tend not to be as full-on as the Harlequin versions of the same books.
Chick lit, on the other hand, is almost always pink and covered in handbags, shoes, martini glasses and other “girly” rubbish, even if it’s totally inappropriate for the book itself.
Sarah W said on 02.09.11 at 02:51 PM • [link]
Eyerolls are good exercise, so I usually let covers slide, unless the specific description (age, coloring, build, ethnicity) of a pictured character differes from the author’s description—-especially the ethnicity, which happens far too often.
The color and species of the dragon had better be spot on, too, or the publisher gets a letter.
Mary Anne Graham said on 02.09.11 at 02:54 PM • [link]
I think sex in the US is portrayed as gaudy and glorious. In the UK it’s more discreet and demure. And I’m a very US kind of person, so yeah, I like that cover more.
It’s interesting that the publisher is trying to make the UK book appear more English to UK buyers. Wonder what that’s all about?
T said on 02.09.11 at 02:58 PM • [link]
It is a fail to put clothing wrong by the order of a century, BUT I still prefer the UK cover. It is just, to my taste, classier. And the expression on the face of the american model really puts me off, and I find the colors too garish. The UK cover seems sexier to me, in a less obvious way but sexier.
And 2 cents, I don´t think the UK cover is aiming as mystery/romance ( though the amazon listing might say that). Romance covers in the UK are not like american romance covers. In fact that applies also to fantasy and sf, and most of genres, the visual language which IDs a bookcover´s genre (and sometimes status) changes a lot from country to country.
Sandra said on 02.09.11 at 03:43 PM • [link]
I’m a big Hoyt fan, and I just finished reading this last weekend. My first thought was who is Wesley Peterson and what does s/he have to do with Hoyt’s Maiden Lane books?
While the UK cover is lovely, and if I was in the mood for a Trad Regency, I’d give it a second look, it’s not accurate for the story. The US cover is closer. The H/h have an encounter at a London pleasure garden, there are literal and figurative fireworks, and iirc, she was wearing a red dress at the time. He, unfortunately, kept his shirt on…. then.
Cara McKenna / Meg Maguire said on 02.09.11 at 03:58 PM • [link]
I like the UK cover… I feel his subtle, possessive gloved hand on her arm in that version manages to communicate the idea of improper passion more elegantly than the blatant shirt-off one. There’s also just tooooo much type on the US version.
Ashley said on 02.09.11 at 04:31 PM • [link]
I don’t really have a preference between inaccurate or overblown, but the mask in the US version, does that jump out at anyone else? It’s like the giant phallic swords on UF or pirate books, but the female version. “Look, here it is, the Magic Hoo-Ha!!!” (Masked for discretion)
Chelsea said on 02.09.11 at 04:33 PM • [link]
I confess, I probably would have prefered the UK cover if I hadn’t been told it was historically inaccurate. I could carry that thing into even the most frat-boy packed part of my college’s dining hall and no one would comment, because it just looks like historical fiction. Do the same with a book that has a shirtless dude on it (and yes, I know this from experience) and I run the risk of being harassed by asshats.
Tamara Hogan said on 02.09.11 at 04:37 PM • [link]
Tough call. Yeah, there are some issues with period accuracy and body dimensions in the UK cover, but I prefer its restraint over the US cover, which I find to be more busy and florid.
I write hot, but actually would prefer it if more of our cover heroes got to keep their shirts on - especially if the hero is wearing a shirt in the written scene reflected on the cover!
Sarah said on 02.09.11 at 04:37 PM • [link]
DWAGON! DWAGON DWWWAAAAAGGGGOOOONNNNN!!!!!
Darlene Marshall said on 02.09.11 at 05:01 PM • [link]
I wanted to click on “Needs a dragon!” but that would skew the results.
So I went with my default setting: Choose the man-titty.
Lisa J said on 02.09.11 at 05:01 PM • [link]
My vote was for the US version - not because of the historical accuracy, but because I hate it when there are headless bodies on the cover.
Nadia said on 02.09.11 at 05:02 PM • [link]
While the UK cover is more visually appealing to me, the US cover being more accurate for the setting and tone gets my vote. I’ve not read Hoyt’s work, but doesn’t she bring the sexy? The UK cover implies a mystery, yes, but also screams PG-rated with the modest neckline and fully-tied cravat.
Susan Reader said on 02.09.11 at 05:10 PM • [link]
The US cover: Put your shirt on, dude! And her dress looks a little off too… not as out-of-period as the other cover, but it seems more late-eighteenth than early-eighteenth century.
The British cover: Restraint is good, so long as people are wearing the right clothes for their time period.
Alex Beecroft said on 02.09.11 at 05:12 PM • [link]
I like the colour, restraint and layout of the UK cover better. I think it’s a nicer cover. Having said that, the inaccuracy of the clothes would really bug me. It’s not like they’re even similar to the right ones - it’s a huge change of style.
I’d still be more likely to buy the UK version, though (which probably goes to show that as I am part of the UK market, they’ve done their research right.) It would just surprise me when I found out it wasn’t a Regency. But in my case that would be a pleasant surprise, as I like Georgian even better.
Isabel C. said on 02.09.11 at 05:12 PM • [link]
On the one hand, I like the red dress and historical accuracy of the US cover. And I’m all for shirtless guys.
On the other hand, the shirtless guy in question (now there’s a title) looks kinda…fratty. Bleh. Though that might just be the way it shows up on my screen.
Chicklet said on 02.09.11 at 05:23 PM • [link]
Screw the inaccuracy of the UK cover, because the first thing I thought when I saw the US cover was SKANKY!. I guess I just like a little dignity in my book covers. *shrug*
jayhjay said on 02.09.11 at 05:36 PM • [link]
OMG, I didn’t notice this until I went back and looked again, but seriously, that is one magic hoo-ha! Now that I noticed it, I can’t see anything else!
Marie Kenward said on 02.09.11 at 05:39 PM • [link]
Amen! Totally agree.
gypsydani said on 02.09.11 at 05:43 PM • [link]
The US cover is more vibrant and eye catching. Plus, there’s the mask in the heroine’s hand which makes me think there will be shenanigans…or carnival…both of which suit me since I’m from New Orleans. The UK cover makes me think of sitting rooms and tea. Since I’ve never read Hoyt, I’d be less likely to give her a try based on the UK cover, I’m a little burnt out on Regencies, but I’d probably pick up the US book out of curiosity.
