Bitchin' Blog Posts
Lisa Kleypas’ UK vs US Cover Showdown
by SB Sarah | by SB Sarah | August 31, 2011 | Wednesday at 10:50 am | 87 CommentsThis entry was inspired by Abby, who wrote to me and implored, “go to amazon.co.uk and look up Lisa Kleypas. WHY ARE THEIR BOOK COVERS SO MUCH BETTER THAN OURS?!?!?!! I am so upset about this, it’s kind of ridiculous. They just look so much classier! It’s totally unfair.”
Is that so? Well, let’s have a look, shall we? All the pics are below the fold - but the poll, depending on the browser, may be up here.
Here’s one of Kleypas’ Wallflower Quartet books, Devil in Winter (my favorite of the four) in the US edition:
It also has a hideous stepback:
And here’s the UK Paperback, published by Piatkus:
The US version of Mine Till Midnight
UK version:
This is the US version of Seduce me at Sunrise:
And this is the UK edition - I found two!
So far, with the exception of Mine Till Midnight, I do like the UK covers better.
Here’s another example, this time of a contemporary novel. The US edition of Christmas Eve at Friday Harbor, hardcover and mass market paperback, looks like this:
And here’s the UK trade paperback edition:
I confess, I like the cover with the actual harbor better—as did folks who nominated books for the Cover Cafe contest this year. This book placed fifth in the cover contest this year.
And while we’re on the subject: what is WITH the communion-hands holding-something position?
It’s communion in the Church of Women’s Fiction Covers! Take! Read! This is fiction which is given for you, to read this and think that it’s cover is twee.
Anyway, communion hands notwithstanding, do you like one set over the other? Which do you prefer, and why?
Filed: Covers Gone Wild! (Non-Snoop Dogg Edition), General Bitching
Tagged: womens fiction, us, uk, piatkus, lisa kleypas, historical, cover snark, cover comparisons, contemporary, avon
Kerry D. said on 08.31.11 at 11:04 AM • [link]
As a general rule, I tend to prefer UK covers over US covers, but that’s a broad generalisation that naturally has plenty of exceptions.
It’s something I’ve thought about before and I’ve often wondered if it is because I grew up in a Commonwealth country (New Zealand) and therefore absorbed a more British sensibility when it comes to covers. Whatever makes them work for people in the UK makes them work for me too. But I don’t know what that “whatever” is.
I can find a US cover really, really pretty, but when it comes down to which book I’d take home and put on my shelf (assuming I had the chance to choose), more often than not, it’ll be the UK one.
Caroline said on 08.31.11 at 12:13 PM • [link]
I definitely prefer most of these UK covers, and I think a lot of it has to do with how publishers perceive the needs of their audience. The UK covers are much more restrained—they don’t scream “purple prose romance with sex!” so much as the US ones. So I guess that says something about who the UK publishers think is reading Kleypas and why, versus the US publishers. (I haven’t read Kleypas so I don’t have a horse in this race, btw.)
I really started noticing this phenomenon with the UK covers for the newest reissue of all the Georgette Heyer romances. The UK covers are gorgeous, with period paintings, and seem intended to show that Heyer is a historical novelist, yet at the same time they’re lighthearted and fun and you can tell you’re not going to be bored to death. But for once, the US publisher is using the same covers, just with (IMO) inferior typography.
If you look at the cover for my favorite Heyer, Cotillion, at Amazon US, versus Cotillion at Amazon UK, you’ll see what I mean.
It’s a huge difference from how Georgette Heyer used to be marketed, with generic romance covers that didn’t show anything about her standing as the original Regency writer.
Joanne said on 08.31.11 at 12:15 PM • [link]
I generally like the UK covers better but in this instance it seems the US art department did very well by Miss Kleypas. Well, except for the one of St Vincent sitting on a bench in the snow without his shirt wearing a batman cape and poor Evie kneeling on the cold, wet ground.
Hopefully we can say that we’ve seen the last of the ‘headless’ covers?
The Wicked Lovely cover is gorgeous - Twilight rip-off that it is- it’s still beautiful and interesting. Unfortunately the author’s site - not so much.
Caroline said on 08.31.11 at 12:18 PM • [link]
And now I have to reply to myself, because I’m wrong! Looking again at the Cotillion covers I linked to above, they’re not quite the same, apart from the typography; it looks like the image has been flipped around and also the colors have been pumped way up for the US version. Iiiinteresting.
Ros said on 08.31.11 at 12:43 PM • [link]
I’m from the UK and I like the UK covers better. The main thing I dislike about the US covers is how generic they are. The standard historical romance font stuck on standard historical romance images. Blah, blah, blah. They’re also somewhat brash with all the gilding and the huge titles and so on. I really like the restrained feeling of the UK covers. I do agree about the harbour scene - that’s a very fun cover, compared to the UK one.
