Covers Again . . . Let Your Opinions Be Known in the Publishing Industry!
by sue on Oct.19, 2009, under Book Chat
***Correction! Sorry Sarah, I know your book is historical I had it in the wrong talking points pile . . .forgive me 
I know, you’re wondering why is she obsessed with book covers? A few weeks ago we debated about chest hair & the consensus is a little is good, none is fine but TOO MUCH IS TOO MUCH - EW!
In the publishing world we beat our heads against rocks trying to figure out what in blazes attracts those readers. So today, that is the question, what covers best attract YOU the reader?
Looking at the covers below they obviously fit the paranormal genre theme – they are all men . . .except for a few that are women? What is that about, I mean hey, we’re healthy hetro-sexual women, reading romance books right? So we want something that attracts us & that is good looking men, right? So why would publishers put women on covers? I mean, it is all about the men & that is what we want to look at, right?
So here are a few historical covers — mostly embraces . . but wait, women again? What is that all about????
Contemporary covers . . cute, fun, oh no . . . women? On Romance covers????
So, what do you think? Should women be on Romance covers? Depends on the story line? Your responses below will be rolled up into a letter to publshers letting them know just what we think.. . ok? Game on!
No related posts.
96 Comments for this entry
1 Trackback or Pingback for this entry
-
Tweets that mention Covers Again . . . Let Your Opinions Be Known in the Publishing Industry! - trueromance -- Topsy.com
October 19th, 2009 on 8:24 am[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Lucienne Diver and Sue Grimshaw, Sortis Publishing. Sortis Publishing said: Publishing News Covers Again . . . Let Your Opinions Be Known in the Publishing … http://bit.ly/328SyN [...]
Leave a Reply
About Sue & Borders True Romance Blog
Sue G - Borders True Romance Host - Borders Romance Buyer, reads romance. For her JOB. No, really. You can email Sue at sgrimshaw at bordersgroupinc dot com.
Borders True Romance Blog is a community, developed for you, the romance reader, to find out more about the books you love; the authors who write them & where to buy them :) Borders.com
RomCon™ 2010, the premier romance readers’ convention, celebrates the romance genre and its wonderful readers. Bring your friends and join fellow book lovers and authors for the ultimate 3-day weekend getaway at the only romance convention that focuses solely on readers! The convention program includes interactive events, chats, fun and games hosted by published authors, readers, and publishers. Come talk books, blogging, reviewing, and everything in between! Flying solo? Sign up for our Buddy Program and meet new friends at RomCon™ who love the same books you do! Tickets cost $125 - $250. Chat with your favorite authors at multiple events. We’ve got photo ops, contests, treasure hunts, mini-shows, free books, and goodies galore! Register today to be included in free lotteries for author hosted teas and intimate chats with your favorite bestselling authors. Just a few of the authors attending include: Anna Campbell, Christine Feehan, Carly Phillips, Cindy Gerard, Elizabeth Hoyt, Hannah Howell, Jo Beverly, Julia Quinn, Jeaniene Frost, Lori Foster, Melissa Mayhue, Nalini Singh, Susan Mallery, & Tara Janzen. And don’t forget – we’re looking for a reader to host our WereSquares Game Show event! Check the website for details and send in your audition video today! We’re throwing a party! See you there!
Friend Feed
January 31st, 2010 on 2:12 pm
Well hopefully at least they will start putting more sculpted, muscular women on the action herione covers instead of the unattractive stick figures they usually put on. blah. I mean there’s always such muscular, buff men on most romance novel covers to the point where you may start to consider whether it is exploitive to men (you would certainly at least consider it if it were half naked women being shown so much somewhere). I say balance it out by showing some muscular women; they’re certainly a lot hotter than skinny ones, and since more women are working out than ever before I think it’s only fair and reasonable that they should receive some representation.
But I think this whole idea is pretty petty. Whining about women being on covers? Please. I guess it proves that straight women are in everyway as squirmy and sexually insecure as straight men are about seeing half naked images of the same sex. As a man, I like the idea of men being free to look sexy and sexually entice women using their looks alone like women have always had the freedom to do (ie, sexual/beauty power), but perhaps you shouldn’t be so insecure about seeing some female flesh on the cover. Men have only recently started to squirm less about seeing good looking male flesh; I wouldn’t suggest you regress to where we once were.
January 31st, 2010 on 1:19 pm
I’d only buy romance novels with hot, toned, even muscular women on the cover with nice bosoms and round asses. Trust me, that is the future.
October 21st, 2009 on 10:34 am
Hey there — recap for the blog is as follows:
Men - 49% yes
Women - 13% yes
Both - 27% yes
Depends - 11%
You also said, covers must be TASTEFUL; depict the story; appealing colors; eye catching; quote or something that attracts you to pick it up. Overall, it depends on the sub-genre.
Thanks for playing! This will be recapped & shared with our publishing friends.
Best,
Sue
October 19th, 2009 on 10:49 pm
Perhaps Fran and I were separated at birth — this is what she said: “I’m not alone here. Everyone of my friends who read romances holds these same feelings. Great books, great authors, great talent, HORRID COVERS WE ARE ASHAMED TO PURCHASE. May as well add here…the titles! Could we please have a title without the word/s RAKE, SCOUNDREL, SEDUCE, DESIRE, DUKE, WICKED. Talk about confusing and lack of imagination. I think the publishers are using outmoded statistics and methods of obtaining same. Look at the titles that only feature a cover with a countryside or mansion or a DOG. They do well. It’s the AUTHOR. Those icky covers sell IN SPITE of the half naked people on the front because of the AUTHOR. The STORY. The REVIEW.”
