Bitchin' Blog Posts
The Spymaster’s Cover Art
by SB Sarah | by SB Sarah | April 29, 2010 | Thursday at 10:09 am | 83 CommentsWhile looking for covers for the Chesty-Back challenge, I found a new designed cover for Joanna Bourne’s The Spymaster’s Lady.
Now, I loved this book, but the cover was patently ridiculous:
Knock that oiled chest-baring ab-master off the cover, and substitute something more professional and perhaps boring, and I promise you, linguistics students could study this narrative as a representative work on how to accurately portray the differences in languages…
Oh, that cover made me sad. More than once I’d recommended the book to people who were curious about romance and had to say, “Ignore the oiled abs. Ignore the cover. Hell, spray paint it green. Just don’t look at it and look at the words inside instead. I promise they are SO much better than the cover.”
Here’s the old cover:
And this is the new one, coming out 4 May:
Which do you like better? I confess, I’m not sure that the second one says “romance” either. It’s almost a literary fiction/historical fiction look to it. What do you think?
Filed: Covers Gone Wild! (Non-Snoop Dogg Edition), General Bitching
Tagged: romance, joanna bourne, covers, cover makeovers, cover comparisons
Ros said on 04.29.10 at 10:29 AM • [link]
Jo’s had a picture of the new cover up on her blog for a while. I prefer it to the old one but I don’t think either of them do justice to the book. I want a cover that conveys something of the action of the book, the spy stuff and the romance, and I just don’t get that at all here. It makes Annique look tame and ordinary. But I do think that it might encourage some people to give the book a try who wouldn’t have been tempted by the first edition, so maybe from a sales point of view it will do its job.
Luci said on 04.29.10 at 10:53 AM • [link]
I am one of those who don’t mind chests and backs on covers :). I especially love insteps. Hate the Fabio covers though - don’t know if you see the distinction like I do. I actually like the new cover too even though I have the original one at home and don’t mind it. I agree wholeheartedly though that for people who do not read historical romance and actually look down on it - certain covers do not do the great writing any favours at all.
roseolla said on 04.29.10 at 11:08 AM • [link]
Love the book but I don’t think either cover does justice for the characters. I think that some of my favorite novels don’t have models on their covers at all, but just the title (Kleypas, Garwood, McNaught, Foley).
Perhaps the better books (with more well-rounded characters) just don’t need the eye candy?
Kathleen Bittner Roth said on 04.29.10 at 11:16 AM • [link]
I’m with the others who don’t think either cover does justice to the wonderful writing in this story. Sappy is the first word that came to mind with the second cover. I would definitely skip over this one in a bookstore. She looks timid, shy and b.o.r.i.n.g. IMHO some great art with no models, but hints of the spymaster tools, scenery that depicts travel, etc., would have done it for me.
Cassie said on 04.29.10 at 11:18 AM • [link]
Covers play such a small part in my romance novel experience. I never really look at covers, except when I am browsing and I’m scanning for something that looks like a romance. The second cover still says ‘romance’ to me because of the typography.
After I have ascertained that a book is a romance, I then check the author’s name and the title to see if either are something that’s been recced to me or something I know is a good bet. If neither are familiar, I’ll read the back and any excerpt to see if it seems interesting/readable. Then I might buy it.
similar93: 93 covers may look similar, but each romance is different.
Jeza said on 04.29.10 at 12:05 PM • [link]
That’s really weird. I think the second cover looks like the sequel to the first book. I would totally stand them up across from each other on my bookshelf.
Definitely think it says romance, but yeah, more like the cheesy Julia Quinn/Lisa Kleypas kind than what Joanna Bourne wrote here. (Just noticed that Julia Quinn is the cover quote. Irony!)
ghn said on 04.29.10 at 12:30 PM • [link]
I like the first one slightly better - you do at least get a bit of eye candy there.
The other one is just boring. That is the sort of cover that could be on any historical. And I mean any - sometimes it seems that when it is a pre-WWII story they put a girl - or a couple - in regency-ish costume on the cover. Unless it is a regency. Then they go medieval.
(Yes I exaggerate. A little)
Sandra said on 04.29.10 at 01:37 PM • [link]
I originally picked up TSL because of the great reviews, and tend to ignore covers anyway when looking for something to read. That said, this new issue is trade as opposed to the original MMPB. Does the book type make a difference in cover expectations?
I know what you mean… Kensington’s Lords of Desire anthology has an Elizabethan cover while every story in it is set in the 19th C.