AgTigress said on 08.31.11 at 12:56 PM • [link]
There are still fairly profound differences in aesthetic taste between the ‘average’ Brit and the average American, but that said, individual preferences can very easily cross that divide. In general, the traditional British taste for understatement is involved, a feeling that too much colour, and too many frills and furbelows, are vulgar or even childish.
I am an extreme example of traditional British taste in that I generally dislike ‘people covers’ of any kind, and prefer typography alone, or at most some kind of abstract image.
A few years ago I did a fairly detailed study, for my own amusement, of the cover-art of one book, Mary Stewart’s Nine Coaches Waiting , which was fascinating in terms not only of UK/US contrasts, but of changing tastes over about 50 years, and the publishers’ apparent perceptions of their target audience and the fiction genre to which the book belonged.
Heyer was not classed or marketed in Britain as ‘romance’ in the 1950s. She was simply classed as an historical novelist — shelved well away from Mills and Boon in libraries and bookshops!
April (Books&Wine;) said on 08.31.11 at 12:57 PM • [link]
The UK Cover of the Christmas book is totally the exact same stock image as Let It Snow written by Maureen Johnson, John Green and Lauren Myracle. Hah! I never spot these things, but now I have and feel super accomplished. YAY!
Pam (@iwriteinbooks) said on 08.31.11 at 01:29 PM • [link]
Yeah, WHY are the US covers so garishly cheesy all the time??
ShellBell said on 08.31.11 at 01:36 PM • [link]
For the most part I do prefer the UK covers. The exceptions are when there are covers like the UK editions of Julia Quinn’s book. I absolutely hated the cartoon/caricature images used. Thank goodness for eBooks as I’m definitely less fussy about covers plus I can use whichever cover I prefer when I load the book into Calibre!
snarkhunter said on 08.31.11 at 01:39 PM • [link]
I actually love the lush covers of Mine till Midnight and Seduce Me at Sunrise, though The Devil in Winter is decidedly…meh.
I suppose I *ought* to like the understated elegance of the UK covers, and I do, but the colors on the US ones are just so gorgeous.
(And as a homesick Washington State native, as much as I like the UK cover of the Friday Harbor book, I have to vote for the actual harbor out of loyalty and fondness for my home.)
anna said on 08.31.11 at 01:45 PM • [link]
Yeah, the UK covers are prettier. But Piatkus seems to use stock photos, which makes me like the US covers more, simply because they’re less generic. While at the same time being less attractive. *sigh* In particular, I’m thinking of Keri Arthur’s books as published by Piatkus. Pretty, boring, stock pics. Check the credits. Makes me wonder about ze bucketing practices of Harlequin, and the cost involved in cover art. What’s up with the recycling?
BethSmash said on 08.31.11 at 01:47 PM • [link]
I like the US versions better. I recently moved to the UK and all, and I do mean ALL, the romance novels look the same. They are all pale colors and you can’t really tell the difference when you’re walking past the romance section. And they’re BLAND, all pale and blah. As embarrassing as US covers can sometimes be, I prefer their variety of colors. OH, and the UK versions often put a girl in a regency type dress no matter the historical setting. And I know that covers are often really inaccurate - weight of model, guys without scars and or missing limbs, but sticking a girl in a regency type dress when it takes place during the georgian or victorian era really pisses me off.
HelenB said on 08.31.11 at 01:59 PM • [link]
I agee with Bethsmash. I think that these UK covers are dull, boring and just plain meh. I’m English and I generally prefer US covers. They might be generic and garish at times but Uk covers can be restrained to the point of coma.
Mary Anne Graham said on 08.31.11 at 01:59 PM • [link]
I guess I’m just a gaudy, glitzy kind of gal. I much prefer the US covers, but what do you expect from someone who writes romance from an over-the-top POV?
SB Sarah said on 08.31.11 at 01:59 PM • [link]
@joanne: Wicked Lovely isn’t a Twilight rip off. Lovely came out first. And the two of them may have set off the hands-giving-us-things covers trend between them!
AgTigress said on 08.31.11 at 02:03 PM • [link]
Whereas US covers often put a girl in a mid-Victorian dress no matter the historical setting… ;-) :-)
snarkhunter said on 08.31.11 at 02:17 PM • [link]
We Americans do love a good hoop skirt. No matter what the occasion or time period. If it’s old, it better have hoop skirts. ;D
Jen G. said on 08.31.11 at 02:22 PM • [link]
I’m a US reader, but typically prefer the UK covers. (I actually love love love the UK cover for Christmas Eve at Friday Harbor.) That said, the understated cover for Seduce Me at Sunrise is a bit too understated considering the title.