Janet here: I never, or hardly, hardly ever pick up a book on impulse at a bookstore and certainly never a romance. I read reviews, talk to friends and carefully track when my fave books will be released. I bought a Georgette Heyer mystery yesterday at our marvelously rearranged and mashed up Borders (suck suck, but it’s true!) but that’s because someone put the mysteries next to the Romances. I hate and detest and loathe (I hope that’s strong enough) the cheesy covers that make me roll my eyes. I buy the books in spite of them. The Naked in Death series covers are OK. Some of the motif or jewel covers are fine too. Growing up, I was very fond of the Heyer covers: http://www.georgette-heyer.com/puce.html. And I like her new covers, the reproductions of paintings. I don’t find most romance covers to be the slightest bit appealing because they just seem silly, frothy and interchangeable. Pastoral scenes are OK. My BFF likes the stepback covers because they give her an idea of the two characters (when the publisher has the characters match up w/the pictures, that is).
This, more than anything, will eventually lead me to buy an e-book reader. I think it’s great that you, Sue Grimshaw, are asking these questions but perhaps you’re a voice in the wilderness too?
October 21st, 2009 on 10:20 am
Hopefully not — I’m tallying the answers now to compile for our publishing friends — never on deaf ears
Thanks for commenting!
October 19th, 2009 on 10:04 pm
I don’t mind men and women on the cover. The story is usually about both of them so why shouldn’t she be included.
October 19th, 2009 on 9:57 pm
Ok, I admit it–I’m too busy reading to do a lot of fooling with social sites, websites etc.
On the covers–I HAVE been known to buy a book just for the cover. Unfortunately usually the reason for buying that cover is–its too cheesy for WORDS and I have to have it to lmao at.
What I want in a REAL cover:
if humans are shown–they should definately look like the descriptions of the hero/heroine in the book. Reading a book about a red headed heroine with a blond bimbo on the cover drives me nuts. Likewise if the hero is described as dark haired and they show a blond or vice versa.
covers that show at least some HINT of what the contents are. If its a UF I want edgy, dark and, yes, tattoos if humans are shown. Otherwise, dark, swirly atmospheric shots with the author’s name and the title in some bright bold colour.
For PNR, I want a nice male, preferably looking like the hero–is he a vamp–show fangs. A were–show something that indicates that. If he’s a demon–something to show that, even if its shown as misty horns etc. One cover that drove me batty (pun intended) was the cover on Kresley Cole’s “A Hunger Like No Other” since it IMPLIED that the male was the vamp–when it was actually the female that was the (half-blood) Vamp.
I have an original copy of “Wages Of Sin” by Jenna MacLaine that actually had a landscape scene on it. But I really liked that cover much better than the cover that was put on the second edition of that book Sorry, this was NOT taking place in modern times, so that red bias cut gown (yes, I AM a seamstress) just didn’t do it for me. If they wanted to put her on the cover, why, why, why couldn’t they have put her in a period accurate gown??????
Ok, and that brings up my last major gripe. PLEASE do some research on the appropriate dress style for the period and make sure that your cover models are dressed accordingly. I do like to have at least a vague idea of the time period that the story is supposed to be taking place.
Um, ok, getting off my soapbox now.
October 19th, 2009 on 9:45 pm
Great topic, Sue! I love guy-only covers. I prefer having the half-faced male. I don’t care for the clinch covers. And I get tired of seeing the same poses and the same cover models. Aren’t there more than 3 handsome men in the world?
I’m fairly opinionated! But I’ll often buy a book despite its cover, especially if I’ve read a great blog by the author and am intrigued!
October 19th, 2009 on 9:17 pm
Sorry had to add a 5th point: realism. If it isn’t realistic for Joe Romance to wear a jacket without a shirt (and who does this???) then don’t put it on the cover.
Ok done now. I think.
October 19th, 2009 on 9:16 pm
The only ones I actually like are the Meljean Brook and Julie James titles. The rest leave me either indifferent, prone to snark (the man on ‘Darkest Whisper’ and woman on ‘Taken by the Laird are both clearly MUCH more interested in whether the pose they are striking looks good from afar than anything else) or confused as to whether I should be repulsed or break into maniacal, incredulous laughter (penis sword of Atlantis Unleashed)
October 19th, 2009 on 9:15 pm
I’m still a fan of the man and woman clutching one another surrounded by silk sheets.
October 19th, 2009 on 9:15 pm
Ok, first let me say that there is nothing wrong with looking at a hot man (or woman) but I don’t want them on the cover. I want the cover to do 4 things:
1. Give me a clue on the story - if the cover shows just a rose, what am I to think?
2. I want it to be visually pleasing - for the most part this is easy enough.
3. I want a hint of the atmosphere of the book. If it is contemp romance with humor, give me a visual clue that there will be laughs.
4. Leave off the naked body parts. If I want naked body parts I’ll go read porn. Nothing wrong with an embrace or a woman flashing some leg, but oftentimes I wonder if these people own any clothes.
October 19th, 2009 on 8:59 pm
Oh, wanted to say that I absolutely love Victoria Dahl’s contemporary covers. I absolutely adore those.
October 19th, 2009 on 7:52 pm
First there are so many factors to what makes a cover good. But, I never really noticed if I pick up books that have men on the cover over women? But I do shy away from a cover that has a face that doesn’t grab me. Or something else that just throws me off. Meljean’s cover…all I could think was side boob. So if a publisher is going to have a face they have got to get the eyes right. More often than not the eyes just don’t have the umph. (Or maybe I’ve watched too many episodes of America’s Next Top Model.)