Cara McKenna / Meg Maguire said on 04.29.10 at 01:48 PM • [link]
Ooh, I feel like I’m playing Pretend to be a Top Model Judge! I like the second one, because of the model’s eyebrows. It’s your typical “proper lady on a cover” except for them mischievous brows. It’s interesting, this book…at first I looked at the old cover and thought, “It’s called The Spymaster’s Lady, so where’s the lady?!” Then I looked at the new one and thought, “Where’s the Spymaster?” The second one gets my Top Model vote for that fieeeeeerce eyebrow action. The old cover’s so last season.
becky said on 04.29.10 at 02:43 PM • [link]
Haven’t read the book, so I don’t know how well the covers do in giving the feel of the novel, but I like the second one much better. The cover lady looks a bit mischievous, and I’d be more likely to buy that one than the original.
LizA said on 04.29.10 at 03:07 PM • [link]
I much prefer the second cover. I do not think it looks literary at all but it does not look cheesy at least. Obviously I am going against the mainstream here as I absolutely hate typical romance covers! But then I do not pick up a book because of its cover, rather often despite its cover though… they have startet to sell cloth covers for paperbacks over here and I am seriously tempted to get one to hide all the horrors…. ;)
redcrow said on 04.29.10 at 03:22 PM • [link]
I looked at the old cover and thought, “It’s called The Spymaster’s Lady, so where’s the lady?!”Exactly. First cover made me think “Wait, he’s “one of the most unusual, resourceful and humorous heroines”? Is “he”, in fact, she, but she’s in denial and try to go on living as a man, till Spymaster meets her and helps her to come to terms with being trans, and maybe, depending on the time period, also helps her with transition, and on the back cover she’s already depicted as a woman?”
(As if anyone would write a romance novel like that...)
KimMarie said on 04.29.10 at 03:30 PM • [link]
I like the second cover and hate the first. Because covers of romance novels tend to be so awful, I pay little attention to them. In fact, I try not to look at them when I’m considering whether to read a book or not. They rarely have anything to do with the story.
There is a lot of discussion on this site about the knee jerk disdain for the romance genre. I think the ridiculous covers are the main reason that non-romance readers ridicule the genre.
Jo Bourne said on 04.29.10 at 03:34 PM • [link]
I know nothing about book marketing—less than nothing, really, because some of what I ‘know’ is wrong—but the industry does seem oddly resistant to accurate period clothing. Do they do that on purpose, I wonder?
The trade paperback edition of Spymaster’s Lady—the one with the eyebrows—is really lovely in person. Just a delight to hold in the hand. And the clothing is impeccably spot-on correct for date.
When I call to mind what-were-they-thinking covers, I guess I think of Laura Kinsale, who was gifted with some very odd choices in cover indeed.
Jill Sorenson said on 04.29.10 at 03:34 PM • [link]
I agree that the cover and title don’t really match on the first one—but I SO DON"T AGREE that it’s awful or cheesy. There is nothing shameful about a man’s chest! He’s not oiled. The treatment is painterly. I’m annoyed by the suggestion that “quality” romance novels need sedate covers. I call BS on that! I don’t want or need to pretend I’m reading literary fiction. I don’t want or need the respect of people who look down on romance because the covers are suggestive. If the book is sensual, why shouldn’t the outside reflect the contents?
By the way I loved this book, and agree that it’s high-quality. So is the original cover, IMO.
Beki said on 04.29.10 at 03:46 PM • [link]
The first cover is so wrong. If we’re going to get all point of fact about the clothing for the time periods, shouldn’t we as well insist on actual chest hair for these men? This poor guy looks like he went to the beauty parlor (could I get a cut and style, eyebrow shaping, and full torso wax, please) and then dressed for a costume party where he was accosted and mugged, and is now doomed to wander shirtless and confused, wondering if someone else at the party had a cell phone in their costume pockets and if he might borrow it to cancel his credit cards.
I like the second cover well enough, I guess, though I’d side with some of the others who say it’s a tad boring. If not for the comments about what a good story it is, I’m not sure I’d even put this one on my list to pick up. But I will. I trust yon Smart Bitches to guide me correctly.
Also, ignore the rant at the top. I’m suffering PMS.
Jenyfer Matthews said on 04.29.10 at 03:47 PM • [link]
I have not read the book but I just put the one with the second cover on my wishlist for a near-future purchase :)
Katherine said on 04.29.10 at 03:53 PM • [link]
I definitely prefer the second cover.
Would the cover influence my decision to purchase? No.
I tend to ignore the cover of my books. Probably because I am embarassed by the blatant map-titty/oiled chest/gasping woman stuff. So I’d rather read the back of the book and divie into the first chapter to see if it’s worth buying.
I’m “out” as a romance reader now. No longer embarassed to admit what I read. But I am still embarassed about many of the book covers.
hapax said on 04.29.10 at 03:54 PM • [link]
Like the second cover better. The dress is pretty (and historically accurate), the lady’s face is expressive, the layout is much more balanced, the colors more pleasing…
... but I’d still put it in a wrapper before reading it in public.
Y’know how you can walk through a used book store and assign publication dates to most romances within a year or two by cover design alone? I think that both of these covers will “date” dreadfully.