Dayna said on 02.09.11 at 05:47 PM • [link]
U.S. cover for sure. Her neck in the UK cover is *freakishly* long. If I saw a woman in real life with a neck like that I would really struggle not to stare, I think.
Lynn S. said on 02.09.11 at 05:49 PM • [link]
Not exactly happy with the U.S. cover by the U.K. cover has too many proportions issues, let alone the inaccuracy of the clothing.
Strange thing about this is there was a previous version of the U.S. cover which featured the same couple offset in the left-hand corner with more backdrop. Much better cover and had continuity with the cover for Wicked Intentions. Also, am I the only one who is hopping mad that they’ve changed the Pink Carnation covers?
Mireya said on 02.09.11 at 05:49 PM • [link]
The mystery thing is an attempt at broadening the market. Mystery and sci-fi are humongosellers in England, even more so than romance (at least in brick and mortar stores). Every single bookstore I stepped in when I was in England, had much bigger sections for mystery/suspense and sci-fi than for any other fiction genre. As to the outfits, that is pretty bad, but again, I think it is just a bad attempt at marketing to another audience that may not be that much into romance as such.
Kerry Allen said on 02.09.11 at 05:53 PM • [link]
Everything about the UK cover—clothing (historically accurate or not), pose, background, border, font choices, that wish-washy pink title—says, politely, “Hallo, I’m boring.”
The US cover—RED, FIREWORKS, HALF-NEKKID FELLA, MASKED LADYBITS, BOLD TEXT—shouts, “I WILL ROCK YOUR WORLD!”
Team USA all the way.
Laura (in PA) said on 02.09.11 at 06:09 PM • [link]
I much prefer the UK cover - I agree that the US cover has Too Much Going On. And I agree with T’s opinion that it just seems classier, which appeals to me. I don’t like that it totally misrepresents the period setting of the book, however.
Jan said on 02.09.11 at 06:14 PM • [link]
Since I wouldn’t realize the historical inaccuracy until way later (I am terrible with dresses), I’d go for the UK version. I really hate the lettering of the USA Romance. It’s huge, and in the way, and slightly trashy. I hate it when there’s a nice cover and they just throw a lot of text on there.
Erin said on 02.09.11 at 06:28 PM • [link]
Cover, shmover. Particularly now that I’m reading almost exclusively e-books. Seriously, the cover has NOTHING to do with my decision to purchase. I just take it as guaranteed that the depiction will have marginal connection to the actual story, and actively avoid looking at the folks depicted. I much prefer creating a mental picture of the characters!
Rachel said on 02.09.11 at 06:39 PM • [link]
I’d have to go with the US cover for this one, because the other makes me think I’m picking up something more sedate and proper. Not that there’s anything wrong with sedate and proper, but I’ve got various Austen books for that.
That said - I do have to agree on the lettering on the US version. Does it really have to take over the cover image? I can honestly say I’m terrible at remembering author names and book titles, but I have no problem remembering how the cover art looks when I’m trying to find something in the book store. (course, that doesn’t help me all the time since they’re not all displayed front out where I can see it). So a US version with smaller text that doesn’t cover the entire thing would be perfect.
I’ve read the last two Maya Banks KGI novels in public (around a bunch of theater students no less) with no problem, so I’m not worried what people think about me and what I read. They laughed at me more for a steampunk one with a rather lovely stylized art deco-ish cover than the full on man titty. Can’t really explain that one…
Though, if the advert over there is true, I’m not happy that Banks’ third KGI book has a shirted man on it. Whole reason I bought those was to drool over the half nekkid covers. =P
Jayne said on 02.09.11 at 06:43 PM • [link]
I agree with Kerry. It’s like they got a handbook on British and American stereotypes and designed the respective covers based on that. The British one says “Dearest, may I hold your hand after tea?” while the American says “WOOOO LET’S GET IT ON AND LOOK THERE’S SOME FIREWORKS WOOOO!!!!!!” I want to like the British cover, since it seems classier, but my instincts are screaming “America, FUCK YEAH!”
Ashley, once you see the maskgina, you can never unsee.
Patti said on 02.09.11 at 06:52 PM • [link]
The cover usually has nothing to do with the story, but I would choose the UK one because I could read it in public! I much prefer a subtle cover over one that screams sex. I think that the covers often dumb down a lot of excellent stories.
DianeN said on 02.09.11 at 06:55 PM • [link]
I voted for the red ruffly cover because the green sedate cover SCREAMS Regency romance. The red dress seems somewhat more historically accurate. But I also gotta say, I can’t see anything at all about either cover that indicates this is a historical mystery.
Gwynnyd said on 02.09.11 at 06:57 PM • [link]
My vote is for neither. (dragons or unicorns for a slight extra charge)
Can I get the pose of the UK cover with the figures wearing reasonably accurate clothing?
or the US cover with the dude wearing reasonably accurate clothing and the text toned down? HOW did his shirt get into that position while she’s still fully clothed? Did he just rip it off to impress her? Is HE having hot flashes? Maybe that’s what the fireworks signify. His hair is all wrong too. Where’s his curled and powdered wig?
I find I am crabbier these days when the easy things are inaccurate. Drat. I must be getting old.
Karen said on 02.09.11 at 07:17 PM • [link]
I’m sorry—I messed up the results. I couldn’t help but choose the dragon. :-D
Kelly M :-) said on 02.09.11 at 07:29 PM • [link]
Must be their marketing to the American consciousness, but my first thought when looking at the red one was “Ooooh fireworks!” I do love me some sparkle.
J said on 02.09.11 at 07:35 PM • [link]
I’ve never been so glad I’m historically challenged…I would have no idea what dresses are worn in what era! I hate the look on the UK cover - the historicals I read are 90% between early 1800s - 1830 - and I always envision the women in the fuller, lower cut, prettier dresses because I think the bland, hanging-straight-down-with-little-girl puff-sleeves is ugly. I don’t need the dresses as full as Scarlett O’Hara’s (which was the mid 1800s!) but regardless of how they really did dress, to me they wore bigger, fuller, nicer dresses, from 1700-late 1800 when I think the bustle made it’s debut! If it’s a medieval, to me they all dressed like Olivia Hussey in Romeo and Juliet (don’t care if I’m right or wrong). When authors describe most clothing, I’ve no idea what they are talking about, so I use the color, substitute in my mental dress of choice, and I’m happy! All that said, however - I don’t think I’ve ever spent more than 5 seconds looking at a cover and once I start reading couldn’t tell you what the cover looks like (certain 8 pack abs covers do tend to stand out a bit, like Lora Leigh’s Nauti series covers).