The conclusion with people on the cover–just do the half-body kind. I liked Rachel Gibson’s cover for the same reason I liked Kresley Cole’s and Alyssa Day’s. The colors aren’t too striking to the eye, and somehow the fantasy of romance can still hold even after I start reading the book. (I know I’m not the only person to stop reading after a description of the heroine or hero to look at the cover again.)
Sidenote: I think what the publishers might be getting wrong with the female on the cover is that they are trying to sell either sensuality or helplessness. Victoria Dahl’s cover is trying to sell sex to a female. And Margo Maquirre’s cover is showing a heroine who looks to be swooning from the hero’s touch i.e. I have no control = I’m helpless.
Just a throw-away theory.
October 19th, 2009 on 8:21 pm
Boy - you bring up some points I’ve not thought of . . maybe it is the wrong female — needs to be a stronger image of a heroine that we may aspire to be . . interesting.
Great comments - thanks!
October 19th, 2009 on 7:18 pm
Hm. I think I don’t really mind if the models are male or female, but I really like a boldness of color and title. I thought Gail Carriger’s was very striking, and ditto Larissa Ione.
I also love the color-wash covers like JR Ward and Lynsay Sands. So pretty!
And Kresley Cole’s upcoming cover is gorgeous.
So I’m addicted to color more than a particular model.
October 19th, 2009 on 7:05 pm
I currently chair the annual romance cover contest sponsored by the Cover Cafe website. One thing I’ve learned during my years volunteering with the contest is this - one person’s meat is another person’s poison. One thing that holds true is a great cover that catches the eye and sparks the imagination will win over readers whether man, woman, front, back, hairy or hairless. It’s all about executing all of the elements and matching the story inside.
You can check out past contest winners at http://www.covercafe.com.
Linnae
October 19th, 2009 on 6:47 pm
Oh to be honest…bring on the man-titty, I find it sexy! I don’t typically by a book because of its cover…I’m all about the blurb, and those I usually take w/a grain of salt, why do so many descriptions have so little to do with the actuall story? Or is it just me?
October 19th, 2009 on 8:24 pm
Agreed - more often than not the back cover copy is so vague you’re still clueless to what the story is about.
Thanks for your comment!
October 19th, 2009 on 5:48 pm
I have only once kept a book because of the cover and that was A Wallflower Christmas by Lisa Kleypas. It’s just so pretty that I want it on my bookshelf.
I don’t care too much for a lot of the kick-ass, dark, glowering paranormal covers. Then again, I dont care for a lot of the kick-ass, dark, glowering paranormal stories either.
I like softer covers like the cover of Garden Spells with all the greenery, Can’t Stand the Heat with the feet and the evocative suggestiveness. I liked the covers of the Victoria Dahl contemps.
And I do like bright colors and feminine tropes like the shoes, purse and lipstick. I enjoy chick lit so obviously the blend of that and romance bother me not a whit.
I’m a woman reader who reads books generally by women authors who attract me more with well written heroines so I guess feminized covers are made for me
October 19th, 2009 on 4:55 pm
I have wondered that myself, Sue! Sexy books aimed at women…why put a woman on the cover? Even though I loved my first cover, I’m so much liking the second one with the guy on it better.
For urban fantasy, the female lead of the series on the cover is great, because readers want to read about a strong woman and not necessarily a romance/hot hero.
But for romancers…yeah, the guy should at least be central if there’s a woman on the cover, too. I like to see both characters as long as the guy’s on top…uh, I mean, in front! LOL
October 19th, 2009 on 5:33 pm
LOL — thanks for your comment — BTW, you have great covers!
October 19th, 2009 on 3:29 pm
I shop mostly by author and buzz, but when I’m browsing…
I won’t pick up books with:
- a (contemporary) cover with only scenery. It makes me think “women’s fiction”
- a (contemporary) cover with only a woman or with a graphic of something feminine (a shoe, lipstick, etc.). It makes me think “chick lit”
- a cover with only a woman in a kick-ass posture. It makes me think sci-fi/urban fantasy and I won’t pick it up unless I recognize the author as a romance author. This doesn’t bother me as much for fantasy, though. I have the impression that fantasy books have more (eventually) resolved romances than urban fantasies. Not sure why…
I like torsos, but a full view from the back is OK, too. It bothers me when the faces on the covers don’t match the image I get from the book.
I don’t mind a woman on the cover, as long as it’s tasteful. I don’t want to see a lot of cleavage or her bare rear end (anyone remember Big Spankable Asses?!). These are the only type of books I think twice about reading in public. Anything else I don’t care. I do like the historical trend with women’s backs (not necessarily half-undressed, maybe a loosened bodice or something similar)
Men & women on covers are fine, but I prefer men on the covers–I’m with Larissa Ione on enjoying the hero’s POV so having only a man on the cover makes me think the book will not just center around the heroine.
So to sum up, a cover may make me pick up a book, but certain covers will definitely dissuade me from picking up a book, if that makes sense.
October 19th, 2009 on 5:35 pm
Just have to comment on BSA — did not lot & that got a whole lot of ridicule around the office!
October 19th, 2009 on 3:28 pm
My favorite covers recently have been Tessa Dare’s and the gorgeous new editions of Georgette Heyer’s books. Yes, they show faces, but they are so pretty to look at, and there’s something going on besides clinching or disrobing. I also like covers on historical romances that show the fashions of the period (accurately!), although detailed male fashion is rare due to the prevalence of bare chests.
I get tired of trends in romance covers, because it makes it hard to tell books apart. We have had quite a few bare back historical covers now, and the recent trend of one bare leg, and it makes it hard for me to remember which one is the book I liked or wanted to buy. Same with kick-ass heroines/tattooed chicks on UF and paranormal covers — my eyes glaze over on those now, even the ones that are really great artwork.