I much prefer the covers with period art, or a single iconic image (a nineteenth century pistol half covered by a fan or mask would work nicely for this title) but that’s just me. If I want to ogle and objectify male bodies, I can always go find my husband!
(spamword: cent87—and that’s MY eighty-seven cents worth!)
Snidely Whiplash said on 04.29.10 at 03:56 PM • [link]
Have to disagree with Sarah. The first cover makes some small attempt to place the era(ruffled shirt). Dress, jewelry and hairstyle in the second cover are contemporary. As a stand alone piece of art I like the second one better. Tied at D-, neither sells the book, neither has an aura of intrigue. The first one says, it’s a romance, slap a cover on and sell it, the second one says, slap an updated cover on and sell some more. It’s McMarketing, no respect for the author or the genre.
lizw65 said on 04.29.10 at 03:57 PM • [link]
I’m not partial to either one—they both scream “wallpaper historical” to me, which does this book in particular a great injustice. Personally, I like the trend of using vintage art on covers—the reissues of Georgette Heyer come to mind.
dorothea said on 04.29.10 at 03:57 PM • [link]
I’m just happy that the new cover, having a lady on it, has her entire head!
I just bought the new paperback of Mary Balogh’s Seducing an Angel, and like all previous books in that series, plus some other Balogh books and in fact lots of romance and literary fiction lately, there’s a lovely picture of a lovely woman on it that cuts off before you can see her eyes. The pictures are beautiful but they’re beginning to bother me a bit—I mean, you get the curvy waist, the bosom, the full and sensual lips, in other words everything that tells you this character is hot, but you aren’t allowed to look her in the eye and recognize her as a person. I don’t understand why these covers are so popular lately. Is it that they’re supposed to facilitate the reader’s imagining that she is the heroine?
Anyway, I’m pleased that this cover has the same tasteful style, but also allows us to see the heroine’s entire face!
Trippinoutmysoul said on 04.29.10 at 04:00 PM • [link]
It became pretty automatic to me years ago to not even notice the cover of a romance novel when considering a purchase, because most often they have nothing to do with the quality of the story inside. When I first started reading romance, I’d tend to skip over the titles with the stereotypical man titty covers as potentially too cheesy, but luckily learned my lesson- a lesson which is sometimes even applicable to the back cover copy. I think both the old and new covers of The Spymaster’s Lady have things going for and against then- the bared chest anf frilly shirt of the original is pretty much like slapping “HISTORICAL ROMANCE!!” on the cover in neon green paint, making it easier to pick out by someone looking for a historical romance, whereas it could also deter someone who hasn’t learned the “romance novel cover art is to chuckle at, not to judge by” rule. I agree that the new cover does seem to lend more of a literary fiction tone, and when I first started reading romance I would probably have been more inclined to pick it up if only because of it’s lack of half naked hero. That being said, I like the first cover better, because from experience I know it probably has little or nothing to do with the story, and who doesn’t like chiseled abs and happy trails?!?
Nancy Da Silva said on 04.29.10 at 04:08 PM • [link]
I’m gonna disagree with the majority and say I LOVE the first one much better. It’s hot! That’s what I want in my romance novels.
The second looks more like a historical fiction which I enjoy but not when I’m deliberately looking to read a romance.
Cat Marsters said on 04.29.10 at 04:23 PM • [link]
I prefer the second one as it looks less clichéd, but I agree, it still doesn’t quite match the richness of the book. She does look rather how I pictured Annique, however.
The problem with a cover like the first one is that it looks so old-fashioned, so bodice-ripper, so sardonic-eyebrow, so nod-to-historical-accuracy, so everything-that’s-mocked-about-romance-novels, in fact, that it’s quite hard to persuade anyone outside the romance-reading community that what’s inside is totally the opposite of all those things.
I wonder, if this book had been presented with a ‘historical fiction’ cover, would it have been read and enjoyed by people who sneer at romance novels? A cover hinting at adventure, like the Sharpe covers on my shelves (http://tinyurl.com/372aucx) for instance.
And hey, Joanna: when’s the next one out? Please say soon. Did you say soon? Good.
DS said on 04.29.10 at 04:25 PM • [link]
Agreed doesn’t look literary. If it was literary it would have a period painting on the cover. I do think Trade Paperbacks get much more discreet covers than mass market. The new cover isn’t very much in period though.
I was looking at a collection of European portraits last week and found myself rather taken with a painting of an early 19th century gentleman who had all his clothes on but still struck me as a good bet for a romance cover. I snapped a couple of shots of the painting with my iphone and will link to one if any of them are in focus.
Anna the Piper said on 04.29.10 at 04:29 PM • [link]
I’ll totally go with cover #2. Previous commenters spoke of liking that the lady actually has a HEAD, and also of her mischievous expression; I’ll agree with both of these.