AgTigress said on 02.09.11 at 07:39 PM • [link]
Hate both.
The US one is the usual ghastly, florid, vulgar mess of figures and too much text in too many sizes and typefaces (and is the dress all that accurate for the 1730s? Just asking). The UK one is a lot tidier and not in-yer-face vulgar, but sadly limp, uninspired and boring. I actually ‘read’ the dress as modern (21stC), not Regency, and certainly not George II, of course.
The difference in public taste in cover art between the US and the UK runs very deep, and is evident in non-fiction as well as novels.
AgTigress said on 02.09.11 at 07:42 PM • [link]
This blog entry from a few years ago is an interesting study of the US/UK taste dichotomy in covers. I (and most Brits) tend to see American cover-art as fussy, gaudy and messy; I presume most Americans see ours as bland and boring.
http://www.intergalacticmedicineshow.com/cgi-bin/mag.cgi?do=columns&vol=carol_pinchefsky&article=002
Although the covers shown and contrasted are science fiction rather than romance, it is easy to see the same culturally distinct design principles at work.
Melodie said on 02.09.11 at 07:51 PM • [link]
I’m not fond of either cover. US is too clinchtastic and please, enough with the shirtless guys. But the UK cover doesn’t even read romance to me. With her hand at her neck and his hand just barely touching her it looks more like the butler is catching mi’lady as she faints when the brash young American asks for coffee instead of tea.
HelenB said on 02.09.11 at 08:01 PM • [link]
I’m from the UK and I think the UK cover is just wrong. It’s boring and false advertising. I did email the publisher to query why they were 100 years out in the costumes. I think it is as bad as putting modern clothes on a historical. Speaking of boring, check out the UK version of Devil in Winter - dull dull dull.
SB Sarah said on 02.09.11 at 08:11 PM • [link]
Everybody loves dragons. It’s a universal thing.
After looking again at the covers, I lean toward USA. First, I honestly can’t keep accuracy details straight and they aren’t what I look for in a historical romance - but I am very well aware I may be a minority in that one. I’ve said before: you can have the duke drive his Porsche to Almack’s and I won’t blink, but if his dialogue is cliche-ridden and the motivation and plot are hokey, I’m done. Gimme his Porsche.
The reason I lean toward the USA is because of the dress and the color - a red dress, the pose, the way the male is standing behind her - all say “strong woman” to me. I already know Hoyt writes strong women but that cover also telegraphs that to me in color and composition. The UK cover is more staid, she’s being restrained, and for heaven’s sake, her dress blends into the wallpaper. Not the heroine I’m looking for.
Unless she’s secretly a dragon!
MB said on 02.09.11 at 08:34 PM • [link]
In spite of the inappropriate clothing styles, I much prefer the UK cover version. I’m not a fan of the overwrought candy box US romance covers. I usually put my book plate over them, just to avoid shuddering. On library books, I use post-it notes.
Leah said on 02.09.11 at 08:38 PM • [link]
Dear Bitchery,
Thank you for making my day better. After having to take a $50 cab ride to get to work (late) due to the subzero engine killing temperatures I was in the type of bad mood that only you can cure. XOXO.
PS: Dragons all the way. And probably the US cover since I agree that the proportions are all wonky on the UK verson. Her neck really is 2x too long and his looks like they took away a few inches. It’s just odd.
Pauli said on 02.09.11 at 08:56 PM • [link]
I think that if there could be some sort of hybrid between the two—the dress cut and color of the US cover, a shirt on the man, please, for the love of all that is fluffy, the slightly more restrained style of the UK cover, and Dear Ceiling Cat, *definitely the US fonts (who the hell picked that lame calligraphy font, anyway? and in *pink? how the hell does that match the rest of the colors? *ahem* my design issues, let me show you them), although perhaps just *two typefaces, rather than three—that’s the one I’d go for. With a dragon. A SPARKLY DRAGON.
*ahem* Rambling comment is rambling. Whoops?
Erica Anderson said on 02.09.11 at 09:17 PM • [link]
OMG! Snarfed my coffee at Sarah’s DWAAAAAGONNNN! comment.
Like the UK restraint. Hate the freakishly long neck and inaccuracy.
Ashley, I have never thought of masks in terms of hoo-has. UNTIL NOW. Thank you for making me see what cannot be unseen.
Also, if you’re bothering to do the whole shirtless man thing, why not go all the way to full-on man titty?
Apey said on 02.09.11 at 09:25 PM • [link]
As much as I find the historical inaccuracy off-putting (seriously, being that far off in time period is something that would truly irk me) the worse offense of the UK cover is the drabness. The colors are bland (beige dress - ugh!), the headless automatons are bland, and their poses say “feeble waif girl” to me. The heroine looks like she’s falling asleep on her feet or perhaps passing out from boredom.
Of course, if she truly were secretly a dragon then the UK one would win by default. Provided she went on a cottage-burning rampage, of course.
Jez Morrow said on 02.09.11 at 09:35 PM • [link]
Doesn’t anyone else think the English man has a face like a kumquat?
Tracy said on 02.09.11 at 09:56 PM • [link]
LOL. I agree with you 100%. I’m not into historicals, but since we are truly judging books by their covers, the UK is soooooo bland. Me likey the pretty colors of the US version better. As far as the big fonts…look around. All of the US ones are doin it. If you’re an established author, your name will be in big shiny caps…names sell. (Heck, look at Nora Roberts’ books….I can’t remember what any of her covers look like…mainly because they all feature her name in big bold print.