October 19th, 2009 on 5:36 pm
Interesting — a good cover concept does seem to get used more than once in a brief period of time. Thanks!
October 19th, 2009 on 3:20 pm
I was in my local Borders store just this morning (yes I know, shameless kissing up) picking up a book for hubby and of course I just *had* to browse through the romance section. After getting home and seeing this question I thought back to what caught my eye in the store. Then I did an experiment. I went and stared at my to-be-read pile and grabbed what caught my eye. You know what? It’s the spine that first grabs me. I read mostly paranormals which trend heavily to the dark side of the color spectrum so rich colors stand out. The books in my TBR pile that caught my eye were Gena Showalter’s Lords of the Underworld books - bold red, blue and yellow. Meljean Brooks latest - yellow. Also Gail Carriger’s “Soulless” - bright pink against gray really shows up.
As for the actual covers though, I definitely want a guy on there. I don’t need full frontal or nearly nude (I’m not complaining mind you) but as someone else pointed out I want the cover models to match the character!
I really like the cover on one of the books I bought this morning. Kresley Cole’s “Kiss of a Demon King”. The man on the front is in profile and he has a tattoo, a sword, and chains (Whew!). The colors are all shades of gray except for the title and author’s name that are in turquoise ink. They made the man’s eye that color as well so it shines in the right light. Sounds a little hokey but I find it very dramatic, totally works for me!
Guess this boils down to - men with bold colors!
October 19th, 2009 on 5:37 pm
We like kissing up here at Borders LOL — thanks for your comments & how timely we are too
October 19th, 2009 on 2:10 pm
Yes to women on covers. Why not? Books for women depicting women. Win, win. I also like the artistic covers, or ones with more scenery. Am rather sick of the cheesy half naked man over the top Fabio era covers, to be honest. We all know people deride romance readers - why make it easier?
October 19th, 2009 on 5:38 pm
I know what you’re saying but gosh, we’re women hear us roar & all that
October 19th, 2009 on 1:52 pm
I like women on the covers - I want to know if the heroine is someone I can identify with or not. The problem is, of course, that all too often the woman on the cover bears no resemblance at all to anyone in the book. I was shocked when you (I think it was you) interviewed the woman responsible for the latest Heyer covers and she admitted that she never read the books. It really shows - those covers do nothing to represent the books they are supposed to sell.
So, I don’t mind if you give me the hero or the heroine or both or neither - but I really mind if the cover ought to be on a different book altogether.
October 19th, 2009 on 1:12 pm
I buy books by author and other reader’s recommendations so the cover has little to do with my online purchases.
But if I’m looking for books in a brick & mortar store then the covers sometimes mean I won’t miss the books I’m looking for.
In the paras above the COVET cover catches my eye and Meljean’s cover is bright and bold. (they are both auto-buys for me so I’m happy to see them with great covers!) I find the other four covers to be too similar to stop me in an aisle.
I’m loving the gorgeous dress covers for the historicals right now, but the Kathryn Smith cover has that pow-yellow and an excellent couple that would pull me to at least look at it. SB Sarah has ruined any chance that I could pick up the Maguire book without thinking (adjectives deleted by my own hand, lol!)snark, but I would be laughing and not buying.
For the contemporarys it has become ‘every couple looks the same’ so the Dahl cover is great if you’re looking for a picture that shouts “sexy contemporary”.
Still, my favorite book covers of all time are the step-backs that were done for Amanda Quick’s historicals by artist Pino. They were gorgeous and hidden behind a very conservative front cover.
Another great topic and obviously a favorite of authors and readers alike!
October 19th, 2009 on 5:40 pm
Thank you! Hopefully we’ll have some fun tomorrow — we’ve got a bookseller expert on tomorrow & she rocks!
October 19th, 2009 on 12:55 pm
I’m probably in the minority here, but bare chested dudes on the front cover turns me off.
I like couples on the front the most in paranormal romance.
But my first perference is kick-ass women on the front, it’s a relatable thing.
But you see, I don’t read for the heros, I read for the heroines, to relate to them, to be them.
October 19th, 2009 on 12:54 pm
I don’t care who’s on the cover. That said, a man in a kilt or a woman with a plaid on will get my attention and make me at least pause if I don’t know the author. If I know the author and like them, I will likely pick up the book without reading the blurb on the back.
Other than that, I think it is generally about the artistry of the cover. I like embraces and such and I don’t even mind the headless heroes.
No people, that’s okay too; but you better have a crackin’ good title or other graphic to catch my attention unless I know who you are.
October 19th, 2009 on 12:52 pm
I’m with you, Sue, show me the men – LOL!
I associate a woman alone on the cover like the Meljean Brook one above with urban fantasy which I don’t read a lot of. But I think the genre does have some beautiful covers.
I prefer covers that feature just the hero or the hero & heroine together. I don’t mind clinch covers so long as the woman doesn’t appear to be falling out of her bodice. Those I find cheesy.
I like faces, too, so long as they at least resemble the character as described in the book. I can’t tell you how many books I have where the hair color of the hero and/or heroine is all wrong, not to mention length of hair, curly vs straight etc. If they are going to keep the head in frame than they should make an effort to match up the model with the author’s character descriptions.
I like people on my covers. I am not a fan of the symbol or scenery covers, which is certainly the trend with many romance authors published in hardcover.
October 19th, 2009 on 1:01 pm
Like minds obviously
Thanks for your comment!
October 19th, 2009 on 12:34 pm
Random thoughts: I like barefoot men in jeans on contemporary covers. Women’s backs are very sensual and elegant for historicals. I don’t care about dresses, but some of those YA historical covers are beautiful. YA covers in general are very edgy and cool. I like clinches.