And, having actually re-read the review, clearly I need to put this thing on my Nook. ;)
Rachel said on 04.29.10 at 04:31 PM • [link]
Definitely the 2nd, simply because the book is called The Spymaster’s Lady. Therefore, if there’s going to be someone on the cover, it should be her. And as a bonus, like another poster said, you can actually see her face! The trend of showing only the bodies is disturbing to me.
However, I will say that the second cover looks more like a historical, Jane Austin-lite novel than a romance novel. But maybe that’s what they were going for?
Joy said on 04.29.10 at 04:44 PM • [link]
Just thinking if you photoshopped both covers together it would seem as if the couple were looking at each other, which would be cute.
The first cover seems to answer the question “will there be sex in this romance?” in the affirmative; the second doesn’t answer it at all. I do think the second cover is lovely.
Chicklet said on 04.29.10 at 04:44 PM • [link]
Hey, is that Ewa Da Cruz on the second one? She’s an actress on As the World Turns, and she was the cover model on Julia Quinn’s Lost Duke of Wyndham last year.
I like the second cover a lot better than the first one, even though it doesn’t really sell the espionage element of the book, which is frustrating. I’m so so so tired of the mantitty cover, I just skip by all of them these days. I adore the Georgette Heyer reissue covers so much that everything drives me batty.
Chicklet said on 04.29.10 at 04:45 PM • [link]
Whoops, just closing the italics coding on my previous comment. Sorry.
Kiersten said on 04.29.10 at 04:55 PM • [link]
I noticed this yesterday when I was cruising Amazon. I wasn’t so bothered by the original, but think this one is much better. I agree that it does have more of an historical fiction vibe to it. After decades of being mocked for readers books with clinch or mantitty covers, it’s nice to have the cover actually relate to the story inside somewhat.
Either way, I think both covers are beautifully rendered.
Kalen Hughes said on 04.29.10 at 05:00 PM • [link]
I’m sorry, but the the FUCK is up with that dress? Is she supposed to be going to a prom c. 1970? I know that many/most books have bad prom dress covers, but if you’re going to all the trouble of making the book a new cover, could you put a LITTLE effort into getting it right?
Sadly, I have to vote for the first one. It’s also historically inaccurate and makes me slightly batty, but it’s not as bad (or as bland) as the second one . . .
Dawn said on 04.29.10 at 05:06 PM • [link]
Definitely like the second cover as the original reeks of cheese. But I would agree with most that neither cover does justice to the book.
Cat Marsters said on 04.29.10 at 05:32 PM • [link]
What’s wrong with her dress, Kalen? IIRC the book is set around 1801 (there’s reference to an incident in 1786 when the heroine was four, and I seem to remember her being about 19 in the book although I may be wrong) when high-waisted dresses with puffed sleeves in patterned pastels were the very height of fashion on both sides of the Channel. I might expect a little more gathers in the bust or perhaps an undersleeve for a day dress but there’s nothing about it that screams inaccuracy to me. It’s certainly better than the shiny satin low-backed side-split creation on the original stepback.
(quite amusingly, my spamcatcher is french26. Actually I thought Annique was a little younger than that, but it’s not far off)
Melissandre said on 04.29.10 at 05:35 PM • [link]
I vote for the first one, more because it actually hints at the spying part of The Spymaster’s Lady. Yes, the woman in the second cover looks a little saucy, but she doesn’t look dangerous. She looks like she’s posing for her senior pictures or something. Yes, the guy and his manly chest look clichéd, but he also looks ready for action. He’s looking off camera (for danger!), he’s taking off his shirt (to whoop some ass!), and he’s got a pistol tucked in his waistband (not a euphemism!). In short, he’s a spymaster. I think the first cover does a better job of hinting at the stakes in the book, even if it doesn’t hint at the writing quality.
consumptiongirl said on 04.29.10 at 05:35 PM • [link]
For me, this is a case of not judging the book by either cover…although…
...is it just me or does everyone else hear some hard-pounding music, and expect our hero to rip off his pants and flash a shiny g-string, do a few pelvic thrusts while screaming fans shove dollar bills at him?
Just me?
mary frances said on 04.29.10 at 05:41 PM • [link]
The new cover screams Romace to me. The freakishly curly font alone is Romance in my mind. (p.s. can we convince publishers to burn that font?) Plus the house in the background is too small for a boring historical fiction. I like her quirked brow and non-orgasm face so I’ll take cover #2 thanks.
mary
Jo Bourne said on 04.29.10 at 05:53 PM • [link]
@ Cat Masters—
I will never be given a cover as cool as the Sharpe’s cover. Just lovely, isn’t it? Though the dragon flintlock gave me a slight—‘Is this a Naomi Novik’—vibe.
Forbidden Rose will be out June 1. The cover, since we speak of covers, is at
http://tiny.cc/puq9x
AgTigress said on 04.29.10 at 06:16 PM • [link]
Quite like the second cover, loathe the first. But then, if I allowed the covers to influence me, I would never have read a romance at all.