Chelsea said on 08.31.11 at 02:39 PM • [link]
I’m going with US on this one, because even though their cheesy and gaudy, they also catch my eye and make me think “Ooo, fun historical romance. I’m going to gobble that down in one night!” The UK ones make me think “Oh, serious historical drama! Do I have time for that? When is my next long weekend?” And at this busy time in my life, I’m more likely to go with fun and easy (I need a break from Cancer Bio and Tech Writing at some point!)
JamiSings said on 08.31.11 at 02:57 PM • [link]
I only like the very first cover. ALL the rest suck. I despise headless/half a head covers.
helen said on 08.31.11 at 03:07 PM • [link]
Ok, looked at cover to cover I like the UK versions much more. HOWEVER, I probably never would have picked them up at a bookstore because the covers are outside the expectations here for a historical romance. In other words, I would not have know to check them out because they look more like the covers for a historical fiction novel rather than a historical romance novel.
AgTigress said on 08.31.11 at 03:13 PM • [link]
@snarkhunter: LOL!
This illustrates the basics so well in itself. Mid and late Victorian costume was elaborate, fussy and over-decorated (to some tastes), with hoops and bustles and trains and flounces and fringes and trimmings, and even, towards the 1870s, with eye-popping combinations of prints — stripes and spots and plaids and florals — as well as the use of garishly vivid synthetic dyes. Regency styles were sometimes over-decorated, but the basic shapes and colours tended to be far more restrained.
Jill Sorenson said on 08.31.11 at 03:13 PM • [link]
USA! USA! USA!
Yes, the UK covers are classier. But when I look at them I think: women’s fiction, literary, and not sexy. Kleypas’ books have a lot of sex in them and those sedate covers don’t reflect the content (in my eyes). I’m more likely to buy a book with a “trashy” cover because I enjoy reading detailed sex scenes.
It also seems to me that the dislike of sexy covers, for some readers, might be related to feelings of shame or embarassment for the romance genre in general. I’d rather have the cover match the content. If the book is sexy, let it show! Othewise the image looks like a disguise.
Donna said on 08.31.11 at 03:17 PM • [link]
Call me vulgarthen, cause I’m going U.S. My goodness, who wouldn’t want that copy of “Mine til Midnight”? I’m not a Kleypas reader, and I’m jonesing for it. Look at that color, that dress, that…. OK, stopping now.
Donna said on 08.31.11 at 03:18 PM • [link]
That’s vulgar then. Stupid keyboard.
Kismet said on 08.31.11 at 03:25 PM • [link]
I normally prefer the UK covers, but US definitely wins this round for me. I did prefer the UK Devil In Winter cover, but the rest were just a bit too laced up for me. Especially having read the books. A) Mine till Midnight is Victorian set not a Regency B) The Hathaway family wouldn’t have known proper and understated if it hit them in the head and that was what made them so fun to read C) Nothing says “Seduce Me” quite like a full Victorian day gown that shows no skin between the chin and elbow ;)
For the record I wish I had all my Julia Quinn books with the UK edition covers. I loved the stylish cartoons for some reason.
Gennita Low said on 08.31.11 at 03:39 PM • [link]
I like the US covers better. In general, I like my covers sexy, with bright colors, and British covers always seem to say “this is a romance in disguise so you can be secretive about your reading!” to me. Growing up as a kid in Malaysia, former Commonwealth, even back then I’d always picked the US covers over British ones, although the Mills and Boons covers were always bright and sexy, albeit very fiftyish in style (man and woman on cover in dressing gown, hee. Oohh, that made a 12 yr old’s imagination go a little crazy!).
LG said on 08.31.11 at 04:20 PM • [link]
While the UK covers would be likely to cause me less embarrassment, I would be more likely to pick up and get the ones with the US covers, regardless of any embarrassment factor. The UK ones just look a bit boring to me. That said, I don’t like the US version for Devil in Winter - I rarely like building/landscape-only covers, and I cringe at most stepbacks. I don’t like either cover for Christmas Eve at Friday Harbor, but at least with the US one I didn’t need to take a moment just to figure out what the cover was depicting - the UK one just looked like blobs of red and white to me at first.
Bri said on 08.31.11 at 04:29 PM • [link]
I’m mixed on which I like better so I didnt vote. one thing i notcied with the US covers is that it looks more like they fall into the ‘sex sells’ catgory and for the most part the UK covers are a little more demure.
And I LOVED the harbor cover for Christmas Eve
Amber said on 08.31.11 at 04:45 PM • [link]
I like the UK covers better, except for Seduce Me at Sunrise. Bad enough there is that the heroine is portrayed as a CHILD, but the word “Seduce” right there with her is just downright disturbing. Actually all those females are rather childlike, honestly, though I was chalking that up to small bone structure - but this girl is definitely a kid.
