Recently I was asked by a romance-reading friend why publishers of mainstream romance, particularly historicals, don’t seem to understand that many readers are embarrassed to be caught with their noses in books with sexually suggestive covers. I told my friend that publishers do understand, but that many other readers are attracted by such covers. It’s a book’s cover, after all, that tempts a shopper to pick it up and read a couple of pages or check out the back-cover blurb. And sexy covers sell books.
Usually. The difficulty for publishers (and many authors) is that the “clinch” covers (shirtless men embracing women whose breasts are about two seconds and as many centimeters from popping out of their bodices) can sometimes discourage women from buying books. I know that’s true because I am one of those women who won’t pick up a book if the title or the cover is too suggestive. And I’ve seen women in airports and at doctors’ offices angling their bodies away from onlookers and folding back the covers of their paperback romances to hide steamy cover art.
I love reading historical romances, although I don’t enjoy the explicit sex scenes found in most of them. But I’m an inveterate page-skipper, so I suppose flipping past those scenes is no real hardship. Yet I don’t want anyone thinking I’m buying romance novels for sexual titillation, so I’ve been known to put certain books face-down in my shopping cart lest strangers and chance-met friends see what I’m buying and leap to wrong conclusions about my personal values. (And before anyone rushes to comment on my attitude toward eroticism in romance novels, I have no interest in what others choose to read. I’m talking about my own values and preferences and those of women like me.)
Many romance readers share my aversion to sexually suggestive bookcovers. But while publishers are aware of our preferences and know very well that sexy covers are causing them to lose a few sales, what can they do apart from offering a less sensual cover every now and then?
I’ll tell you what they can do.
An idea struck me when my May 12 issue of The New Yorker arrived with two different covers on it, one behind the other. I never learned what the magazine publisher’s aim was, but the double-covered issue made me wonder why certain kinds of romance novels couldn’t have two covers, also.
They do, sometimes. Sort of. “Step-back” pages have been around for years. A book might feature a G- or PG-rated cover design, often something floral, followed by another page of the same heavy, glossy paper which features a couple writhing on red satin sheets or going at it in a meadow. But step-backs are generally seen only on the books of bestselling authors because it’s expensive to commission and print art for two covers instead of just one.
My suggestion to publishers is a variation on the step-back idea. For the outermost cover, a sensual image could be used to grab shoppers’ attention. But that cover would be perforated, enabling sensitive readers to tear it off and reveal a second cover, one with an inoffensive design that would allow them to enjoy the books in public without embarrassment. Production costs wouldn’t even begin to approach those of a step-back as long as the second cover was a no-frills affair, perhaps just showing the author’s name and the book’s title in a two-color design that might be standard for the imprint.
Yeah, you’re right. It’s never gonna happen. So I guess my only options are to avoid buying “those” books or to slap a strip of duct tape over the hero’s ripped abs and the heroine’s heaving bosoms before I take a romance novel out in public.
No related posts.
Actually, I think that’s a fabulous idea! I’m one of those who won’t buy a book with a clinch cover either… which means I’m probably missing out on some decent fiction.
::shrugs::
Guess we all have our preferences!
You can always tear off the cover yourself.
I think it is a clever idea,
though costly.
Most shy gals I know invest
in one of those cloth book covers.
If they care what others think.
Frankly I don’t.
I must confess, even though I write erotic romance, I shy away from the overly suggestive covers myself. I’ve even refrained from buying certain ebooks, the covers of which will never be seen anywhere but on my computer, because the cover art left me a feeling a bit squicky.
I suppose the percentage of readers who will buy a book BECAUSE of the overtly sexual cover art is greater than the percentage of those who pointedly won’t and that may never change.
[I feel a bit like a hypocrit saying all this, since my own print anthology has nekkid man butt on the cover.] I wonder if it’s gaining more sales that it will lose because of that.
I’m definitely one who is repulsed by overly sexual covers. To me, it means the book is all about sex and little or nothing about excellent storytelling. Or romance. I read Romance novels for, um, romance.
(What a concept, huh?) Sex without romance is of no interest to me. 