Cat Marsters said on 04.29.10 at 06:23 PM • [link]
Ooh, you did say soon! Only a month, yippee! Something to read when I go away in June. I’m stockpiling books I really want to read for when I have the peace and quiet to actually concentrate on them.
I think the flintlock on the Sharpe cover is a tiger—I’m sure the Tippoo’s men in the book had rifles like this. I think I remember the Tippoo’s Tiger in that book too—the pipe organ that’s also a mechanical ‘toy’ of a tiger mauling a redcoat (it being a while before there was anything good on telly in Seringapatam).
Looks like the Sharpe covers have all been redesigned too, for something a bit more generic. Shame.
Karen H said on 04.29.10 at 06:46 PM • [link]
I LOVE the first cover and dislike the second cover (though the pink dress is nice). I want to look at handsome men, especially with their physiques showing! And, yes, I’m a big fan of the fabulous Fabio. I understand the comments about the title referring to a “lady” but there being a man on the cover, but, hey, the title also refers to a “spymaster” who’s a man so I think the first cover makes sense.
I wouldn’t even pick up the book with the second cover. There are so many books to choose from and I choose a good-looking man! I’ve found many great books and authors that way (and, okay, a few duds).
book89—I have more than 89 books in my TBR pile!
Kristina said on 04.29.10 at 07:03 PM • [link]
On the first cover I find myself looking desperately for nipples on that poor guy. With how much of the chest is bared you would think you could see at least a portion of at least one nipple. Plus the abs look like they go up way to far into his pecs. Also, ummm the title is Spymasters Lady, but there is no lady present.
Based on title alone I like the second one better. That being said the second one looks too stuffy for me to grab in the bookstore. I would look at that and see, dry contrived regency. The first one would at least make me pick it up and read the back of it.
Kalen Hughes said on 04.29.10 at 07:18 PM • [link]
Oh god, where to begin . . . the Empire waist is about the only thing right with it. *sigh* The bodice shape is entirely wrong. Hello, it has freaken darts! The design of it is also anachronistic. And she’s clearly not wearing a corset, as the position of the breasts is incorrect. The skirt shape is wrong (too narrow, not enough fabric, A-line). The construction is wrong. The fabrication is wrong and it appears to be trimmed with rick-rack. IMO it’s a disaster. What I call “perioid” rather then period.
Here are two examples of gowns c. 1800 (hope this works)
Kalen Hughes said on 04.29.10 at 07:20 PM • [link]
Hmm, not so much. HTML is so not my friend . . . let’s try again:
Kalen Hughes said on 04.29.10 at 07:22 PM • [link]
Kalen Hughes said on 04.29.10 at 07:23 PM • [link]
Third times a charm, LOL!
Laurel said on 04.29.10 at 07:35 PM • [link]
I like the second cover better. But I have to say eBooks are like getting your immunization against judging books by their covers. Since I migrated to mostly digital, I’d say the majority of the books I’ve read are books I would have ruled out based on their cover if I was doing the old brick-and-mortar thing.
I love Mercy Thompson but all I would have seen is a midriff baring woman covered in tattoos. Nothing wrong with that, just not my cuppa. I would have assumed some sort of carnie-meets-dominatrix-and oh yeah there are werewolves vibe.
For whatever bizarre reason, I’ve always steered away from cover art with actual models in favor of some sort of illustration. I have no idea what that’s about, but it definitely has kept me from breaking into romance books even though I like a good love story.
So huzzah for eBooks and internet browsing, where I find out about the book before I decide it’s a big fat cheese fest because of some deep seated prejudice about what kind of book it is based on the cover alone. I love tools that make me less prone to idiocy.
Jo Bourne said on 04.29.10 at 07:40 PM • [link]
Hi Kalen—
You are, as ever, my fashion goddess.
Kalen Hughes said on 04.29.10 at 07:59 PM • [link]
And just to be clear, Jo makes no such horrible fashion faux pas in her books! We’re just talking about the art dept here.
Joy said on 04.29.10 at 08:52 PM • [link]
I think it may look more like the empire waist gowns of the 1960s than the 1800s. But at least they got the waistline in the right place and the dress isn’t just a sort of frilly thing with a ginormous leg slit 1/2 covering only her torso which we see a lot of.
Kilian Metcalf said on 04.29.10 at 09:01 PM • [link]
Can’t say either cover does much for me, but then the only time I will buy a book based on its cover is when the cover artist is Kinuko Craft. She is an absolute guarantee of quality as far as I am concerned. I suppose it is because she is so expensive only the publishers who are totally committed to the book will pay to have her do the cover.
Now that I have moved almost everything to the Kindle, the cover is less and less important. I have everything from Aeschylus to The Adventures of Sally all in the same bland black cover, and no one knows what I am reading unless I want them to. Not that I care, I’m just sayin’
StephB said on 04.29.10 at 10:09 PM • [link]
Ooh, I prefer the new one hugely! (And REALLY wish I could have bought that version.) So much less embarrassing to read in public, and I love the mischievous expression on her face - makes it obvious that there’s a strong heroine leading the book.