AgTigress said on 08.31.11 at 04:48 PM • [link]
Leaving aside matters of colour, sexiness, accurate costume and a dozen other things, one of the irritants for me in many US covers is text and typography: frequently far too many words, in too many different sizes and fonts. The Friday Harbor cover is a good example. I don’t care for the harbour picture much, especially all that pink and purple (too much like a cheap greetings card), but the change of both point size and font within the title really annoys me. I can’t say I care much for the UK version, either.
But then, my ideal fiction covers are the really old British Penguin paperbacks, so I am past praying for… (For all of you who don’t know, they were simply colour-coded for genre; the only graphic image was the small black-and-white penguin logo, and the typeface (only one for title and author’s name) was a lovely, clean sans serif. In black. Beautifully austere and subtle. In the early 1960s, they introduced little engraved vignettes, and it was downhill all the way from there).
;-) :-D
LG said on 08.31.11 at 04:53 PM • [link]
@Amber - Huh, I hadn’t thought any of them looked like children, actually. To me, they almost all look like delicate women who stay indoors to protect their fragile health, but they don’t look like children.
AgTigress said on 08.31.11 at 04:53 PM • [link]
Examples of my ideal covers!
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_FNfolP-tQxM/SYmCy9Il41I/AAAAAAAACBo/LoaLZw0ItNI/s400/S8309144.JPG
I know, I am living in an alternative universe…
Kwana said on 08.31.11 at 05:02 PM • [link]
I’m shocking myself and going for the sexy US covers. All except the UK Christmas Eve at Friday Harbor (I did not like that US blue boat cover).
The UK books look too sweet for th content and all look like they are masquerading as Amish books to me.
snarkhunter said on 08.31.11 at 05:20 PM • [link]
Whoa, I didn’t see her as a child, but when I looked again? You’re right. She looks like she’s all of 11. (Now, admittedly, the heroine of that book is so delicate and sickly that she likely is somewhat physically stunted, but ... no.)
Virginia Llorca said on 08.31.11 at 05:29 PM • [link]
I don’t care about the covers. I like those bonus foldout covers, but that curly, long red hair? I had it and it is a bitch and a half to “pick”. You don’t dare brush it.
But the hands offering thing? Usually a bit below the waist, usually means “come on in”. I have an assortment of photos from the public media that I intend to use in a book soon. It is all lines or groups of men, for some reason, probably source, usually lawmen, and they ALL are standing with their hands folded exactly in front of their fly, protecting their manhood.
Lynn S. said on 08.31.11 at 05:32 PM • [link]
I’m with the minority here in that the UK covers are making me yawn. The Friday Harbor cover with the boats is much better and I bet there are Adirondack chairs nestled at the shoreline. I do appreciate the subtle reinforcement of the nourishing qualities of women’s fiction represented by all those hands.
@AGTigress: Dream away. The orange, the penguin, the iconic uniformity. Takes away all the arguing. Works for me. Wait a minute, no arguing??
Lily LeFevre said on 08.31.11 at 05:56 PM • [link]
I like both sets of covers, but I want to know what book is behind them, because BOY do these covers say different things! On the UK side you have classy historical fiction that may or may not have the sexy times in it; on the US side you have the promise of hella sexy times that may or may not have accurate research or well-drawn characters in it. So not knowing Kleypas’ writing, if I’m in the bookstore which I pick up depends entirely upon what my mood is…and if I get home and find I bought the wrong book for my mood based on false packaging, it would probably make me mad and reluctant to buy one of her books again.
So for me, the covers that are better are the ones that accurately describe the book. I did not vote since I don’t know which it is. Fascinating cultural difference, though!
Madd said on 08.31.11 at 05:57 PM • [link]
I was 50/50 on those covers. Mine Til Midnight? I wasn’t all that crazy about the US cover, but the UK cover even less so. I preferred the US cover for the Friday Harbor book. For Seduce Me at Sunrise ... purple dress and weak sunlight cover, yes ... mostly because I’m a sucker for purple and that is a cute dress ... green dress, parasol lady, no.
LMG said on 08.31.11 at 05:57 PM • [link]
How about both? I like the fabric trend lately on US covers (better than the hair trend before that)—all dress, no head. Think Mary Balogh. But good god, can we take the UK’s fonts? Why do our fonts always have to look like Danielle Steel on crack?!?
I never knew that was called a stepback, but does it exist only to keep book models and painters employed? Because it never adds anything—9.9 times out of 10 the people are in the totally wrong situation for the book—and THAT’S what made me switch to ebooks. Font+stepback=embarrassment.
Hannah said on 08.31.11 at 05:57 PM • [link]
Overall I like the U.S. covers better. I think it’s the use of bold colors. I like the design elements of the U.K. covers but would prefer them only if they used some bolder colors. Of the titles above, the U.K. covers for The Devil in Winter and Christmas Eve in Friday Harbor use a good combination of understated design elements and bold color.