I’m with Kimber Chin. If someone has a problem with what I’m reading, it’s their problem, not mine!
I like great sex scenes, but hate the covers. The best cover I’ve come across lately is for TJ Bennett’s The Legacy from Medallion Press. The folks at Medallion should win an award for the best cover. DH said that it looks like something he would actually pick up.
Kerry, thanks for bringing that up. I should have mentioned in the post why simply ripping off covers doesn’t work for me:
1. Without a cover, the first few pages of a book can very easily be creased or torn and even ripped off. (That’s why paperbacks HAVE those heavy covers.)
2. The author’s name and book title don’t always appear on the first page of a paperback.
3. I’m used to the weighty, slick feel of a cover against my left hand. Rubbing my fingertips against a flimsy, rough piece of paper would offend my tactile sensibilities.
And Kimber, I’ve seen people use those cloth bookcovers, but they seem like bulky nuisances to me. (Yes, I’m difficult to please!)
I was given a book cover that makes the paperback look like a hardback book. It has to be the standard size paperback or it doesn’t fit. I really don’t worry if people see what I reading most of the time. I will use my book cover if I’ll be around my nieces and the cover is too suggestive. Of course, my bookshelves are full of romance novels, so they can still see the covers.
Love your idea, Brenda.
Sadly, I feel the same way. My first thought is always, “oh, a bodice ripper.” Now that I really think about it, I don’t read a lot of historicals. The ones I do pick up I’ve either met the author, or I love their blog. It’s not that I’m shy. The cover just doesn’t make me want to pick it up.
Then again I don’t pick up books that depict scenery. I’m reading a book for character, not location. (Definitely, not for a dark and stormy night.)
Hmm, I’m probably missing out on a lot of great books.
I’m a historical reader, but I don’t care for bodice rippers either… their covers OR the sex scenes. So boy is it hard to find books I like!
That said… I’m wondering if the publishers really even know the percentage of us who prefer books without it. I mean… they can’t tell which readers are skippers and which eat those scenes up. I’d almost wonder what would happen if an author wrote the same story, but twice… once without the sex and that got a modest cover, and once with it and a steamy cover. Both would have the same writing quality, all things considered. And both were put side by side on the same shelves. What would the percentage of sales be on both?
Not going to happen… but I wonder.
I hardly ever notice the cover either in the store or as I’m reading. I always go straight to the blurb on the back. But a few days ago I was reading a book at a Girl Scout bridging ceremony and became painfully aware the female on the cover was more than half dressed. A tear off cover then would have been nice.
I love that idea. Sometimes, I don’t even like the miniature clinch on the spine!
Back in high school, I bought a fabric book cover that fits most of the mass-market paperbacks that I’ve ever read. Kind of like a bible cover, it’s a heavy-duty nylon fabric like a backpack is made out of. It was invaluable back then, as I would not have been allowed to carry a suggestive cover around at school, but the teachers couldn’t complain about what they couldn’t see
It also protects the books from damage (also invaluable as books get tossed in bags, and lately, manhandled by toddlers). I’ve been using it for, oh, nearly 15 years now, and my only regret is that I can’t find a similar one for the “trade” paperbacks that I buy a lot of these days (maybe a “bible” cover would fit those?)
The thought of ripping something off of a book makes me cringe. I don’t write in books, don’t rip things out of books, don’t in any way deface books. I love them too much to wish them harm!
I’m the same way about squicky covers. I read historical fiction, but almost always the “tasteful” ones that have some sort of period oil painting that evokes the mood. Same if it’s an inanamite object, like a wallpaper theme, or pendant, sword or ring…
If there’s a guy on the cover, I won’t buy it. If there’s a half-naked woman clutching her clothes or some self-important guy, I won’t buy it. I probably won’t even pick it up at the library. Partially because of the public stigma, and partially because I know I won’t like all the sex scenes within waiting to pounce.
It’s a shame, because I suspect I’m missing a lot of good fiction.
I think part of the problem is that covers aren’t just there to please the eye. Covers exist to give you your first impression of what the story is going to contain inside.