Meredith said on 04.29.10 at 10:49 PM • [link]
That first cover is just *bad.* So I’m glad they’ve replaced it. I’d be more likely to buy the second one, although her facial expression is annoying me somehow. (Maybe I’m now too used to the faces-cut-off covers du jour?) But if you say it’s a great read, I may just be forced to get a copy. ;)
Kelly Wittmann said on 04.29.10 at 11:31 PM • [link]
Hey, isn’t that Ridge from The Bold & the Beautiful in the first one? Yeah… Really bad.
Sonic said on 04.29.10 at 11:34 PM • [link]
See, I LIKE cheesy covers, so I love the 1st one. I’m MORE likely to buy a romance book with a) flying random animals, b) improbable positioning of the human body, c) bosoms heaving (does not matter if it’s male or female character), and d) bright colors and weird items than one which looks “respectable” and “literary.”
I WANT it to look awful and cheesy - I dunno, that’s just always been my preference.
mingqi said on 04.29.10 at 11:51 PM • [link]
I like the second one better. The title is the Spymaster’s Lady- it’s pretty weird to put a man on the cover as they did on the first one. I also like how proper the gown is (but not the window-curtain fabric they used to make it) and the choker. However, the model isn’t how I pictured Annique. She looks too proper and tonnish. Annique is hardened and wiley.
SKapusniak said on 04.29.10 at 11:53 PM • [link]
Since a better, though much too long, title for the book would be ‘The Brilliant Spy, her late mother, the Enemy Spymaster, his Spy Sidekick, and the Invasion Plans’ and it starts with Annique single-handedly breaking herself and the other two out of a bare cell in the Napoleonic Paris equivalent of the Lubyanka, using only guile, superhuman senses, and the skilled application of violence with improvised weaponry; and then continues on from there, but with Grey and the others now matching her blow for blow, neither of those covers are much use.
It’s not the figures, they’re actually fine, it’s the backdrops and the symbolic objects. Trees in a Pastoral Idyll? Country houses? A shawl?
The symbolism should be of intrigue, blood, violence, fear, despair, patriotism, and persistence despite all, rather than peace, tranquility and ease (especially in the second one).
Seriously, one of the classic clinch covers with the violent weather, impossibly tangled limbs, clothes falling away, and the mysterious galloping horse that appears nowhere in the story itself, would give a better sense of the book, simply by having more action, movement and stuff happening in it. Not that I’d wish one of those on my worst enemy.
If I had to pick one of thos two, I’d actually go for Mr. Bare Chested as that one’s a little less passive and a bit less suggestive of country house parties.
Marianne McA said on 04.30.10 at 12:56 AM • [link]
I’ve always disliked the first cover: I bought the book because of the great reviews it got - if I’d met it in a bookshop I wouldn’t have lifted it off the shelf.
The new cover, I’d lift. And I agree it’s good to see her face, and good that she’s an interesting looking person.
(In the pictures of the cover of the next book, it looks like the heroine’s face falls off the edge in the actual cover - I would prefer the draft cover that shows her face. Doesn’t matter though - the book was pre-ordered aeons ago, with the very last of my Christmas-present-Amazon-tokens. Can’t wait.)
sandra said on 04.30.10 at 01:02 AM • [link]
When I see Nathan Kamp’s pretty pouty face and bare chest, the word “spymaster’ is not what springs to mind. “Cheesecake model’ is more like it. Spamword is attack37. No comment.
Polly said on 04.30.10 at 01:40 AM • [link]
Ugh, I don’t like the second cover. The dress just looks tacky—like something I made over the weekend from a “so you want a regency dress” pattern (if such things exist). And the model is just so bland, which Annique never was.
I loved the book, didn’t much like the first cover, and really don’t like the second cover. But I’ll take the first one, hands down. It’s cheesy but not bland.
Maisey Yates said on 04.30.10 at 04:13 AM • [link]
Eh…if the writing is good, I consider the half-naked man a bonus. If it’s bad, it soothes the wound since you shelled out money and, at the very least, you’re now the proud owner of something fun to look at. But I realize that’s just me…
consumptiongirl said on 04.30.10 at 04:21 AM • [link]
This is going to sound like a really dumb question, but what’s that in his pants? NO, not that! It’s tucked into his waistband on his left side. Is that the handle of a pistol?
Karin said on 04.30.10 at 05:49 AM • [link]
the second is less tacky, but neither cover conveys anything about the story. It needs an action cover, a picture of them jail breaking, or fleeing through the French countryside, whatever.