I also prefer the Harlequin Presents U.S. covers over the Mills and Boon U.K. covers. In that case I think the U.S. covers are more understated with the photo of the couple (called a clinch, correct?) rather than the blue covers with bold designs.
Leslie said on 08.31.11 at 05:58 PM • [link]
I work at a BN and one of our store endcaps is now a selection of “hand” covers - a mix of genres, but all the hands with various stuff in them (a few of the choices above). You do stop a second and look and I think it is a lot of fun.
Kathleen said on 08.31.11 at 06:00 PM • [link]
Mildly amusing story about the ‘communion hands’ book covers. I was at Barnes & Noble the other day and someone with quite the sense of humor had arranged one of those “recommendations” shelves so that all the books had communion hands covers. At least, I assumed it was purposeful. If it was accidental, it’s even funnier.
cbackson said on 08.31.11 at 06:02 PM • [link]
As a church musician, I always enjoy a bit of sacramental humor in the morning.
I must admit that I strongly prefer the UK covers. Were I unafraid of the judgment of my fellow bus riders, I’d rock a neon-pink cover with bursting bosoms, tumbling hair, and possibly a horse. But faced with the scorn of a 22-year-old hipster and his copy of An Infinite Jest, I retreat to the safety of my MyTouch. Thank God for the Nook app, is all I’m saying.
willaful said on 08.31.11 at 06:03 PM • [link]
Huh, I usually prefer UK covers, but I found most of those extremely dull. I liked the brightness of the US covers. For that matter, I hate the new Heyer covers. They’re not matched to the plots at all and seem insipid and dull.
Gretchen Galway said on 08.31.11 at 06:03 PM • [link]
I love Lisa Kleypas, and The Devil in Winter is one of my top-10 favorite romances ever. But… I don’t like either cover. I suppose the UK one would make me more comfy reading it in public, but it’s so mopey and glum for - oh - the BURNING HOT FUN inside.
But the fold-back thingie? With naked batman in the snow? Ick. Covers like that kept me away from romances for years.
I think I have a hybrid preference: lots of color in authentic clothing, no bare chests, no visual snogging required. And I LIKE people with heads. Pay those models a little extra so they sign the release, k?
AgTigress said on 08.31.11 at 06:31 PM • [link]
LOL. They weren’t all orange. Plain ‘fiction’ was orange. Mystery/whodunnits were green, non-fiction pale blue, plays and poetry red…
;-)
sarah said on 08.31.11 at 06:51 PM • [link]
UK covers for me.
@Joanne: I think Wicked Lovely came out before Twilight, so perhaps Twilight was ripping off WL.
Brandyllyn said on 08.31.11 at 06:55 PM • [link]
The only covers I have ever vastly preferred the UK version of were the Julia Quinn’s (sorry Shellbell, have to disagree with you). The artisitc quality of the characters on the covers reflected how much damn fun the books were.
I couldn’t even tell you what the books I own have on the cover, except for their general color. With a smartphone in my hand I rarely browse anymore - I’m online getting recommendations for my next read.
Brandyllyn said on 08.31.11 at 06:57 PM • [link]
Okay, how did I manage and infinite loop link? Julian Quinn’s UK listings<?a>
P. Kirby said on 08.31.11 at 07:02 PM • [link]
I didn’t vote because I have mixed feelings about the various covers. In some cases, I prefer the US cover, others the UK.
But the shirtless guy in the cape makes me think of Edna E. Mode from The Incredibles: “No capes!”
Arianne said on 08.31.11 at 07:09 PM • [link]
I always wait for the UK covers for all genres. Perfect example: Jasper Fforde’s US v UK book covers, the latter are so creative and the artists definitely read parts of the books or at least the blurbs properly. I find UK books to be larger, better designed, and with what I call unbreakable spines (they don’t fold so easily). I agree with Caroline that Heyer Sourcebooks cover have awful typography compared with Arrow Books. I’m not sure why US covers like bosom and unruly long hair, but if it works for American readers, why not? The more selection the better for consumers!
Best US covers in the last decade: Tessa Dare’s Goddess of the Hunt trilogy. Those were GORGEOUS, eye-catching yet classy. I’m disappointed the next two trilogies have such generic covers.
kkw said on 08.31.11 at 07:10 PM • [link]
@AgTigress I liked the modern library paperbacks which had a similarly clean look.
Penguin is undoubtedly responsible for my love of orange.
I went with UK, though both US and UK versions have their appeal. I was fine with 80s nursing mother covers, I like the elegant subdued ones too, I don’t care if people are headless or shirtless or what have you- just not bothered. But that font, and the glittery embossed font in particular, has got to go.
Cyranetta said on 08.31.11 at 07:17 PM • [link]
The US cover of “Mine ‘til Midnight” with the dark coloration and the semi-open gown has a certain sense of storyline impetus and does echo the title better. The Austen-ish figure wandering in the sunlight of the UK version makes a potential reader wonder more about what’s on her shopping list than whose “mine” is she, and what happens at midnight.
