Recently, guest reviewer Lisa submitted a review for Isabella’s Rake, a 1997 Signet Regency by June Calvin that has been rereleased from Histria Press.
Lisa didn’t see the cover, nor did I, until I looked it up after editing and formatting the review for publication. The new cover is most likely generated by AI.
We refuse to host or promote generative AI content at SBTB. We all hate Gen AI. Hate it a lot. Speaking personally, AI stole my books, for which I’m getting part of the Anthropic settlement, and has scraped this entire website for use in language model training and for Google’s AI summaries, which have in turn decimated traffic to independent sites like this one.
Learning that the cover for the new release from the new publisher was very likely gen AI put us in a strange position, which led to this post.
On one hand, we want to help our community find books they might like, and Isabella’s Rake seems like a book many of you might like!
On the other, we do not want to host, promote, or profit from the use of generative AI book covers.
As many of you have said in your comments over the past few years, a cover that appears to be AI-generated indicates a deep disrespect for artists and designers while also signaling that the content of the book itself may involve generative AI.
We didn’t know anything about this publisher, and had no way of determining if the author generated the cover or if the publisher did. We know that authors don’t often have a say in cover art, but we have no idea to whom the gen AI cover can be attributed. Amanda and I have been discussing what to do, and she made a few discoveries.
Other re-releases from Histria seem to have received generative AI covers, such as this set from Barbara Metzger. And all of June Calvin’s Regency re-releases seem to have generative AI covers, too. So there may be some degree of comfort with allegedly generative AI covers in general at this house.
So what to do in this case? We want to introduce you to good review writers and to books you may want to read, but we don’t want to promote or host generative AI, or promote folks who use it.
In this case, we have a specific solution.
First, I’m going to share the review in this post. Because it’s a post and not a review, it will not appear in the BookFinder, and it won’t appear listed on our Review catalogue
But, if you would like to read it, fear not! There are used copies of Isabella’s Rake with the original Signet cover available secondhand, and possibly in some libraries. So we can link to them – please note, we have no affiliate agreements with these secondhand booksellers.
And if you’d like to read about this book so that you can decide whether you’d like to track down a vintage copy, here is the review:
Isabella’s Rake by June Calvin
Grade: A-
This guest review comes from Lisa! A longtime romance aficionado and frequent commenter to SBTB, Lisa is a queer Latine critic with a sharp tongue and lots of opinions. She frequently reviewed at All About Romance and Women Write About Comics, where she’s on staff, and you can catch her at _@thatbouviergirl on Twitter. There, she shares good reviews, bracing industry opinions and thoughtful commentary when she’s not on her grind looking for the next good freelance job.
…
June Calvin has been re-releasing her vintage Signet Regencies digitally, and I’ve been having quite the fun time revisiting them. Isabella’s Rake is quite the standout from the pack: a fun breeze of a Regency, light as a feather but a wonderfully crisp journey that left me giddy with bliss. It’s a happy book filled with plenty of wit that had me grinning as I read it. Blessed with a funny hero and a heroine who grows along with the story, Isabella’s Rake held me captivated on every page and it gets a very high rating for a reason.
Isabella “Bella” Eardly is an artist stymied both by the ton and her gender. She yearns to paint seriously, and schemes frequently with her best friend Virginia to get her work displayed in various places under a pseudonym. She also wants to find someone willing to teach her how to paint landscapes. Isabella’s grandmother sighs at her behavior: she wants Isabella to behave like a lady, but Isabella is not interested in “poise, grace and dignity” as her grandmother is.
Out of desperation, Isabella presents herself disguised as Clarence, the page of “Lady Virginia Douglas” (Virginia also pretending to be what she’s not) to Jean Maillot, a renowned teacher. They’re discovered and scorned by Jean until Harrison “Harry” Curzon, the Earl of Brantham, is suggested as an alternative. A friend of Jean’s and a member of the aristocracy, he, too, is a painter. Though much social pas de deux must happen, eventually Isabella lands her teacher. But naturally Harry’s initially not happy to be saddled with a young chit like Bella.
Student and teacher begin growing closer, with art as their joining medium. Bella is not one to think in terms of romance — the only thing she wants out of life is her art — but her father wants to marry her off to the odious Winkham – better known as Winky.