Tracy said on 02.09.11 at 09:59 PM • [link]
Please forgive my typo…I meant to say the UK
VERSION
is soooo bland. *blushing*
LizW65 said on 02.09.11 at 10:01 PM • [link]
Historical accuracy aside, I much prefer the subdued, tasteful British cover to the gaudy, sleazy US one, and would be more likely to pick up the former as it has an air of mystery about it and doesn’t scream “cookie-cutter historical” to me. (And FWIW, the second cover isn’t all that historically accurate either; it looks like a Simplicity Patterns rendition of “period” costume.)
Jane Lovering said on 02.09.11 at 10:05 PM • [link]
Miss, Jez said ‘kum…’
Alex Beecroft said on 02.09.11 at 10:06 PM • [link]
I have this idea that our national differences in book cover taste could be down to the weather. Our weather is so often grey, misty, foggy and dim that we see misty, subtle colours as being more realistic, and find the more highly saturated colours of the US covers a bit cartoon-like and hard to believe. Whereas people from regions with stronger, clearer light see stronger, clearer colours as more realistic, and think ours are wishy-washy and dull.
That’s my theory anyway :)
library addict said on 02.09.11 at 10:22 PM • [link]
The heroine looks taller than the hero in the UK version and I agree the colors are drab.
But there is something off about the hero on the US cover. Don’t know if it’s just the angle, or his head seems to small, or what.
So I voted for needs a dragon.
Ros said on 02.09.11 at 10:33 PM • [link]
Well, I wonder if the debate indicates that the cover-producers know what they are doing. I’m from the UK and the UK cover looks like something I would pick up. Classy, period romance - though admittedly, I would be expecting Regency romance from the clothes. The US cover, by contrast, screams to me vulgar, sex-filled romp. But it’s interesting to me to see that so many commenters read the two covers differently. I’d love to have a poll that showed how the preferences split between readers from the US and UK.
kkw said on 02.09.11 at 10:45 PM • [link]
Yes! Although at first glance I thought it was a purse, which made me beyond happy, so I was a little disappointed it was only a mask.
I think the US one is lurid and ridonkulous, but I like that about it. It’s not like anyone who sees the UK cover isn’t going to know it’s a romance novel. I’ll take shameless over pretending-not-to-be-embarrassed any day. If you’re going to eat a frog eat a big one.
Leah said on 02.09.11 at 10:50 PM • [link]
I just realized that the English dude’s chin looks like Jay Leno…
AgTigress said on 02.09.11 at 11:00 PM • [link]
Alex, there is some truth in this. The quality of light and its effect on colour intensity, plus the landscape colours arising from the predominent types of vegetation, are fascinating topics. But Brits are accustomed to — and love — the vivid and saturated colours of the Mediterranean countries, while plenty of Americans live in areas where there is a cool, clear, but pastel quality to the light (thinking of the Seattle/Vancouver region). (Wonderful light and vegetation colours in Australia, so different from Europe: all those silvery greens of the gum trees, and the pink and blue. Sorry, getting distracted).
No, it’s more about the symbolism rather than the reality. Gaudy, clashing colours and madly busy designs read, to many of us Brits as ‘loud, vulgar and childish’; restrained colours and cleaner lines read as ‘adult, mature, serious’. Shouting and screaming and jumping up and down, as opposed to cool, subtle understatement.
But having said that, both of these covers are undoubtedly poor. To me, the dress on the UK cover is totally modern, not even Regency, and the colours are dreary rather than subtle.
I dislike pictorial covers for novels anyway. I prefer simple and elegant typography on a plain background.
Tracy said on 02.09.11 at 11:01 PM • [link]
Yes!!!!! I thought the exact same thing.
Laura (in PA) said on 02.09.11 at 11:02 PM • [link]
I’m finding it fascinating that the votes for one cover or another are continuously so evenly split.
Ali said on 02.09.11 at 11:44 PM • [link]
Ignoring historical accuracies, I prefer the UK cover. I think it is because the wording on the US cover overshadows the figures and looks too busy.
UAC said on 02.09.11 at 11:52 PM • [link]
I wouldn’t pick either one. They both look boring to me and bring out the worst ADD tendencies in me. Can’t get into historicals unless they have dragons, elves, unicornies, zombies, or aliens.
phemie said on 02.10.11 at 12:03 AM • [link]
I just read the book today. I bought the American version on Amazon.de, because it was cheaper (5,70 € ) than the British one (9,40 €). I do like the American cover better. No headless people, right hair colour, right century dress. I also think the sensuality level of the book is better represented by the American cover.
Cathy said on 02.10.11 at 12:25 AM • [link]
Although I dislike historical inaccuracies, the US cover seems so overwrought. It’s the embodiment (encoverment?) of what I think of when someone says “scarlet woman.” (Not that I hear that phrase used often, if at all.) The swooning face, half-dressed man, red dress, and mask merkin are all a turn-off for me. I don’t really like the UK cover eaither, it is fairly bland, but at least the model isn’t trying to hid her crotch, like we don’t all really know what’s going to happen in this book anyway.
deputman said on 02.10.11 at 01:01 AM • [link]
Oh this, so much this. That’s the cover I want. Please give me back that cover. It was pretty and matched the first. Hate when covers looks change in the middle of a series. Like with Lisa Kleypas’s Hathaway series I loved the first three covers (book 1 had my favorite cover of that year) and it was bad enough that they switched up for the last two but they made them so bland, boring and paint-by-numbers.
JennyME said on 02.10.11 at 01:04 AM • [link]
I preferred the UK cover (looks like my kind of book!) until I found out what time period the book’s set in. There are some time periods that I love, some I’m sick of but tolerate, some that I have no interest in—if the costume on the cover misleads me, then I’m a pissed-off reader.
deputman said on 02.10.11 at 01:04 AM • [link]
“Paint-by-numbers” wasn’t exactly what I meant there but was the best I could do because the word I wanted was just out of mental reach. Of course I immediately thought of what I wanted to say after I hit submit. Generic—the last two covers in the Hathaways series were generic.
henofthewoods said on 02.10.11 at 01:15 AM • [link]
The red one hurt my eyes. I probably wouldn’t have noticed the errors on the UK version.
I prefer not seeing the covers: go ebooks!
Dragons make everything better.