Sexy covers and bare chests are great–I don’t need anything classy or “tasteful” LOL. One cover I thought was embarrassing depicted the hero, from behind, in buff breeches. He looked nude. : )
October 19th, 2009 on 1:02 pm
Yes, publishers need to be careful not to take it too far — need to be tasteful.
October 19th, 2009 on 12:31 pm
Well first off, I don’t care whether other people see me reading a romance novel or not. The covers are always going to be designed a certain way so that we romance readers can pick them out at 200 feet and I don’t think that’s going to change and I wouldn’t want it to change.
I actually like clinch covers, but I do prefer historically accurate costumes, (all the heroine’s clothes falling off and no corset, gets a bit overdone after a while.)
I love male torso covers and bits of naked skin.
I’m not sure if most readers are aware of how little control an author has over her cover. Sometimes you just have to smile and accept what you get
October 19th, 2009 on 1:04 pm
yes, but, maybe our post will influence some of our publisher friends
October 19th, 2009 on 12:11 pm
Well, my opinions vary depending on the subgenre.
For paranormals, I want the lone man. I like that dark, dangerous and powerful feel it gives a book to have the man on the cover, shirtless or not. He’s the hero, and he’s going to kick some booty and take some names.
When a woman is alone on an atmospheric paranormal cover, I think it’s going to be Urban Fantasy in first person with a female narrator. I’m not a fan of first person or urban fantasy, so I’ll avoid those.
When two people are together, depending on the state of dress, or lack thereof, I usually think the book’s going to be on the erotic side.
For historicals, I want to see the lone woman in the gorgeous dress. Part of the appeal of historicals for me are the costumes, and I love to see the dress. Also, dress a historical hero up, and he can’t help looking a little effeminate. I don’t have a problem with that, but I’d prefer to see the dress.
With contemporaries, if the contemporary is fun or sassy at all, I want the woman on there, because it is hard to portray whimsical and sassy with a man. It just makes him look ridiculous.
So the bottom line with covers is that they have to portray the tone of the book. I don’t care who is on it so long as I can tell the dark and intense books from the light and witty books, and something about the cover gives me a clue to the subgenre.
October 19th, 2009 on 12:17 pm
Picky Picky Picky — LOL — just kidding — great insight - thanks Jess!
October 19th, 2009 on 1:55 pm
Also, dress a historical hero up, and he can’t help looking a little effeminate.
I beg to differ. There’s nothing effeminate at all about, say, a soldier in the Napoleonic wars, or a 17th century highlander in his plaid, or a Viking warrior in full battle dress.
October 19th, 2009 on 12:10 pm
I love covers of practically all kinds. I love Loretta Chases covers with the woman revealing just a bit of skin, the gown all billowing around her. I love the clinch. Always have, always will. It symbols sizzle to me. The type of covers I don’t really care for are ones without people. It might be a fantastic book, but it doesn’t pique my interest enough to turn it over and read the back of the book. A book doesn’t have to have a man on it, but if he’s not there, it does make me wonder if the story’s all about the woman as opposed to the man. I don’t mind that. But I’d rather see a couple or just the man. And he doesn’t have to be showing off a six-pack. I love a guy in a tux, or business suit, makes me imagine what it would be like to slowly undo his tie, pop open his buttons one by one, ok, you get the picture. LOL
October 19th, 2009 on 11:51 am
Women on covers don’t bother me. the only thing I don’t really like it the completely headless bodies that were the trend for a while.
October 19th, 2009 on 2:58 pm
Ok, Shiloh, exactly WHAT do you have against the headless horseman?? I think he’s rather dashing in his evilness. LOL
October 19th, 2009 on 11:45 am
I love men on the covers! But that might reflect my reading and writing choices — I’m VERY herocentric. When I pick up a book by an author I haven’t read (or even one I have,) I’m more likely to pick up a gorgeous cover with a man on it, and when I flip it open, if the first scene starts in his POV, the author has me. Right there.
It’s much harder for me to get into a book that starts out in the heroine’s POV.
I’m probably a weirdo…
October 19th, 2009 on 11:53 am
Totally a weirdo
But speaking of someone who has gorgeous covers, your male/female covers knocked it out of the park. Those were AMAZING.
I like the newest, too (I need a cold drink after looking at it) but I do think your first three were my favorites.
October 19th, 2009 on 11:59 am
LOL — thank you! I have to say, Grand Central Publishing did me right with those covers. I pet them whenever possible. *g*
Book 5 should go back to a m/f cover — I can’t wait to see it!!!!
BTW, even though I tend to like men on covers, your newest is my very favorite. It’s amazing!
October 19th, 2009 on 11:42 am
I NEVER buy books with landscapes or pretty flowers on the cover unless there’s a stepback or back cover with at least a good-looking man on it. I am a healthy heterosexual woman who is not embarrassed by her sexuality or depictions thereof. I don’t hide my book covers either at work, at the store, or when I’m out and about. If the author is a favorite, I will read a book with a landscape but only if I can get it at the library or the used bookstore where I can trade it in immediately afterwards.
Let’s face it, romance novels are about relationships and relationships mean people. I’m most interested in the male half of the couple so I want a good looking man on the cover, shirtless preferably. I can accept a woman if the man is also there but I am just not interested in women so don’t care to look at them on my covers, especially if they’re falling out of their clothes as was very common on Old Skool(copyright SBTB, I’m sure) covers. If I want to review fashions, I’ll pick up a fashion magazine.
I am a feminist from waaay back and looking at gorgeous men is empowering. I actually think of the covers as works of art (like Michaelangelo’s David, one of my favorites!). That said, I prefer the model’s heads to be included (my imagination is obviously lacking). If someone thinks less of my intelligence because of what I read, that’s not my problem and I just ignore her/him and have pity for the ignorance displayed. And it’s a sign of our still overly patriarchical society that half-naked women all over the place is okay but half-naked men are not.
