Smart Bitches, Trashy Books

My only problem with the original of Kate Douglas’s cover is the trickle of fake tan on his hip.  At least…I hope it’s fake tan.

I like either bootie pic of the guy.  You can get a full view or you can imagine how great he looks.  I personally like the ferrets better.  They are just so damn cute.

Sorry, Kate, but as much as I loves me some man candy—the flankier the better—the first cover pushes the envelope of what I feel comfortable reading in public or even at home with my kids around.

However it wouldn’t be the first (or the fiftieth) book that I’ve had to read hidden in a book cover. I’ve got a nice leathah one for trade size and a couple of felt ones I made myself for MMPs.

man flank is problematic?

Not to me it’s not, but then the American population is still overwhelmingly puritan in their attitudes towards sex. I guess it is only worth “selling” if it’s a celebrity- then we need to know every little thing about it and spend hours searching the web for the pics. sigh

I love the ferrets. I may spend the crappy day to day watching them instead of doing housework. Unless the power goes out, then I will get a flashlight and read. It has already been raining here and I hear tell we are expecting about 6 inches. Hubby is on call for work. Glad I bought charcoal incase the power goes out. Anyone want to come over for bar-b-que if it does??

I don’t find the man flank cover offensive per se, but I also wouldn’t feel comfortable buying it in a bookstore.

Well!  First off, mama ferrett seemed to be giving baby ferret a rather intimate cleaning just now.  And I thought my mother spitting into a napkin to clean my face was ooky.  And secondly, baby ferret is all grown up!

I prefer the   B cover.
Not because I’m an anti-lewd prude but I prefer suggestion/anticipation.

So no problems with the publisher(s) putting out covers with a woman’s naked butt yet the population has to be protected from the male figure? That’s just so idiotic.  The guys pretty so why make him look like he’s sitting in a cloud of cigarette smoke?

As for being comfortable buying it in a bookstore? I get that, I really do, but only if the cashier is uncomfortable taking my money.

Love me some baby kits, thanks!

It’s funny.  The cover has clearly been designed to draw in a reader looking for a sexy book…but on the other hand, people are embarrassed about buying sexy books in store.  I’m always being told that more flesh means better sales, but that’s usually on e-book purchases, where no one but you sees what you’ve bought.

Then again, I’m more embarrassed being seen with torrid bodice-ripper covers in public: historical novels, I’m looking at you (my non-romance-reading friend nearly wet herself laughing at the selections on offer last time she ventured into the romance section with me).  I know the book inside is fabulous, but it looks like utter trash.

How do you create a cover that meets the reader’s expectations of how that genre should be represented—in KD’s case, which says, “Buy this book if you want a hot read”, that people aren’t embarrassed to be seen with in public?

I prefer the original version of Kate’s cover, but it’s less to do with the amount of flankage and more to do with the apparent added coating of lacquer. Is it just me, or does the guy on Cover B look significantly glossier than he does on Cover A?

Mimi gets a contract is priceless.  Thanks for the procrastination links.  I didn’t need them, I’m on deadline (can’t you tell, as I’m here commenting . . . ), but the laugh was worth it.

Oh, those erotic romance novelists. Always pushing the envelope. First it was man-titty, now it’s man-flanky - with all that going on, can man-butty be far behind?

Give me the Anger of Aubergines any day. A tasty vegetable on the cover - that’ll sell a book.

Nothing screams sex quite like an eggplant.

Thanks, ladies, for posting my link. I have been loving the comments coming in on the cover change. First of all, I doubt I would have even noticed the “fog” if my publisher hadn’t sent me a stack of the original cover flats to drool over, months in advance of release—and sorry, I’ve already given them all away. I ran a poll on my newsletter, so I’ll admit my responses were skewed by the fact the first ones were almost entirely from my readers who expect naked booty, but I still managed to get a few who said they’d feel more comfortable picking up the book with the fogged out cover, so, in respect to sales, it was probably a good marketing ploy. Of course, my reaction, knowing it was a male buyer who objected, was that the decision was sexist—as Joanne said, naked women’s butts are fair game. And, if you’ll look at my other covers, I’ve got even more than that showing on some of the “acceptable” covers—you can see all of them at www.katedouglas.com (direct link to all twelve covers on one page) The first sexy beast book might not have shown a naked butt, but it didn’t hide the pubes…something I didn’t notice until readers pointed it out. (Not a single one of them was complaining, btw) We all have different comfort zones, and if your ultimate goal is more sales, then I guess the fogged cover is preferable. I, however, am really glad that the one I have framed in my office shows it all!