That said, I tend to prefer the British editions in most cases.
Doing one’s shopping mostly by Amazon makes one miss the overall impact of such trends as Communion Hands.
cleo said on 08.31.11 at 07:18 PM • [link]
@ agtigress - I like the old Penguin covers too. I know them as a designer, not a reader (afraid I’m too young to have encountered the older ones as a reader). Jan Tschichold, one of the really key 20th C European designers, designed/redesigned a lot of them in the 1940s and he helped design the grid and the standard format followed through the 50s. He’s a really interesting designer.
AgTigress said on 08.31.11 at 07:37 PM • [link]
Cleo, do you know this book: Phil Baines, Penguin by Design: a cover story 1935-2005 (London 2005, ISBN 0-14-102423-2)? It’s a fascinating and very well-illustrated account of the whole evolution of the classic covers, though, dammit, it doesn’t have an index. What is it with indexing these days? There’s no excuse for chickening out of an index, especially as these days one doesn’t even have to compile them by hand on 5"x3” cards.
I still have a lot of the 1950s Penguins, and they are well made books as well as being well designed.
AmyW said on 08.31.11 at 07:38 PM • [link]
With the exception of the first book, I also like the US covers better because as someone said above, the UK photos look too stock. And I’m glad I’m not the only one that noticed the purple version of seduced is clearly a child!
Aly said on 08.31.11 at 07:53 PM • [link]
The UK covers are much more subdued and classy. They give you an entirely different idea about the novel’s story.
The same could be said about Nalini Singh’s book covers. The UK and US editions are COMPLETELY different. I bought the US paperbacks (because they were cheaper) and my Mom mocked them mercilessly because of how slutty/cheap they looked.
If I’m judging a book by its cover, I’m often turned off by pornish covers… half-naked men and women, torsos, boobs, whatever.
AgTigress said on 08.31.11 at 07:59 PM • [link]
@Cleo: I maligned poor Mr. Baines. There is an index — I just didn’t look carefully enough.
Phyllis said on 08.31.11 at 08:10 PM • [link]
I’m about half and half. The UK Devil in Winter one makes her look horridly skinny and like she’s slouching. But the US stepback - shudder.
I prefer the US Mine Until Midnight and have mixed feelings about the Seduce Me at Sunrise - the UK ones would be nice, but the dresses look wrinkly and frumpy, like they don’t even fit the cover models.
And the US Friday Harbor was so very very purple that it hurt my eyes. But… yet another pair of hands holding something out? No thanks, UK.
ami blackwelder said on 08.31.11 at 08:54 PM • [link]
I love book covers, where would books be without them? I love UK for classy and sophistication, but I love US for risky and sometimes trashy….I know US can go too far…but that is why we love them..HEHE
amiblackwelder.blogspot.com
Kate Pearce said on 08.31.11 at 09:05 PM • [link]
You have to remember that in the UK ‘romance’ is still a Bad Word mainly associated with Mills & Boon, so the covers for what we would have in our large romance section in the U.S. have to blend in more with general fiction, which is where the majority of romance ends up being shelved in the UK. Most Brits would be mortified having to pick up something gaudy.
Having lived in the USA for a few years, I’m all about loud and I’m proud of our romance genre and liked the gaudier covers. LOL
cleo said on 08.31.11 at 09:05 PM • [link]
Can I just say - I hate the US cover for Mine Until Midnight. I finally gave away my copy because I was too disturbed by it (plus I didn’t care much for the book). I just can’t figure out what’s going on. Did she pass out? Why does it look she’s lying on the front of her skirt? Where are her legs? Why are her arms up? It seems vaguely sinister to me - she looks so passive, like she’s resigned to anal sex but isn’t looking forward to it. The heroine of the book isn’t passive, so I don’t get why the cover model looks so passive.
OK. Rant over. I didn’t vote because I couldn’t choose. I tend to prefer the more subdued UK look for romance in general, but as someone else pointed out, these UK covers really don’t capture the mood of Kleypas’ writing.
@AgTigress - no, I don’t know that book. I’ll check it out - thanks.
clew said on 08.31.11 at 09:27 PM • [link]
I looked at the purple version of Seduced and thought, ‘hey, period jumps, one does look like a smooth cone from beneath.’ I’m not a child and look about like that in them from that angle.
The model does have a very childish chin, though; it’s certainly not ruled out.
nlowery71 said on 08.31.11 at 09:38 PM • [link]
The cover of Twilight is ridiculously eye-catching. I’m not surprised it caught on. I think that cover opened the door to a lot of the book’s success—so many people picked it up. Good job, book designers!