In desperation, Bella’s father tells her grandmother that he will finally release Bella’s mother from their tortured marriage if his daughter goes through with the union. They high-handedly agree to this bargain behind her back and try to push Bella to accept it. Bella knows she must do the right thing and grant her mother freedom. And yet Harry stirs her blood as no other has. Is it possible for them to find love and have an artistic career, or will she be forced to follow duty?
It’s lovely to have a Regency where the heroine gets to have her true calling AND true love, and every single word here had me spellbound because the book was wholly committed to Isabella’s happiness. Isabella’s Rake loves art, believes in the high art of romance, and won’t let its heroine compromise. I couldn’t help but be thrilled for everything Bella gets to accomplish in this book.
One forgets how revolutionary Signet’s Regency line could be – but this book goes full out with its heroine’s feminism and doesn’t force her to back off, make a compromise or give in. Her mind is antic, though not childish, and her schemes are funny but not overly ridiculous. She gets to reject the ton’s moral limitations upon her, gets to fly high – and gets Harry to boot. She is winning and lovable, and I just wanted her to do nothing but succeed.
Harry — the French-sponge-technique-for-birth-control mastering hero — is one handful of a fellow. Handsome and swoonworthy, he’s more than just a pretty face. He matches her mood for mood and lust for lust and dream for dream and that made me love him. She is his intellectual and emotional equal, and he recognizes that. He sees Bella’s worth and talent right from the start, which makes us like him and makes all of his titanic experience boil down to nothing while he’s near her. While Bella might initially seem innocent and unsophisticated, she proves easily that she’s more than his match. And while she loves landscapes, he loves portraiture — and hopes to reflect the world around him in all of its accuracy.
Their relationship defies so many expectations that it had me guessing right up to the last page as to how Harry and Bella would ever manage to get together. That’s quality writing, and that’s what kept me turning every single page. Those twists and turns and the truly romantic ending all had me smiling as it all unfolded. Isabella’s Rake is such a fun, expected gem of a romance, well worth a revisit.
You can find a pre-AI 1997 copy of this book at the following locations:
ALIBRIS | ABEBOOKS | THRIFT BOOKS | WORLDCAT (US Libraries)
So, I initially thought y’all were saying that 97 cover was Gen AI (because reading comprehension: it’s what I do lol). I fell into a bit of a panic, because I absolutely could not tell, and I like that cover, and …yeah. Panic. I know that day is probably coming for real, but for now the computer generated covers are still giving me the visceral ick, so my ethics and my tastes are in alignment.
I like to believe that I will still refuse to support this artistic apocalypse even once they have stolen enough to produce something appealing (I would really like to believe that won’t happen in the first place, of course). I have disliked the covers of romance novels since they started to go to photos instead of paintings, and the carton covers they’ve been doing make me miss even the bland object stage that I deplored, because things can always get worse and the universe really wants to make sure we never forget that. Thanks, universe! But these polyester covers are a fresh new hell, and I just…
I really appreciate this site and your stance.
I admit I did not realize the impact it was having on independent site traffic but am unfortunately not surprised to learn this. Is it because info is found in AI overviews/people don’t click through or the info is out in other locations?
I clicked through the links to see the examples. The people on the covers start looking a lot the same, among other issues.
Thank you for the position you’re taking. I’m definitely one of the most skeptical people I know when it comes to AI.
Thank you, @SB Sarah, for your thoughtful commentary. And thank you, @Lisa, for your review. You’ve definitely piqued my interest.
HOLD UP!!! Charles Geer did a gazillion romance and gothic covers in the way back when. This looks very much like his style. It could possibly be softened by AI but the minute I saw it I thought of his work. Do the Goog and see what you think. I used to go to the library and specifically look for book covers with his artwork on it because I knew it was going to be a good book.
@Julie I believe they shared the original cover in this post, if you click through the links you’ll see the new/replacement cover along with the author’s other replacement covers.
I write Regency romance & belong to a Regency writers group on FB. I’ve been surprised how many Gen AI covers writers use. This is just one group & my observation as a firmly anti-AI writer. I cannot say it applies to other romance sub-genres.
Thank you for your stance, and the work you did to verify and then find used copies. It’s much appreciated.