My problem with the “man flank” cover is, as usual, a problem with contorted positioning.  It looks like he is twisting his leg at a rather awkward angle (hence that flat look SB Sara noted)—I presume that’s to be sure that the camera catches flank and not any other bits.  But if he’s sitting on something that causes his thigh to be at that angle, then what is he looking at? Whatever it is, the “V” in the title is pointing to it like an arrow!

Oh wow, the Diagram Prize.  Priceless!  Thanks, SB Sara.  It is not raining here at all, but it’s the last day of a week-long heat wave, so I’m not planning on getting up off my arse to do much.

On the book cover;  honestly, what a ridiculous fuss!  Cover A looks completely innocuous to me.  Cover B is a bad design - if they want to crop the image higher, they need to do a complete re-design.

The Diagram prize - always a good source of entertainment!  The title that finally won the 30-year prize was Greek Rural Postmen and their Cancellation Numbers.

To clarify—there is no added lacquer on the changed cover. I imagine it’s merely the different scanners used to copy the art. And Cat—that’s not a trickle of fake tan on his thigh. If you could see the original you’d know you’re seeing droplets of water the model was sprayed with for the photo shoot. Btw, I’ve scanned the offending thigh into my “avatar” and hope it shows up!

As one of the authors in that anthology with Kate, I was surprised when I found the print cover in bookstores didn’t match the one I’d been showing off on my website. I have to say, I did like the man flank better, but I write naughty books so you know where my mind is normally. ;-)

Then again, I’m just happy to have my first book out…and my name on a cover with Kate and Vonna AND a pretty man.

Loved the Diagram Prize. I didn’t realize that there is enough information to print a book called How To Shit In The Woods, nor that there was enough information that a second revised edition had to be printed. LOL

:loves the ferrets:

I’ve watched little Peanut grow and grow. He’s going to have his pic of ferret ladies when he leaves his momma.

Their numbers got so low that genetic diversity is still an iffy thing.

Go BFFs! Keep on boinking!

—loves the ferrets!—

I’ve watched little Peanut grow and grow. He’s going to have his pic of ferret ladies when he leaves his momma.

Their numbers got so low that genetic diversity is still an iffy thing.

Go BFFs! Keep on boinking!

Definitely Cover A.  And honestly, if I have the cajones to walk up to the counter with a book titled, “Sexy Beast V,” then I definitely have no problem with a little man flank!

Loved the Diagram Prize. I didn’t realize that there is enough information to print a book called How To Shit In The Woods, nor that there was enough information that a second revised edition had to be printed. LOL

My father actually owned that book some years ago—it was a gift from his brother.  As I recall, it wasn’t really about defecation—it was more of a general manual on camping technique and how to dispose of one’s trash (not just personal waste) in an environmentally sound manner.  In other words, it was given a purposely lurid title in order to sell more books.

can man-butty be far behind?

Hm, I don’t know. It’s awfully close to “man-butter,” and… um… yeah.

Kate, thanks for the clarification.

Thanks for the update on all things ferret.  And that book title by Moth is awesome! 

Hunker down and stay dry, we’ll keep a weather eye out for Hurricane Ike next week.

Good grief- Michaelangelo wasn’t afraid to put man flank (and more) in his art.  The Sistine Chapel ceiling is a veritable smorgasbord of man flank!

The sad thing is that the poor model has probably done thousands of lunges and squats, and now nobody gets to see the result of all his hard work.

I can see why the publishers would choose to go with the second cover rather than the first one.  The first one is pushing the barriers of the sort of thing we see in the bookstores, and while I personally don’t have a problem with either version, the original is going to make a lot of people uncomfortable.  Stupid double standard.

Fact of the matter is, if the second cover means a bigger print run and sell-in than the first because one major retailer has concerns, then I say YEAH for Cover B!  Sell more books!!  No one is going to notice what’s missing because the vast majority of readers don’t know what’s not there.  Go publisher, IMO, for listening to their accounts and making it so that more books can be sold!

Oy, Kate, I hated seeing that lovely (and utterly inoffensive) body so whitely truncated!  What’s to see that would make children cry or matrons pee through their Depends?  There wasn’t even a hint of mushroom-headed, blue-veined, one-eyed trouser snake visible!

And what gives with the hypocrisy?  The title Sexy Beast in an aggressive font is acceptable, but a glimpse of sloping loin isn’t?  I will never understand . . .