I wonder sometimes if a cover affects our perception of a book’s quality even after we’ve read it. The mind is a funny thing.
AgTigress said on 08.31.11 at 09:56 PM • [link]
It’s possible at the beginning I suppose, but books that get reprinted in numerous different editions over many years appear with a variety of different covers, a fact which can and does undermine any close association of a single image with the title. Over many years, the way in which a given novel is ‘wrapped’ by the publishers is likely to change fairly radically, and tracking this with a favourite novel is fascinating.
This, in fact, is what helps one to see the cover as wrapping-paper, which is precisely what it is. Although a prettily wrapped package is naturally more appealing than one presented in a scruffy brown-paper bag, we all know that what matters is the contents.
I care deeply about art, graphics and design, and I have strong opinions, but I would never, never, never allow my opinion of a book’s cover art to influence my buying choices, because the novel is about words, not about the picture on the wrapper. Because not all readers feel the same, all authors care about the cover-art that is (usually) imposed upon them, but in the long term, the art tells us more about aesthetic and cultural preferences in popular art than it does about novels.
SydneyLCarroll said on 08.31.11 at 10:17 PM • [link]
I’m with the UK covers in general, though many of these seem a little too understated. At least they have a semblance of period accuracy. Costume inaccuracies are my pet peeve—like TV shows & movies set in “pioneer times” with women wearing their hair flowing down their backs.
The US version of Mine Until Midnight symbolizes what bothers me about US historical romance covers. Lacing open over bare skin, no corset, chemise, and strapless!? Forget Victorian vs. Regency. Ladies, that’s a prom dress.
Why can’t we have both sexy and a reasonably authentic outfit?
Kitala said on 08.31.11 at 11:43 PM • [link]
I’m going to have to go with US on this. The UK covers just bore me.
Sharon said on 09.01.11 at 12:28 AM • [link]
I think Kismet is on to something—I adore the UK Julia Quinn covers and think they very much suit the nature of her novels. I might like the UK Laurens covers better from a purely personal perspective, but the racier US covers jibe with the nature of her work better.
I like less flesh, less flash. I also find myself shying away from too-racy covers because I assume they’ll contain material I will probably find distasteful.
The hands-in-supplication cradling a flower, I dunno. I suppose these things get trendy and everyone copies everyone else. It’s a me-too world we’re livin’ in these days.
Nifty said on 09.01.11 at 02:50 AM • [link]
Not a fan of the US covers at all. I think they’re too cheesy, too smooth and glossy, too saturated, and too wallpaper-y. I wouldn’t buy any of those books based on the US covers, but the UK covers would entice me to at least pick up the book and read the blurb.
noozie said on 09.01.11 at 03:24 AM • [link]
I like the US covers. The UK covers are just boring; I certainly wouldn’t pick one up if I were browsing because I’d think, “This is an awful, staid stock photo. If the publisher didn’t care enough for this book to give it an engaging cover, why should I?”
There is one exception to this rule, though. I just don’t understand the Devil in Winter covers from both sides of the pond. Aside from a brief and damply unsexy jaunt to Scotland, the main characters spend most of the book ensconced in a semi-respectable gambling hall. Um. Where are the scenes of wintry bucolic beauty coming from?
Cora said on 09.01.11 at 05:04 AM • [link]
I vastly prefer the UK covers, because the US covers encompass everything that annoys me about historical romance covers. The clothes don’t fit the period on any of the US covers, the gowns are dyed in bright colours that were not available in Regency times (bright synthetic dyes didn’t come in until the Victorian era), the cover very probably has the sort of glossy finish that attracts fingerprints and the lettering is too big and too curly. The UK covers aren’t perfect, but they’re vastly better because they at least vaguely suggest the correct period. I don’t really get the need to suggest “This book contains sex” on the cover either, unless the book actually is erotica.
The only exception is Christmas Eve at Friday Harbour where the US cover is a lot more evocative (though it could be less busy) and matches the title better than the UK cover.
shel said on 09.01.11 at 05:27 AM • [link]
Thanks for posting DIW’s stepback, I had no idea it was that bad! Isn’t Sebastian supposed to be blond? Looks pretty brown on my screen.
@P Kirby
Yep, LOL it’s the cape that kills it.
Jill said on 09.01.11 at 06:05 AM • [link]
@Donna: “Call me vulgarthen, cause I’m going U.S.
That’s vulgar then. Stupid keyboard.”
Snork! I rather like “vulgarthen.” Sounds like a sci-fy creature. On another BB I’m on we started a list of funy inadvertent typos; yours would be right up there. Take your bow.
As to the topic at hand, I’m evenly split. Agree that the U.K. versions seem to be for entirely different books than what the U.S. ones promise—and I believe the U.S. covers’ promises, given that I’ve read the books. Although the first U.S. cover and stepback? Yikes.