Milena said on 02.10.11 at 01:23 AM • [link]
I’m sorry, but the US cover just says “Yet Antoher Historical”. The UK cover would attract me sooner, with its contrast between the extremely restrained couple (no, not that way!) and the pink curly font; I’d be curious to see what happens behind that cover, much more than with the red-screaming-in-your-face version. And yes, I would then laugh at the historical inaccuracy, but… If I had a buck for every historically accurate cover I own I wouldn’t be any richer.
Sylvia E said on 02.10.11 at 01:39 AM • [link]
Is there anything about the UK cover that says pleasure? Let alone notorious pleasures? And if it’s a murder mystery then I say chin guy did it!
But screw the covers! Why is this book not available for Kindle in the Netherlands?! I hate it when they do that. Sure I can order a dead tree version from the German Amazon (since they seem to think Holland belongs to Germany there are no shipping costs…) but I WANT IT NOW!!!
NurseEdna said on 02.10.11 at 01:41 AM • [link]
If I were judging the book solely on the cover, I don’t think either of these would entice me to pick the book off the shelf. They both look like covers we’ve seen a thousand times.
The UK cover looks like an awkward prom photo. I like a simple cover but this one has no style or personality at all. It’s telling me this book will be politely romantic, but it won’t be an exciting read.
The US cover is pretty ridiculous, but it does make the book seem a bit more lively. But for the love of Zeus man, put your shirt back on. The waxed chest isn’t exactly historically accurate either. Still, I prefer this one. It just seems more interesting.
DreadPirateRachel said on 02.10.11 at 01:50 AM • [link]
Dragon, bitches. Everything’s better with dragons!
cate said on 02.10.11 at 01:55 AM • [link]
Well my blissfully OTT red Georgian(ish) American copy of this book arrived today. -And I couldn’t be happier.
When I sent Sarah my original letter, I was -and still am -incensed that the (UK) publishers just couldn’t be arsed to even be bothered to give this novel a cover that even gave a passing nod to it’s setting - 1737 . So it has a cover that strongly suggests it has a Regency setting ( trading standards anyone ?) & if, like me you’re Regency’d out - & if I didn’t know that Hoyt writes about those wonderfully down & dirty early Georgians, I would have passed this book over.
- And as for those of you voting for Dragons ...... They’re a flaming nuisance & a bugger to shift from the bottom of the garden…...Worse than a fairy infestation every time !
tarastarr1 said on 02.10.11 at 02:01 AM • [link]
The US cover. I don’t care about historically accurate covers. I just want a cover that screams “This is a romance novel!”, and the US one does this more effectively. I want romance novels to be easy to pick out, because I want my happy ending. I don’t want to pick up something thinking it’ll end well, only to have our couple not end up together or someone dies. Seriously, if I want to go on a crying jag, I’ll watch a movie; it takes two hours as opposed to eight. (But for a happy ending, I’ll commit the time.)
Kitala said on 02.10.11 at 02:39 AM • [link]
My favorites covers are the ones that don’t scream romance. They have a feather, or a necklace, or a pillow, or some other item that might be in the novel and then a subtle coloring. That said, if I had to pick between these two, I would go with the American. The UK version looks too sedate to me. It makes me think of Jane Austen, and while I appreciate her works, I prefer anachronistic modern sensibilities in my historical romances. The US version is a little gaudy for my taste, but I still prefer it.
Sylvia Sybil said on 02.10.11 at 03:43 AM • [link]
I wanted to vote for the green mystery cover (it is quiet and does not assault my eyeballs), but once I saw that dragon was an option there was simply no other choice.
Sorry I skewed your poll results, but come on. Dragon.
Emily said on 02.10.11 at 04:16 AM • [link]
First of all I enjoyed all your comments. Better even than the covers. I voted for historical accuracy. Also I love fireworks( I have secret dreams of getting married on the fourth of July.)
I feel like the shirtless man is somewhat hidden.
Like someone above I get Regency’d out. Points for setting a book some other time.
This all being said the only times I look at covers is at bookstores or during the book club when SB Sarah says look at the cover. In a bookstore, I would probably pick british cover because its more sedate for me to be seen in public with it.
(But historical accuracy is important!)
I am also as a Pink Carnation fan; yes I am annoyed they are switching covers in the series, but as I feel like the books are suddenly becoming PG, I am bothered by changes in content.
AJane said on 02.10.11 at 04:50 AM • [link]
Has anyone noticed that the guy in the UK version looks a bit Jay Leno-ish? And really, who could go wrong with dragons?
DM said on 02.10.11 at 05:15 AM • [link]
Whether all readers know the difference between Regency and Georgian costume or not, do you think Hachette would ever put out a cookbook devoted to Thai food with a cover featuring tamales?
Booklover1335 said on 02.10.11 at 05:43 AM • [link]
I can’t believe how many commenters prefer the UK version. I didn’t read through all of them ....just about 30 or so and was really surprised.
Yes it is a historical romance and I think it’s imperative to have the clothing at least in the right century!
I love the US cover, maybe because I’ve already read the story and the dress and the fireworks hold significance to the story. I like it when the cover isn’t generic but holds meaning to the story it’s supposed to represent. The UK cover says nothing about the story that is within the pages. To me that is a bigger fail than the clothing.
This could be a cover for a Heyer or an Austin novel…and anyone who has had the pleasure of reading a Hoyt romance knows that they are steamier. The cover should reflect that as well. Otherwise I feel like I’ve been deceived as to what to expect. I would only expect love scenes behind closed doors with the UK cover.
And what’s wrong with a man’s naked chest on the cover. I’ll take that kind of view all day long :)
Booklover1335 said on 02.10.11 at 05:56 AM • [link]
I know a few people also commented on how they hate when a series changes the look of the covers midway through. In a recent conversation with the author she said that the next printing of Wicked Intentions will have a new cover, where the heroine is much larger and less of the background….so anyone buying now will more than likely have covers that “feel’ the same.
I also hate it when covers in a series don’t go well together….but what I hate even more is when they switch a series from mmp to hardcover in the middle. Not a way to reward reader loyalty!
Kei said on 02.10.11 at 06:08 AM • [link]
What I focused on initially is that the UK cover-man is a bit shorter than his lady, whereas the US cover the man is significantly taller. Is that a common difference between US/UK covers too? I know fellow Americanas that demand tall men… Is that less important to our sisters in the UK?