And thank you for the review! I’ve been enjoying dipping into older regencies and it’s great to have a new title to try.
Thanks, R Kaye. I completely missed the link. But dang, sure could pass for one of his covers. Such a classic look.
I loved loved loved Signet Regencies back in the 90s. I still have a big stack in my bookcase. Signet introduced me to many great authors, Mary Balogh, Edith Layton, Patricia Rice, Mary Jo Putney, Barbara Metzger, Laura Matthews, Anita Mills, etc. Some of these writers are still writing today. I actually liked the original covers a lot because they usually gave you a hint of the story. Each cover seemed unique to the story. The ai generated covers don’t give the same feel and, as such, seem bland.
I know ai is here to stay, but I can’t help but feel that using ai is just laziness. In addition to taking jobs previously done by humans, pretty soon we won’t have to think because ai will do that for us too. I saw Bill Gates’ editorial the other day. He’s gone from being an ai fanboy to an ai sceptic and is advocating for more regulations/control over how ai is used. Let’s hope more people, especially those who can do something about it, pay attention and act to control ai’s growth. Keep up the good fight bitches.
I am totally anti-AI, but it’s still a conundrum, because if you buy the new release, presumably the author will get a few pennies, and if you buy a used paperback she won’t.
Anyway, I put it on my paperbackswap.com wishlist, and I hope it comes up soon! The book sounds great.
The current edition publisher Histria Books has an AI policy on its site that begins “ Histria Books is committed to publishing works of authentic human creativity.” But even its home page has a big fat AI image, so I guess they only care about words and not images. I am extremely anti-AI for all the reasons including environmental ones. Don’t boil the ocean for a book cover.
I adore old regencies and I appreciate the convenience of Kindle copies, these AI covers are definitely making me lean towards buying used paperbacks. There are honestly days when AI seems so hard to avoid (not just covers, but slipping into writing) that I think about not reading modern books at all. I certainly would have enough to read if I stuck to books written before say, 20015. I realize that is very callous towards living authors who are fighting the good fight, but it’s hard to know up from down any more. The thing that stops me is I know reading modern, new authors is not just exciting as a reader, but a way to stay engaged in the world.
FWIW, Barbara Metzger and June Calvin have both passed away. So I (personally) don’t have any moral qualms about buying used paperbacks of their works.
I ran into this recently. I kept seeing The Favorites recommended over and over again and when I went to read the sample on Libby, I saw a disclaimer that the clothes on the cover were made with genAI. It sounded like an interesting premise, but I just can’t support a book that uses genAI.
@Jill Q, thank you for that info about the author. The “About the Author” section on Amazon’s listing of Isabella’s Rake talks about June Calvin in the present tense!
Ironically, on Histria’s Instagram page, they feature an indignant article about how AI companies are destroying books to train their models.
Thank you, Sarah, for this wonderful blog (and taking my review – I loved the book but was shocked to realize the cover was Gen AI)
First, I agree with your moral stance. Generative AI attempts to commoditize the human experience without actually involving real humans, and that’s not the point of being alive. (As I saw in a random comment section: Why would I want to read it if you didn’t even want to write it? Or, to paraphrase my spouse, Using AI for art is like using Deep Blue to make your chess moves. Even if you win the game, what was the point?)
So, given that, my questions at this point are more about how to manage our relationship with AI as the technology evolves:
– Is this stance economically feasible for you long term?
– What do you do when the technology advances to the point where it is impossible to tell the difference between what is AI and what is human?
– Products like Photoshop include some filters that are based on generative AI. They claim that these are trained solely on images that they own the rights to, removing some of the stolen content objections. I fully expect that some of these tools will eventually become accepted as standard by the field. Where should the lines be drawn then? (I think that the situation is advancing too rapidly to take hard stances on the future state of the industry, so this is more about the thought exercise of is there a situation where generative AI becomes OK.)
– What about Cover Snark?
@C: To your last question, Sarah and I go back and forth on that a lot. So far, we’ve landed on avoiding knowingly including any AI work, even in Snark because some may still see that as exposure or extra visibility.
We also try to be very careful about publicizing or levying AI accusations that we don’t feel fully confident in because there’s no foolproof method for AI detection.