I have literally picked up a book by a new author just because of the male model on the cover (actually I collect romance novels with certain male models). I’ve found some wonderful authors that way (the very first romance I ever read was by Johanna Lindsey with Fabio on the cover, Sandra Hill, Christine Feehan, and others too numerous to mention). Of course, I’ve also ended up with some books I could not finish due to poor writing and/or characterization. But a good-looking guy catches my eye like nothing else (literally)!
October 19th, 2009 on 11:58 am
Thank you for your comment — you have so eloquently put into words what most of us agree with.
I must say, I don’t mind a man’s face on the cover if it is shadowed, or profile — I do not like a full frontal . . . but, that would work for you wouldn’t it?
Awesome comment - Thank you!
October 19th, 2009 on 11:32 am
I wrote a couple of blog posts about this not too long ago that were a little tongue-in-cheek … but also not. I put up some of those old Johanna Lindsay covers like Defy Not The Heart (Fabio, gah!) and Tender Rebel, and the thing that struck me most deeply was how VIBRANT the woman looked in those covers. Sure, the guys were all beefcake, and one was even wearing lavender tights, but the color scheme and the composition said to me: This book is about a woman, a strong and vibrant woman, and this is her journey, and her romance.
I loved that. I know the covers are cheesy, but I love what they seemed to say.
And my cover is up there, too, and I also spoke on that in another post. It’s a slightly more personal reason, in that I grew up always looking for strong heroines — on TV, in books, movies. So when I see a woman depicted that is strong, strong, strong and sexy (but without being reduced to T&A) I’m likely to snatch it up, because I’m hoping that the character depicted on the front will be on the pages. And I think that’s why we see so many heroines on UF covers, but as paranormal romance continues to see heroines that are basically action heroes, I wouldn’t be surprised if more heroines began showing up in PNR covers as well (and that’s a trend I can get behind.)
I do love a nice male chest as much as the next girl — but romance has and always will be about the woman to me. So I love seeing them on the covers.
October 19th, 2009 on 11:51 am
And I just watched the video (I have a habit of watching them after I comment, which I should probably break.) Thank you, Sue!
October 19th, 2009 on 12:01 pm
LOL — thanks — & thanks for your comment. Interesting point of view which I’m sure you’re in good company — can’t wait to tally this post!
Sue
October 19th, 2009 on 10:53 am
I NEVER go buying without a list. I NEVER buy a book spontaneously. I NEVER buy a book because of it’s cover. (It’s always IN SPITE of it’s cover.) I buy the author. There are enough web sites around that most people are on the hunt for a book that’s been given a good review. I’m always embarrassed by the covers. I place them face down on the counter when buying. I hold them face to my body while walking. Hide them in my purse. Never bring up exactly WHAT I’m reading because so many people regard Romance as stupid. Why all the above? BECAUSE OF THE COVERS. Now, let’s be honest. We all know exactly in what way these covers are demeaning. Suggestive, undraped models. Legs over hips, bodices ripped. Pants unzipped or unbuttoned, focus on the crotch! The models look 24 years old with modern makeup and hairdos. They’re demeaning to the authors, to the genre, historical, contemporary, fantasy, science fiction, etc., and to us, the readers. New authors can’t demand better and older, more powerful authors either don’t care any longer or they already receive respectful covers, like Nora Roberts. We, as readers, no longer need these covers to know they are romances. They’re now in the ROMANCE SECTION in book stores, libraries, used book stores, etc. I’m not alone here. Everyone of my friends who read romances holds these same feelings. Great books, great authors, great talent, HORRID COVERS WE ARE ASHAMED TO PURCHASE. May as well add here…the titles! Could we please have a title without the word/s RAKE, SCOUNDREL, SEDUCE, DESIRE, DUKE, WICKED. Talk about confusing and lack of imagination. I think the publishers are using outmoded statistics and methods of obtaining same. Look at the titles that only feature a cover with a countryside or mansion or a DOG. They do well. It’s the AUTHOR. Those icky covers sell IN SPITE of the half naked people on the front because of the AUTHOR. The STORY. The REVIEW. Well, as you can see, I could go on and on. This is a really hot button for me. Thank you so much for this opportunity. Please publishers…give the authors, the genre and US, the readers, the respect we deserve. It’s way past time.
And I truly believe, in the long run, you will come out ahead buy selling more books to all the people who right now wouldn’t touch one with THOSE covers with a 10 foot pole.
October 19th, 2009 on 12:04 pm
Thanks Fran — I do agree that Best Selling authors could have a blank cover & still sell as long as their name is front & center.
Great feedback - Thanks!
October 19th, 2009 on 10:52 am
Sue,
Great video. Great topic.
As a reader, what I look for in a cover is tone. When I’m shopping for books, I’m not drawn to the book because of the hot guy (Hey, I like ‘em, but I won’t buy a book because of it) I’m looking for a cover that tells me it has the tone of the book I’m wanting to read. If I want a dark suspense, I’ll look for covers that say edgy—with or without the hot guy. I’ll read the blurb and if it continues to intrigue me, I might take it home. Because I write humor, I want my covers to say fun and flirty.
Christie Craig
October 19th, 2009 on 12:05 pm
Excellent point — so as readers of paranormal we’re looking possibly for a sexier, darker cover than that of a contemporary —
October 19th, 2009 on 10:50 am
I don’t think I have ever bought a book because of the cover, though I have often bought books in spite of the cover. That said, the ones I dislike most are the old clinch covers in the contorted poses. My favorites are the period art or the scenes. I do like the covers on Teresa Dare’s new books.