(Everything I read these days are 80’s-written, WWII-era, East-Asian location romances [3 in a row!]. TOTALLY not the right gal to judge period costumes of Western Europe, though I think it’s awesome to read the critiques!)
Dragoness Eclectic said on 02.10.11 at 06:23 AM • [link]
I prefer the one that doesn’t chop both their heads off. The UK version suggests an incompetent photographer, and is a bit creepy; if done deliberately, it suggests that only the bodies matter, not the personalities (faces convey personality). Great if it’s a novel about slave trading or organ harvesting, not so much for a romance.
sweetsiouxsie said on 02.10.11 at 06:54 AM • [link]
I received this book last week. I read it immediately. Elizabeth Hoyt is a favorite author of mine. I love the American cover and the peekaboo picture inside. The items in the pictures are parts of the story except, as Sandra said above, Griffin keeps his shirt on until later!!!
I don’t understand the UK cover at all. Maybe the artist didn’t read the book first?
Scrin said on 02.10.11 at 08:23 AM • [link]
The US version is more appealing to me. The cover couple look more natural than the ramrod-straight UK cover (I know British people have a thing about the stiff upper lip and reserve, but, seriously y’all. It’s cool to unbend enough to snuggle.)
And the US cover is easier to read for me. I glanced at it and new it said ‘Notorious pleasures”, whereas the UK one’s leany-pink thin script took me a second more.
The US has a more attractive cover for me—more color, better pose (the UK couple look like some celebrities trying to hustle through the paparazzi), and easier to read. Done.
Violet said on 02.10.11 at 10:00 AM • [link]
Historical fashion flubs on covers are my biggest pet peeve. And there’s nearly a century of difference between these two covers. Also, does anyone else find it weird that the UK cover has the couple in an extremely stiff, starched-up position? The woman’s practically standing at the ballet barre, preparing for plies. OR, she’s stiffening because she’s realized the hero is a turtle-man from Planet XANATOR 3bs *click-click-whistle-whistle* 5, who is going to try and drag her back into his camouflaged-as-period-clothing shell! He is an ALIEN INVADER!!!!! Run, dear heroine! RUN!!!!! Oh…on second thought, she might look so stiff because she’s already been turned into an alien pod-person after she realized he couldn’t possibly be a wondrous English gentleman because of his historically inaccurate clothing, and he was forced to infect her virally with his transformational venom to preserve his cover :)
Also, he has a double chin. And he’s shorter than her (but his shoulders are taller than hers?). AND the cover’s screaming Bella Lugosi “I VANT TO SSSUUUUUCK YOUR BLOOOOOD…and play with your uber puffy sleeves!”
The US version wins if only because it doesn’t say all of the above. But I love the red dress, and the hero has his shirt UNBUTTONED but still TUCKED IN!!!! YAY!!!! And although he could be leaning in to slurp from a throbbing vein in her neck, she at least doesn’t look like she’s been transformed into an alien rent-a-womb. And ze fireworks, zey tell us it is wuv! twu twu WUV!!! as in “sparks will FLY!!!!” and then explode and disappear as our lovers have a falling out…
Tessa said on 02.10.11 at 10:28 AM • [link]
I hate it when they chop the heads off! (Are you listening, marketing department?) As much as I (an American) prefer the UK version (potato-rage couture issues aside), I will not buy any more headless books. Not even if the alternative is trashy and vulgar.
Though, US, can we please limit ourselves to 1 font? I am not a toddler and I don’t want to be yelled at in mutiple typefaces or squiggly lacy graphics (not that my toddler does either, but she might think it’s pretty).
In fact, given only these choices, I wouldn’t buy either of these books based on their covers, which is a shame, since I bet I’d like the stories. I love me my romances, but I would have returned to the genre much earlier in life if the covers weren’t so offputting. There’s a reason romance is selling thru the roof on ereaders.
Jean said on 02.10.11 at 11:03 AM • [link]
I actually liked the look of the UK cover better until I found out it was set in 1737. The UK cover say’s Regency to me and had I purchased it and then found out when it was set it would irritate me very much - I hate covers that are widely inaccurate. (I wouldn’t notice smaller inaccuracies). That said, I think the US cover is ugly. The colors are way to bright and I don’t care for either of the people portrayed but it does seem to fit the era better.
Nessa said on 02.10.11 at 11:10 AM • [link]
I don’t particularly care about the historical inaccuracy - wouldn’t even have noticed it if it hadn’t been pointed out to me - so my vote totally goes to the UK cover. While I appreciate that the US one actually has something to do with the story (shock!), it’s just so ugly. The big lettering puts me off - as someone said upstream, stop shouting at me! - as does the shirtless dude.
bookstorecat said on 02.10.11 at 11:41 AM • [link]
Agree. HATE the generic nature of the UK cover. It’s completely bland and without any sense of story or even Personality—those people are missing their frickin’ faces, for frickssake! The US cover image fits the title. The UK one should be called “Notorious Boredom.”
thekaps said on 02.10.11 at 04:09 PM • [link]
I like the UK one….
Literary Slut Kilian said on 02.10.11 at 04:12 PM • [link]
Hard to decide which cliche I hate more - headless or shirtless. Probably headless, because at least there’s some eye candy with shirtless. The only time I make a decision based on a cover if the cover artist is Kinuko Craft, then it’s an automatic buy.
H.Vert said on 02.10.11 at 05:05 PM • [link]
De-lurking to say that due to the shirt-less state of the guy on the US cover, I have to go with the UK cover, even though the clothing surely surely does not go with the story’s date. Too bad though, because if he had had a shirt, I’d be all for the red ruffles.
AgTigress said on 02.10.11 at 06:47 PM • [link]
So do I, Tessa. It’s a lunatic idea, but bizarrely fashionable at the moment. And I am glad that you, too, dislike multiple typefaces; I was beginning to think that I was the only one who cares about the typography. NYT bestselling tag, author name, words of praise from Lisa Kleypas, also defined as NYT bestselling author, series reference, using two fonts (one of them ugly), about 6 different point sizes, caps, italics, bold, italic caps — it’s a godawful mess. There’s too much text on the cover of the UK one as well, but it isn’t quite so riotous.