Let me state first that I despise generative AI. My husband is a musician and it has decimated the jobs for people who provide the background music for mundane ads etc. It should not replace the creative work of people in any of the arts.
That said, June Calvin is re-releasing her works to provide income. If you purchase a vintage version from a reseller, that denies her the income from her re-released work.
I think a little nuance goes a long way here.
@susan
A comment above by Jill Q says that Calvin is deceased. In that case, no income would go to her.
@Msb I should have searched her before I commented but I searched now and she has an active Facebook page started in 2012. That account includes a post from January commenting on the obituary that is not her.
Could it be someone else running her account? Of course, anything’s possible.
But my point is broader than that. If an older author gets the rights back to their work and republishes it with an AI cover, I think allowing the living author to continue to earn money off their work outweighs their use of AI to create their cover.
@Julie I am so glad I am not the only one who feared the original cover was Gen AI! I was reminded of Francis Marshall, but I could absolutely see Charles Geer, and certainly whatever human painted it was going for that classic regency look. The new cover is horrifically uncanny valley to me, and I guess I should be relieved there was no attempt to make it look more like the original, or even to make it appealing in any way, but I am offended.
@susan I don’t want to support an author who is using Gen AI even if it’s “only” for the cover art, because I entirely agree with your point about replacing creative human art opportunities. It shows profound disrespect on the writer’s part for other artists, and also for their reading audience. Maybe she couldn’t license the original cover, or didn’t want to – tastes vary, and even if one loved the cover I can see worrying that it’s too dated for a new audience. Possibly rather than self publish she re-sold the rights to a publisher who gave her no say in the cover. But whoever is responsible decided to devalue the point of cover art to the extent they’re willing to subject people to that AI eye sore, and to destroy the environment doing it, so they can refuse a job to a human creative artist… that’s not tastes varying, that’s ethical bankruptcy. Voting with our wallets is the only way to influence the market. Someone should definitely bring this to June Calvin’s attention (assuming that the rumors of her death have in fact been exaggerated), and/or the publisher’s, so that they’re aware there is an audience who is hungry for these stories but not in this shameless packaging.
@C: I think people’s relationship to AI is up to them, and I’m not interested in making decisions or policies for other people, just myself and what we have control over at SBTB. I’ve taken a hard stance against it because the ongoing presumption is that AI is everywhere and “there’s nothing we can do.” Codswallop. The marketing of AI as “inevitable” is marketing.
In terms of whether it’s economically feasible for SBTB long-term: I have no idea. It’s already harmed the site irreparably, because AI summaries intercept traffic that would otherwise come here for information. I wasn’t given an option to participate; the content was scraped and used to build a summary database without consent or compensation. Am I gonna sue Google? Not likely, though if a class action is certified I’d be interested in learning about it. My recourses are mostly personal: I try not to use any AI summaries in search results, and most of the time I do searches at https://udm14.com/ to circumvent AI.
What do I do if I can’t tell the difference? I keep trying to tell the difference.
I’ve gotten better at spotting some of the “tells” of Gen AI images, especially with people and lighting. I’m a human so I’m not going to get it right 100% of the time, but I am fortunate that I have a community here that will speak up – and will understand when I curse about it loudly.
Where should lines be drawn for software suites that include image filters based on gen-AI? Like I said, I can only form my own policies for my work here, and if I know or have a strong suspicion something is Gen AI, I don’t use those assets. The tools may be accepted as standard, but I don’t have to use them.
Regarding Cover Snark: if we think a cover is Gen AI, we don’t use it in Cover Snark. If we’re informed that something is Gen AI, we take it down and I gripe about having been unable to spot the difference.
If this is a hard stance that cannot last against future developments, that’s okay. I took a stance and I’m holding it as long as I can. I can’t see the future, but I can see the present, and as I said, I refuse to accept that AI is inevitably going to infect everything around me. I can still say no and set my own policies. If I make a mistake and publish something that is against those policies, I take it down and own it and also curse a lot. I’m stubborn and petty and pissed off, and when I have a say as to whether Gen AI is involved in my work, I say no. I can’t control other parties’ decisions, but I can control my own, and for as long as I can stand here, this is where I’ve landed.
@Sb Sarah (insert applause emojis here!)