October 19th, 2009 on 12:06 pm
Agreed — Tessa definitely lucked out
October 19th, 2009 on 10:40 am
Shirtless men on the covers are definitely HOT but I don’t mind if a woman is on there too enjoying the hotness. I think it just gives that extra impression that this is a story about a relationship.
October 19th, 2009 on 12:06 pm
I certainly agree.
October 19th, 2009 on 10:07 am
I buy my romance novels in spite of the covers, since I almost always dislike the cover art.
Especially covers for historicals that look like photographs are a contradiction in terms for me: The cover of Wicked All Day (Liz Carlyle) is a current example for that - yuk! I actually liked the “stately homes” on Lisa Kleypas’ Wallflower series, or period artwork (for example the new Georgette Heyer covers, or Pam Rosenthal’s The Edge of Impropriety), but I know, I’m in the minority with this.
That they don’t stand so much in the way of my imagination makes the headless person covers a little better, but still … headless people…in pseudo-historical dresses that are falling off their bodies…not overly appealing to me either.
Even on contemporaries I prefer the absence of people on the covers, for example the cover One Reckless Summer by Toni Blake.
…to add: I liked the thoughts of Lynn Spencer at AAR on this topic: http://www.likesbooks.com/blog/?p=1891
October 19th, 2009 on 12:11 pm
Thanks for the link to AAR –have to laugh though as have you seen how some of the women dress for the gym lately? Romance covers have nothing over their sparse outfits! LOL — thanks for your comment, Sue
October 19th, 2009 on 9:45 am
I’m attracted to the colors and title mostly but am often influenced further by particular cover art.
October 19th, 2009 on 9:35 am
I don’t mind the women on covers - I thought the ones you held up in the video were fine, especially the Heiress in his Bed one. I really like the Victoria Dahl covers on the contemporaries.
However I don’t like those scenery type ones - like the one on Lisa Dale’s book. Same with the Rachel Gibson book - both would stay on the shelf - not because there’s a woman on it, heck I can’t even see her. The problem is they’re so bland they say nothing about the story. They’re a definite pass for me.
October 19th, 2009 on 9:55 am
I should clarify - it’s the pink “Trouble with Valentine’s Day” cover that I wouldn’t pick up. The one with the shoes/ladies feet is fine.
October 19th, 2009 on 12:12 pm
Thanks Leah — great comments!
October 19th, 2009 on 9:35 am
I typically go to the bookstore w/a shopping list and don’t usually “browse” for books. That said, I can’t really say that I have much of a preference. I kind of like the headless shots b/c as someone else mentioned, I can put the face I want w/the body. If there’s going to be a shirtless guy, then please make sure he’s not scrawny. I’m not talking body-builder big, but give him some muscle. And while I’m tossing thoughts out, give him manly nipples - not tiny little specs and not red or pink - I’d rather he have on a shirt or suit if he’s got sissy nipples. Please, someone tell me I’m not alone here. Women on covers are no problem -my personal thought is that the women tend to look like what I think we all *wish* we looked like! Beautifully unblemished, trim and firm with curves and lines most of us couldn’t have without a significant amount of airbrushing!
October 19th, 2009 on 12:13 pm
Excellent point — maybe I need to look at more the way you do — thank you!
October 19th, 2009 on 2:34 pm
You’re not alone! Pink or Red nipples are kind of a HUGE TURNOFF for me, too.
I, too, like manly nipples on the mantitty.
October 19th, 2009 on 9:27 am
I’m similar to RStewie, in that most times I’m after a certain author or book, and am not browsing covers. And yes, Sue - for certain authors, I wouldn’t care if the cover was hideous, I’d still buy it.
Apart from that, I really don’t care if there’s a man or woman or both on the cover. I am in the minority in that the mantitty doesn’t attract me. Especially now that it’s been everywhere - maybe in the beginning I gave it more notice. I am a fan of the lovely, gorgeous dress, sensuous woman shots. And in contemporaries, I tend to like the cute covers, as long as they’re not TOO cutsie.
There. Clear as mud, right?
October 19th, 2009 on 12:15 pm
Laura — please, you basically like everything
Shush– I do too 
October 19th, 2009 on 9:21 am
Love the discussion, Sue! As a reader, I’m like some of the others here — I don’t want to see the faces of the characters and particularly not the guy on the cover! I want to let my imagination roam free when I’m reading to make the hero in that book look the way I see him, not the way the cover artist sees him. As far as women alone on the covers, it’s not a big draw for me in historical, but can catch my eye in contemporary. When I see a woman on the cover of a paranormal, I automatically think Urban Fantasy now, so maybe there is some method to cover planning, after all!
October 19th, 2009 on 3:02 pm
Melissa, Do you feel that way in terms of the author’s description of the characters too? I know that a LOT of covers don’t get the characters “right” in terms of appearances, but your comment made me wonder if you feel the same about how detailed an author is in their descriptions and continued references to descriptions in a book. I tend to like less than more as I put my own spin on the looks. Monica
October 19th, 2009 on 9:15 am
Honestly, it’s the name of the author that determines the vast majority of my purchases. If there’s no new release I’m looking for and I’m actually Just Browsing (which is NOT normal for me…I usually have a goal) then I have to say I love the man-titty. Gena Showalter’s Lords of the Underworld series is a good example. (And reading the series, I’m always looking for the butterfly…)
That said, The Luxe series by Anna Godbersen has BEAUTIFUL covers. They make me want so hard. So my favorite non-mantitty covers usually involve a woman with copious amounts of fabric surrounding her (Lisa Kleypas’ novels are a good example).