Really, six of one, half-dozen of the other. The ghastly covers of so many romance novels constitute a major reason for the contempt in which they are held by some people. They assume that the books must be as appalling as their wrapping-paper.
terhi said on 02.10.11 at 06:48 PM • [link]
Wasn’t the heroine of the book very tall? (Even a bit taller than the hero?) And very stiff-upper-lipped? In that sense the UK cover could be more accurate (though badly photoshopped). I think I’m in the dragon camp for this one, both covers seem about equally unappealing. The UK version for the dress and the general stockphotoness of it all, the US for the shirtless man - vilting girlishness in the poses. My copy is the US one and I too was a bit disappointed to find they’d changed the style so much from the first book in the series. Most importantly though: I liked the story a lot! :)
Susanna Fraser said on 02.10.11 at 07:52 PM • [link]
Am I the only one who kinda likes headless covers? They help me visualize the characters as the author describes them and/or in a way I find attractive.
GrowlyCub said on 02.10.11 at 08:32 PM • [link]
BenP
Don’t worry about historical accuracy, Hoyt doesn’t either. Her books may have dates on them but that’s about as far as she gives lipservice to period.
That said the UK cover is just misleading readers.
I find it interesting that there was an earlier version of the US cover with the couple smaller. I was quite surprised when I saw the final cover because it’s such a dramatic departure from the cover of the first book in the series, which was much more restrained and more one-color.
/a
Tessa said on 02.10.11 at 09:49 PM • [link]
Can anyone name any other product or service where the packaging is so universally irrelevant to the contents that there is a saying about it??
Apologies for the rant, but I promised myself I would ask if it still bothered me in the morning, and it does. Why is the publishing industry so willfully blind to the marketing advantages of having the wrapping relate to the contents?
Or even, should it come to it and all this noise about publishing brands, to the publisher? Or the author? (Personally, should I ever get published, I’d like all of my book covers to be simple, Art Deco graphic elements. (Like I’d have any choice…sigh.))
I looooove romances, but I hate the covers. I hate having to sneak them on the train, I hate having them scream MAN-TITTY on my bookshelves. (Inside the book, oh yeah, but not for my friends/husband/parents to see. I like what happens in my brain to stay private.).
For a medium so much about imagination, why do they insist on bludgeoning me with luridly-colored, period/story inappropriate images photoshopped from some image library?
Why is it a standard defect of the genre that you have to work to get the cover images out of your brain while you read the story?
Why don’t the powerful authors stand up (or sit down at the contract-negotiating table) and insist that their covers reflect the period, characters and tone of their books?
Enquiring minds want to know. Ok, end of rant. Sorry.
AgTigress said on 02.10.11 at 10:44 PM • [link]
TESSA: you are so, so right!
Diva said on 02.10.11 at 11:01 PM • [link]
I think the US cover looks a little generic and busy. The other one is prettier imho
AgTigress said on 02.10.11 at 11:01 PM • [link]
Something odd happened, and it wouldn’t let me post my whole comment. Trying again.
TESSA: you are so, so right!
The publishers are to blame, because they have a patronising view of romance readers as ‘silly, uneducated women’, and design the covers accordingly. They are wrong, of course. Notice how the cover-art changes when well-known authors who once published in category romance move into mainline publishing houses.
For beautiful examples of abstract, Art Deco style covers, take a look at four 1996-1998 novels by Jayne Ann Krentz: Absolutely Positively, Deep Waters, Sharp Edges and Flash. Elegant, eye-catching and, above all, grown-up. Here is the one for Sharp Edges:
http://www.amazon.com/Sharp-Edges-Jayne-Ann-Krentz/dp/1439154473/ref=pd_sim_b_3
:-)
Violette said on 02.10.11 at 11:29 PM • [link]
Tessa: I kind of like the crazy over the top explosions-of-chiffon-and-man-chests covers, they remind me of grandmas…I can almost smell the tuberose…AAAAK. On a more intellectual note, who doesn’t love a good juxtaposition of masculine perceptions of the female romance reader’s desires (the cover) and the actuality of what draws the woman to the story in the first place (a nuanced tale that is nothing less than a modernized interpretation of 12th century romance traditions) :) thus, and verily and truly we may say, that the man proves himself to be more superficial than the female, as she adores the tale for itself, and he believes she does so for the cover (because…maybe that’s the part that he likes…) I love me a good dichotomy :) or just the word dichotomy…suh-WHEEEEET!!!! Although, I would add a giant dragon to the US cover, it could be the source of the fireworks :)
Tessa said on 02.11.11 at 12:58 AM • [link]
AgTigress: Oh! I love these, especially the “Deep Waters” one. Thank you. And yes, excellent point about how an author’s cover change as soon as they move to a mainstream publishing house.
I never stopped reading sci-fi or fantasy (although I did hide most of the rainbow unicorn/flaming sword covers), or mysteries, or spy/conspiracy thrillers (yeah, I’m a bit of a genre slut) for that matter. I do think it was the covers (and the raised eyebrows & comments you get when in public) that drove me away from romances.
I was a serious young woman making my way in the world, if I spent x amount on my clothes, y amount on my hair, there was no way I was going to undo all that with a sparkly pink cover splashed with font carnage and random nudity. Especially when it HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE STORY.
Ok, I really will be quiet now. Gotta work on my book that will be so utterly awesome as to merit a decent, relevant, cover. Sigh.
T said on 02.11.11 at 01:27 AM • [link]
I like headless covers. Headless covers do not stop me buying a book.
But and being totally honest under the cover of anonimity: models´ faces might stop me buying or reading a book. If they are not attractive to me, if the facial expressions are insipid or ridiculous, or (even worse) if they reminded me of some celebrity or person I dislike.
So headless covers please for me. I have put off buying books because of the faces on the models.
Jen B. said on 02.11.11 at 01:39 AM • [link]
With no other info than the picture, the US cover is more eye catching. Plus, it doesn’t look like literature. So, if I am looking for straight up period romance, the US cover it is. I really do hate it when the cover is so far removed from what’s in the book. I think it is so tacky that the publishers don’t do a better job matching the cover to the contents.
StarOpal said on 02.11.11 at 01:51 AM • [link]
Lynn S.>
I too am bothered by the changing of the Pink Carnation covers.
Still not as bad as changing out the positively gorgeous original covers of PC Cast’s Goddess series for the porn star covers.