Cat Marsters said on 04.30.10 at 11:01 AM • [link]
I do have a pattern in my favourite costume book from a few years later with darts in the bodice of both dress and spencer. Also notes that frequently ladies of fashion did not wear corsets during this period—that, coupled with their form-revealing dresses made them seem quite scandalous to a generation used to the panniers and towering wigs of the previous century.
That said, it does look like a dress from maybe five or ten years later. But given the screaming inaccuracies I’ve seen and read in historicals—including one where every detail of dress and even building style was about two hundred years out of date—a few bust darts here and there make no nevermind to me.
Weird thing I’ve just remembered: a friend brought some Regency fashion plates to a writing lunch a few months back, and in them the women were depicted with very wide bosoms—lift and separate, then separate some more. There was no hint of cleavage in these illustrations. We were trying too work out when it might have become desirable from a fashion point of view for the boobies to be squished together instead of yanked apart (frankly, it looked kinda painful).
Kalen Hughes said on 04.30.10 at 04:36 PM • [link]
Completely UNTRUE! This whole oft-quoted nonsense makes me insane. There is a VERY brief period in PARIS (not even all of France and CERTAINLY not in England) when some women (not very many, even then and there) wore little bust supports instead of full on corsets (c. 1795-1800). Lazy historians have taken quotes about this very specific set of women from a very specific place and extrapolated out across the entire era and all of Europe. Sloppy scholarship at its best. It’s like saying 20 American 20-somethings never wear underwear because Paris Hilton and Britney Spears keep getting caught flashing their bits.
By the way, here are images of the bust bodice (it’s like a small vest that supports the underside of the breasts) that WAS worn by these women and a painting of a woman who is likely wearing something similar under her gown (note, both these images are French).
Yes, because they were wearing the fashionable “divorce corset” which “divorced” the breasts from one another. You can find ads for these being sold during the period and there are numerous examples in museum collections.
Cat Marsters said on 04.30.10 at 04:59 PM • [link]
Yes, but Annique is French. During that period.
And I’ve learned never to accept any opinion as completely definite on any aspect of any period in history. Maybe my book is right. Maybe yours is. Maybe when The Doctor turns up at my door with his Tardis I’ll pop back to 1800 and find out for myself.
JoAnn Chartier said on 04.30.10 at 05:25 PM • [link]
I’d take either of these covers over the Sweet Temptation cover featured on the adroll at the side of this page. That one seems aimed directly at sweaty guys with hairy backs pointing their ...er… little mouses at porn sites.
And Kalen, the photo of that exquisite dress! Now I don’t have to imagine what the sweet young things at Almacks were wearing…
Laurel said on 04.30.10 at 05:30 PM • [link]
@ Kalen and Cat:
You ladies make me grin. I have a friend who is totally into this, too, and she is a Romance reader. She got an MFA in something I don’t quite remember but she went on to do costume design for theater production. She cannot STAND Much Ado About Nothing, one of my all time faves, because the costumes are all wrong.
As for me, my fashion sense is so limited that if I have personally matched my socks to each other, much less my outfit, I feel like I’m on target.
I am loving the visual aids, Kalen.
Albireo said on 04.30.10 at 05:42 PM • [link]
I’d be way more likely to read the second one, I think. The title says romance while the cover says historical.
The first one says ‘romance set in an allegedly historical period with no attention to historical detail’. Also, why don’t his abs line up?
Kilian Metcalf said on 04.30.10 at 06:05 PM • [link]
@Laurel - she probably coughed up a hairball watching Cate Blanchett in Elizabeth and Elizabeth: The Golden Age[/]. Mild attempt at vaguely period-inspired costumes with weird electric Day-Glo colors.
I used to play with the Society for Creative Anachronism, and most of the people are pretty tolerant of any honest attempt at period costume, but then there are the authenticity police who make it their business to call out anyone who isn’t “period.” The only way to shut them up is to tell them that telling people what isn’t period isn’t period.
My standards are pretty low in book covers. If it is vaguely reminiscent of something vaguely of the period, I don’t mind. What I really like is art work from the same time period showing scenes of daily life that the characters might have been involved in.
@albireo: I don’t know about his abs, but why is there a teepee in the background?
hour78: I have spent at least 78 hours laughing at the Smart Bitches
Kalen Hughes said on 04.30.10 at 06:26 PM • [link]
I’m not basing my opinion on a books (aka tertiary resources), and certainly not on a single one. I base mine on actual research and scholarship (the study of primary sources). When someone shows me the documentation for the assertion that women of this era did not wear corsets/stays, only THEN will there actually be something to discuss, as I’ve plenty of documentation that they did wear them. This is not opinion, it is fact.
Documentation is always helpful with this sort of discussion. I teach a lot of workshops on historical clothing and undergarments, so I have done extensive research and have a giant horde of images of extant garments. It’s my specialty.
Kalen Hughes said on 04.30.10 at 06:28 PM • [link]
I was never able to go there. The first one was too awful for me to even be able to contemplate watching the sequel.