October 19th, 2009 on 9:16 am
Yeah, but you’d buy Lisa K if the covers were solid black, right?
So if it is a brand new author, the covers that attract you are the guys.
October 19th, 2009 on 2:31 pm
Caught me there, Sue.
But you know…I didn’t read Kresley Cole’s IAD series for almost a YEAR because of those ridic. covers they gave her. (W00t for the new mantitti-alicious ones she’s got now!!)
October 19th, 2009 on 9:01 am
I am in the minority here, first a male and second cause the title and colors are what catch my eye. Next up is the author, either one I know or one recommended to me.
October 19th, 2009 on 8:29 am
To me the cover is the thing that catches my eye, the thing that makes me pick up a book and have a look at the back or maybe even read the first page of two. I am definatly a hot blooded hetrosexual female but I sometime fine man-flesh covers a big turnoff. Some can be down right silly. So man or woman - it has to make me want to take a second look. Something different, something special.
btw - having just gone through the publishing process for the first time last year - covers are done several months ahead of a release. The cover conference for my book 2 Sept 2010 release was done a couple of months ago. So I would think it is kind of hard to go with what ever is trending now.
October 19th, 2009 on 9:19 am
Good feedback & yes silly, or more to the point, not tasteful covers are always annoying — demeans our biz, ya know?
Your cover was awesome though — appealed to both Sci Fi & Romance readers me thinks
October 19th, 2009 on 5:39 pm
Yes - very true. And I do love my cover. :). But there are similarly a lot of other covers coming out that I think are great. Courtney Milan’s Proof by Seduction has great cover - and it is a woman. Can almost imagine the hero has just left after giving her a good ravishing.
October 19th, 2009 on 8:22 am
Whether it’s a male/female doesn’t matter to me, it’s the colors that catch my eye. From there, it’s the clothes (when there are some). And then the complete look of it all.
I agree with Maggie Robinson–I like semi-headless covers. Most of the time when there’s a face, they stare at you. It’s creepy in that “I’m being watched” feel. please don’t have your cover models staring at me.
October 19th, 2009 on 7:26 am
I’d have to say it all depends.I write historicals and that’s what I usually buy. Clinch covers can be really sexy or silly (half-naked in the snow? I don’t think so). I do love the use of original 18th and 19th century artwork for historicals, but I understand they don’t always sell as well.For a while, there was nothing but Satanic red or arctic blue bare-chested men on covers—I prefer flesh-tone.I’d rather not have a clear face shot, because my imagination becomes limited to the artist’s rendition, not my own fantasy. This is why I like back and semi-headless covers.For contemps, I like a bit of wit in the composition.Victoria Dahl’s books have been genius at that.
October 19th, 2009 on 6:49 am
If there’s just another gorgeous chest on the cover;) it mostly just skims past my notice, unless there’s something extra there. Of course, author or the back blurb can change that, but as great as they are to look at, it isn’t a cover that particularly stands out for me. That said, it’s not the most important element, as has been mentioned, I’ll maybe read the back of the book if the cover catches my eye, but I wouldn’t by a book just based on a cover, so…
October 19th, 2009 on 6:31 am
I will add - Jessica’s remarks about the back cover blurb being the hook - the cover grabs me, then I read the back to see if story would interest me.
Pat L.
October 19th, 2009 on 6:29 am
Carly, no I am not sick of bare-chested men on covers.
I love contemps and the covers that attract me are colorful or cutsey and for some reason if the head is not showing. And it doesnt matter to me whether it be the hero or heroine or both on the cover. I dont think readers would be sick of seeing women on covers nor men for that matter - let’s not discriminate - LOL.
Pat L.
October 19th, 2009 on 5:57 am
Covers that attract my attention are covers that are different somehow. I have an opinion one way or another about the men or the women on the cover but are they different from everything else? There are lots of covers of bare chests or bare backs and a shot of a jaw or a clinch cover but what makes that different from anything else?
Of the male covers you mention, Covet is different because the guy is on a motorcycle. But will Covet start a trend of bikes on covers, which will make it no longer stand out?
I remember thinking that Sherry Thomas’s original cover for Private Arrangements was different and I loved it, only for the rerelease to have a clinch cover on it. How can the clinch cover be made different so that it stands out, somehow?
I know there’s nothing new under the sun and that romance readers have expectations for covers but how do we make a book truly stand out. At the end of the day, the thing that grabs a reader’s attention is the cover. The back copy sets the hook and the first page usually seals the deal. So the cover has to stand out. If everything is pink with a skirt or black with a guy, how does that stand out?
I don’t mean this to be critical but the publishers should look not necessarily at trends of what sells but what started those trends, if that makes sense (says the writer who has yet to sell a book:)
Great topic!
October 19th, 2009 on 7:48 am
LOL - great insight! & thanks for commenting — I can’t wait to tally up everyone’s opinions at day end to see the consensus.
Danke!
October 19th, 2009 on 5:47 am
Carly, your Lucky series have gorgeous bare chested models on the covers and I have only 2 words for them : THANK YOU
October 19th, 2009 on 7:44 am
LOL — agree!
October 19th, 2009 on 5:46 am
I love women on book covers. Men (barechested ones in particulars) are welcome too of course. But really I have no preference, both work for me
October 19th, 2009 on 5:31 am
I’d LOVE TO KNOW if readers are tired of the bare chested men on covers!!!!!!! Especially CONTEMPORARY covers!
October 19th, 2009 on 4:28 am
I definitely want to see the gorgeous men on the covers. I mean if they have to use women make sure that the Alpha male is front and center because when I browse,the men are what catch my eye.
Carol Luciano
October 19th, 2009 on 7:43 am
Bingo — with you there!