Jill said on 09.01.11 at 06:07 AM • [link]
Sigh ,,, “funy” = “funny.” Stupid keyboard! ;-) :-)
Silverflame said on 09.01.11 at 06:19 AM • [link]
I’m gonna have to go US on this one. Part of the fun for me in reading romance is the cheesy cover art. Give me ridiculous stepbacks all day over the humdrum UK covers!
BTW Mine ‘til Midnight also had a great stepback, with a photo of real people instead of artwork. Her dress looks like a cheap nightgown from Fredericks of Hollywood, but I thought the guy was pretty hawt!
http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-media/product-gallery/0312949804/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_0?ie=UTF8&index=0
Emily said on 09.01.11 at 07:06 AM • [link]
The Devil in Winter is a toss-up for me. I probably prefer the US covers.
I think the worst hands and most vulgar cover might be the UK version of Seduce at Sunrise. It looks like her hands (in the purple dress) are clasped very down low. I don’t the know .. the whole pose looks awkward to me. I also agree she might be a kid.
The UK harbor cover is way too generic and does nothing for me.
I actually like some of UK covers better for some of the books not listed here; Love in the Afternoon, Smooth-Talking Stranger, Blue-Eyed Devil and Sugar Daddy.
nekobawt said on 09.01.11 at 09:08 AM • [link]
i prefer the us covers for kleypas’ books. more pretty colors, i guess.
i feel compelled to add that the painting/image used for the “cotillion” covers reminded me of a stereotypical “party girls leaning in to take a picture of all of them making that kissy face pose” photo. which seems oddly appropriate, somehow. is it just me?
Lynn S. said on 09.01.11 at 04:20 PM • [link]
Probably none of the Kleypas historical covers are remotely accurate, but both the Wallflower series and the Hathaway series were set during the Victorian Era. I don’t think she has even written a Regency.
michelle said on 09.01.11 at 04:34 PM • [link]
Did anyone else notice that the two covers of Seduce were actually the same model/dress, with the colour changed?
Lily LeFevre said on 09.01.11 at 04:36 PM • [link]
Cora, not to be stickler here, but…if you look at some fashion history of extant period examples, you will find very rich colors before the Victorian era. They would have been natural and not synthetic, but they did exist. :)
That being said, the constant inaccuracy of clothing styles drives me batty as someone who has studied the fashion history of these time periods! So I am totally with you there.
karin said on 09.01.11 at 06:06 PM • [link]
Piatkus in Britain seem to gear their books toward the normal fiction segment in the stores. Here in Sweden, book stores seldom have a separate romance shelf, (except for the ones who have Harlekins, they are usually by themselves). The few romances that are translated to Swedish tend to have less lurid covers so they fit in the fiction shelf:
Here are som Swedish covers (stock photos galore):
Lindsey,Johanna:Man of my dreams
The Magic of You
Deveraux, Jude: Velvet Song
The Taming
Demi said on 09.01.11 at 06:50 PM • [link]
Pardon me if this has already been mentioned, but what is up with women’s bodies minus the face?! I get that it should be generic so you can imagine your own face, but it still disturbs me. I almost prefer the cheesy old-skool covers with the models because of this lol
Virginia Llorca said on 09.02.11 at 03:25 AM • [link]
@Demi. There was a thread going about this. I think it was on this site. They mentioned the “no eyes” trend cuz people didn’t want to pay attention to the “character” of the character and how lately they are going back to faces. I’ve heard of two stores doing the hand thing for a display. I like pretty dresses myself and houses if the matches the house in the story. I, myself, do faces, usually. But I’m a newbie and use Getty.
AgTigress said on 09.02.11 at 09:18 AM • [link]
That’s an interesting comment, Demi. You are assuming that the reader regards herself as a placeholder for the heroine of the story, and evidently some do. But not all. Some readers observe the story as a detached third party.
There were a couple of papers discussing this aspect of reading romance in the volume of essays edited by Jayne Krentz and published by the U. of Pennsylvania Press in the 1990s — Dangerous men and adventurous women. It was probably the first academic treatment of the subject that did not start from the assumption that romance fiction is tripe, and although a lot of analysis has been done and published since, it still makes interesting reading.
Zanitta said on 09.06.11 at 12:57 AM • [link]
I like the UK covers for The Wallflowers better than the US, but I think the US Hathways covers outshone ours.
Mayweed said on 09.06.11 at 11:46 PM • [link]
I took one look at that poor woman kneeling in the one clear spot in the snow and thought ‘hells no!’ Sir Frosty Balls needs to get his ass up off that rock and offer the lady a seat cus coming from Alberta, I can tell you two things about where she is kneeling:
1) It’s frakking cold
2) Even if it’s thawing, she is kneeling in cold mud.
Erotic not!
Care to comment?
Comments are now closed for this post.
Subscribe to These Comments