Gerd D. said on 04.30.10 at 06:34 PM • [link]
Love it.
She’s beautiful, and she has a head!
Cat Marsters said on 05.01.10 at 12:56 AM • [link]
Kalen, my point was simply that historical facts can ever be entirely disproved. Especially when they concern the lack of something.
Laurel: Much Ado About Nothing —do you mean the Branagh/Thompson version about 15 years ago? There’s no particular period defined for that film, and at a guess there isn’t supposed to be (if there’s a newer version I’d love to know: it’s my favourite play). It’s always interesting to me when Shakespeare is filmed/played in a period that’s neither Shakespearean or modern. Some plays lend themselves very strongly to different periods in history—a 1930s gangster Macbeth, for instance—but sometimes the costumes seem to have been chosen because they’re, like, pretty.
I speak as a former drama student who did A Midsummer Night’s Dream in Regency dress purely because of the popularity of Colin Firth’s Darcy.
I recently got incensed about a renewed production of An Inspector Calls, which is set in a very specific week of 1912, just before the Titanic sailed—this fact is mentioned in the script—and yet the fashionable female character is wearing a dress about ten years out of fashion. Drives me demented, but I can’t even mention the fact to most people without gales of hysterical laughter.
La Reine Noire said on 05.01.10 at 04:14 PM • [link]
I bought the book in spite of the first cover—what bothered me most is that the man on the cover looks absolutely nothing like the hero of the novel! I’ve got nothing against strategically placed man titty, but I do like the cover to have something to do with what’s inside the book. ;)
Granted, this very rarely happens, so it really shouldn’t surprise me.
OdetteLovegood said on 05.02.10 at 02:21 AM • [link]
Is it just me or do these two covers look like they’re giving each other googly eyes?
Original: “MM YES, BEHOLD MY MANLY AND WELL-OILED ABS.”
New: “Sort of want.”
Keemeers said on 05.02.10 at 08:45 AM • [link]
I picked up this book at a store because of this conversation.
I was not disappointed.
Mmmm. Greeeeey.
Rebecca said on 05.02.10 at 08:06 PM • [link]
Like, Keemeers, started looking at the book because of this thread. I’m enjoying it so far (only the first couple of chapters) but…“Annique?” Srsly? I haven’t found out her “real” background yet, so I’m sort of hoping that she’s really Anneke, from Bruges, and is secretly fighting to free Flanders from French domination. Because if she’s French wouldn’t she be “Annette”? The French were and are to this day NOT creative about names. I’m hoping the name “Annique” gets an explanation, or it’s going to irritate me in an otherwise enjoyable read.
Oh, and put me in the second cover camp. I like the sneaky smile and the eyebrows, although the background is meh.
Trippinoutmysoul said on 05.02.10 at 08:24 PM • [link]
Useless mental note #3492: Kalen Hughes is PASSIONATE about period wardrobe inaccuracies. Every time I look at one of your books I’ll remember this thread and tehehe. Love the visual aids!
LBennett said on 05.03.10 at 05:14 AM • [link]
I LOVED the Spymaster’s Lady. It’s one of the best books I’ve read, ever. I think there’s something to be said about the “shorthand” cover—we know it’s going to be historical, and we know it’s going to be romance. I just feel like this book was too good for either of these covers.
Deborah said on 05.17.10 at 11:07 PM • [link]
My choice for the better cover is the second with the lovely lady in the foreground and I’ll take some time to tell you why. I am a reader of romance novels as no doubt you all are as well. I am also surrounded by close loved ones who have come to simply “understand” my adoration of romance novels. They do not, however, approve of this adoration. My close girlfriends, who are kinder than most, think of it as a silly infatuation for less-than-optimal writing akin to a Frenchman claiming a love for American cheese. I find that even perfect strangers on the train or bus who glance at my read on the ride to work scoff when they see the tell-tale “Romance” sticker on the spine, or buxom-heavy-chesty-lassie-grappled-by-slickly-muscly-hottie-mcmullet cover. This revulsion or tolerance from them causes a shame reaction in me. I am ashamed to carry around books with covers of partially clothed and sensually poised people. To avoid shame where I should rightfully feel none, I absolutely only ever purchase a romance novel whose cover is nondescript enough to carry around in plain sight. I aim for the same when browsing at the library. Should it be this way? No. I’ve come across more excellent romance authors than those from any other genre. But I’m also not going to try to convince everyone I meet or pass or who sees me carrying one around of the merits of Romances. My apologies to the industry.
K Bartholomew said on 05.31.10 at 07:39 AM • [link]
Okay, the first cover is distracting me and I have now figured out why and I hope I don’t get made fun of for this. He looks like Val Kilmer. Seriously, he looks like him back in his Island of Dr. Monroe days. It ‘s something about the jawline.
Care to comment?
Comments are now closed for this post.
Subscribe to These Comments