Goddess of the Rose original:
http://www.amazon.com/Goddess-Rose-Summoning-Book/dp/0425208915
Goddess of the Rose now:
http://www.amazon.com/Goddess-Rose-Summoning-Book/dp/0425227103/ref=pd_sim_b_6
Really?!
AgTigress said on 02.11.11 at 02:01 AM • [link]
“Font carnage”: that’s a brilliant phrase, Tessa! May I borrow it, with appropriate acknowledgement, in future? The occasion will undoubtedly arise again!
I didn’t read category romances till I was in my 40s, although I had read Heyer, Mary Stewart etc., who were not then classed as ‘genre fiction’. This was at least in part because I found the covers so deeply embarrassing — and I am talking about standard, bland, mawkishly sweet, old-fashioned UK Mills & Boon, not even the gaudy, vulgar American bodice-ripper covers. Once I was middle-aged (and established in my career), I stopped caring so much, though I still took care not to flaunt them. I was never a Science Fiction fan, let alone a Fantasy one, but I think I would have been a bit less bothered by those covers.
As I said, many of the people who, in a very unscholarly way, condemn romance novels without actually reading them are strongly influenced by the tackiness of the covers. In the present case, although I hold no particular brief for dragons, I can’t help feeling that the addition of one would actually add some distinction to either of those disastrous covers.
:-D
Lydia Storm said on 02.11.11 at 02:04 AM • [link]
UK all the way!
Tessa said on 02.11.11 at 03:25 AM • [link]
AgTigress: uh, sure (drags toe of shoe in small dusty circles).
I do wish to say that I am not blaming the overworked, micro-managed, underpaid graphic artists in the publishing marketing departments.
I’ve had friends who had jobs in corporate design depts. (and were happy to have them) and I don’t think it’s fun to daily compromise all the stuff you learned in art school, the physical limitations of the human body, and even your personal design sense, in order to push out dozens of designs with too-short production schedules.
I just don’t understand why it is this way, and I wish it would get better. Every human responds to good design. There are cultural preferences, but we can all recognize when it works well with the product it packages. And it doesn’t have to cost more to be good, it just takes people who care.
And clearly we are a population of consumers with exacting standards for our O faces and man-titty…(smile)
Lynn S. said on 02.11.11 at 05:02 AM • [link]
@StarOpal. Good grief that’s a radical departure. The new Pink Carnations are merely bland but this looks like an upscale Ellora’s Cave cover. If I read the Goddess series I’d be beyond hopping over that sea change. One of the great things about ebooks, once you get past that first page turn you don’t have to deal with bad, offensive, or just plain wrong-headed cover art.
@AgTigress. Those Krentz covers are lovely, a bit font happy, but with the gorgeous Art Deco graphics, I can forgive that. Not sure about the move up though, witness the reissue covers for Amaryllis, Zinnia, and Orchid; and the bland boy toy covers for some of the Harmony World series. I wonder sometimes if it’s not a case of too much input from too many people and not enough power in the appropriate hands. Or maybe Castle is the mean personality in the trio that nobody likes, so they sabotage her covers.
For a cover that works, regardless of content, look no further than Jaci Burton’s The Perfect Play. Not a fan of bare-chested covers but this one could convert me. The angle of the body across the cover, the correct proportions, the use of black and cream fonts to tie in with the graphics, the colors of the background working with the skin tones and the football, and the beautiful backlit effect. A little less flourish on the calligraphic font maybe, but nothing is perfect. Not sure I’m interested in reading the book but I so want to own that cover. I’m a visual, tactile person so when I’m buying a physical book, I want it to have an appropriate physical presence. My idea of book heaven is a trade-size paperback with a silky, matte finish cover and a great story inside that cover. The Vintage Press reissues of the Lymond Chronicles, yum.
Good post and great comments.
rudi_bee said on 02.11.11 at 09:00 AM • [link]
I read this as “You can have the duck drive his Porche to Almack’s” and you know what? I didn’t blink either. At first.
Anyway I’m exactly the same about historical romances. Although I’ve been known to get really harsh on contemporary romances where the 20-something year old heroine is unable to send a text (unless its a brand new iPhone because ... well I’ve been there) or lets someone else convince her without even blinking that she absolutely doesn’t need to worry about having a career because she’s going to find a nice man, settle down, have babies and be chained to the stove naked from the waist up. Bitch, please.
Sylvia E said on 02.11.11 at 11:53 AM • [link]
@ Lynn S.
I feel the same way about the Perfect Play cover! I was very tempted to buy the book for the cover alone even though the story is not my cup of tea.
I am in serious need of a cold shower every time I see it. (pfff, I think I may have to buy it after all).
Carahe said on 02.11.11 at 11:56 AM • [link]
The UK cover is so modest that I’d assume that the protagonists wouldn’t have sex within the pages of the book. And I wouldn’t buy it.
When it comes to romance, I want the hero’s Spectacular Schwang of Seduction (or the heroine’s Five Fingered Salute) to penetrate the heroine’s Luscious Lady Parts sometime between the Prologue and the Epilogue in anything from a coyly veiled to a deliciously Puurrpple scene that convinces me that these characters love (or lurrve) to love up on each other in Happy Wholesome Sexytimes, and thus should be allowed a HEA.
No sex, no cents.
PC Cast said on 02.11.11 at 09:42 PM • [link]
StarOpal - I couldn’t agree with you more. The original covers (of the mass markets) were pieces of art. The redos were, well, just pieces.
PC
AgTigress said on 02.13.11 at 03:20 PM • [link]
The poll results are interesting. Preferences have been pretty evenly divided between the two covers all along. I am surprised at the fairly low proportion — not quite a quarter — who disliked both.
What would be really fascinating would be if we were able to break down the voters according to nationality, to see whether Americans tended to prefer the US cover and Brits/Commonwealth readers the UK one. Of course, those choices would be skewed in this case by the readers who are strongly influenced by the actual style of the clothes in relation to the period of the setting. For a fair comparison, both covers would need to have early 18thC costume, or at least both would have to be equally anachronistic.
Publishers clearly think they know what kind of cover-art sells in various markets, so one imagines they must have done some research. I wonder if it is published somewhere, or whether it is classed as secret, commercially sensitive information?
Care to comment?
Comments are now closed for this post.
Subscribe to These Comments