Julie, as an author I agree 100% with you, and as I’ve said before, if I hadn’t seen the original and known exactly how gorgeous the poor guy’s body was, I wouldn’t have even noticed. I’m all for selling those books, but the woman in me agrees with Wryhag—to cover up ANY of that perfectly gorgeous body seems like a crime. (I, however, can’t say it nearly as eloquently…)

As regards the Diagram Prize…I hesitate to mention it, but my mom recently bought a copy of Six-Legged Sex: The Erotic Life of Bugs at my local Half-Price Books.  In her defence, she has a PhD in biochemistry (only about 6% of PhD’s in chemistry/biochem go to women)—oh, and she raids my and my sister’s stashes of romance novels.  And she otherwise has really weird taste in books.  For some reason, she was really, really (I mean, almost voyeuristically) excited about insect sex.

My mom’s really weird, but I love her.

‘The Virgin Black-Footed Ferret’s Secret Baby.’

LMAO!  I choked on my diet Coke!

Love that the bff is forever and indelibly associated with the romance novel.  Brings a tear to me eye, it does.

Just to throw in my 2 cents on the man-flank: Judging by your other covers, Kate, are you sure it was the skin that was the issue? I did notice that your name got un-stacked in the second version, and it did look a bit odd to me stacked in the first version. Once you un-stack your name, the whiteout would have to spread halfway through his flank, which would look worse than just taking it all the way across the bottom…so to speak…of the book. I do think they could have used a less aggressive transparency filter so we could still see that luscious bit of gym-rat, but it may have been as simple as design issues rather than prudery on their part.

Oops. Just re-read your comment on your site about the book-buyer, Kate. (Can’t imagine what distracted me from taking that in the first time. snort) Huh. Weird.

Anyway, my sister got me “How to Shit in the Woods” as a joke for Christmas one year. We both do quite a bit of hiking/backpacking, and the book is actually a pretty interesting read. As someone said earlier, it’s about low-impact camping/hiking/outdoors issues for those who might be a bit clueless.

Maybe the naked man-flank? That certainly distracts me! It was definitely a skin issue for the buyer, though as so many have reminded me in private emails, anyone willing to buy a book titled Sexy Beast in large, black letters, certainly isn’t going to have issues with a gorgeous shot of male butt.

. . . anyone willing to buy a book titled Sexy Beast in large, black letters, certainly isn’t going to have issues with a gorgeous shot of male butt.

Amen, sister!

Wow—so much to comment on, so little time. 
A.  It was not so much man-flank as it was ‘man-crease’.  That’s a very particular crease that was whited out.  The difference between that crease and the cover that went out is the difference between letting your kids open the amazon.com box and cutting out of work early to open the box in your room like a dirty old man looking at porn. 

B.  The Diagram Awards were hilarious.  Hands down. 

C.  Go for the little dirty footed grassland weasels, I’m all for reproduction.  But a line from the article really caught my eye:  “The sperm of the world’s most valuable males…”  Uhm… who else they got in there? Jeff Gordon? Josh Holloway?  Pierce Brosnan?  *shudder*  Dennis Leary, Bill Gates and Fabio?  Just askin’. 

(my password?  was44.  Sort of depressing really—I only turn 41 this month.)

“Man crease?” Oh my…I think my vocabulary just took a little side leap. I have to disagree on the level of sexuality involved in the crease between thigh and groin, but then again, I don’t see the naked body as particularly dirty, either. Unless, of course, it’s been out working in the yard all day and needs a bath.

The Diagram awards are great; I didn’t know that existed!  A few of us in a research lab I used to work in used to collect odd books for their titles when our school had bargain basement sales.  We left them in the lab’s permanent collection, for people to wonder about in years to come…  There are definitely some odd/funny titles out there.

The RNA holds some of its social events in the library of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, just around the corner from Buckingham Palace.  A clutch (a gaggle?  A bookshelf?  A bodice-ripper?) of romantic novelists spend an hour or two gazing—all right, giggling—in wonder at such titles as Lubricants: A History and Ball Bearings In he Nineteenth Century.  In fact there’s a whole section on lubricants.  And there’s wine too.  Giggling nearly always ensues.

Re. the odd book titles… I’m not sure I get it. They didn’t seem that odd to me. (But then, I once reprimanded a guy I was dating for not picking up a copy of a book called “Wood Stacking” when he came across it!)

Fabulous picture and hot bod, but I voted for cover B.  Not because I’m worried about me at the sales counter but rather for others that could be embarrassed when I read it in public.  Now, if they want to use the unedited pic inside the front cover (what’s that called?)...oh yeah, I’m all about enjoying that.  And make it waterproof b/c it might get licked or drooled upon.

On the other hand, romance already has a bad name in the industry..or several ie dirty books/crotch novels/porn…maybe publishers should consider ways to gain a little respect for the genre?