They don’t always do a good job. However, there is a code to covers, and that code tells you what you are going to read. Back a decade or so ago, if you saw Fabio with his flowing hair and a melting woman in a overly fluid dress with long tresses impossibly fanned out in the breeze behind her, you knew “this is a romance.” If you wanted to read a romance, it was EXCEPTIONALLY easy to spot one.
Now the code is changing a little. We’re seeing more monochromatic covers with some handsome dude striding forward, half of his face cut off by the edge of the cover so you can imagine all of his features but his torso on your own. Or we are seeing intense looking women and some sort of disaster unfolding in the background, at least on the paranormal covers. This says, this is a thriller/romance, and look, it is sexy, but not all about sex.
I think historicals have toned it down quite a bit. I like Elizabeth Hoyt’s covers. Again, they convey something sexy inside without being lurid.
I’ve also seen more covers that are simply the title and the author’s name with some vibrant color, like the Naked Gentleman, and the other books in that series.
However, you are seeing more erotic romance on the shelves next to the romance, and those covers are more explicit, just like the books. Some of them are straight out shocking.
I’m also a reader who prefers modesty in the covers. The code is changing toward that, but the code still needs to exist. If only we could find a code that works for all the romance readers that we all understand.
It’s never a waste of time to listen.
Even though I write erotica, I’m still not comfortable being out in public w/ certain covers visible. This is one of the reasons I love my Sony Reader. No one ever sees the cover of what I’m reading
And ditto Kimber An, it’s never a waste of time to listen
Sexy covers usually mean explicit sex scenes, and I like both. I have to admit I’m a visual person and a sensual image will attract my attention. HOWEVER, there are some covers that are just embarrassing, and when the guy on the front looks like an oiled-up stripper, I get turned off.
I probably wouldn’t tear off the front cover. If the image is “too much” I won’t buy the book.
I am an historical romance author. When I was asked what my preference would be for a cover, I said, “no people”. My thinking was, a woman will, for the most part, read a book regardless of the cover. A man won’t. I wanted to target by genders. After a few back and forth brainstorming emails, my editor, cover artist, and I came up with objects to represent the period. My book will be released a week from Friday. I’ll see if my thoughts were sound.
Heh…I’m so glad to hear other people have some of the same problems I do. I see the suggestive covers and just can’t justify picking them up, both because of content concerns and carrying them around. I have two step sons that live with us part of the time and I just can’t imagine having them picking up one of my books and having to explain the nearly nekkid cover. I tried book covers for a while, but they don’t feel right. I may have to do some more experimenting with that.
I only found this blog a few days ago and very much enjoying it.
~J
Ha! Love your idea too.
Yes, I avoid the sexy books covers too. I don’t want my young daughter seeing them and I also want to freely open a book in public without having to be conscious of what’s on the front.
Now I know what those cloth bookcovers I’ve seen at craft fairs are for. Invest in some and buy the books you want to read, not the ones with covers you like!
Personally, I like reading something with a really naughty cover in public and watching the raised eyebrows. Then again, I’m kind of a brat. And any assumptions people make about my personal values based on my choice of reading material are probably accurate enough, at least through their filter. I don’t quite need a telescope to see mainstream America, but binoculars come in handy.
I’m another who doesn’t like clinch covers–too bad for me, as I write for Harlequin Presents and they always have them! Admittedly some are better than others. I don’t think a clinch cover necessarily means the book contains a lot of sex–my books don’t have a lot of sex and yet I’m guaranteed a clinch cover. I’ve also read books with ‘tasteful’ covers that have plenty of sex scenes, so I guess you can’t judge a book by its cover
Still, I tend to gravitate towards books with plain covers, or covers with inanimate objects, settings, etc.
I find it funny that on a blog about explicit covers, I see to the right in the ads section two of the most explicit covers I’ve ever seen!!!
I musta missed the covers boat because I truly don’t care:
What the cover looks like or
What people think of me while I’m reading.
You know I’m totally agree with you. I find myself wishing the same thing. What’s with some of these covers? I mean you can have some suggestive things, or mysterious covers but I’m getting a bit over the whole naked man/woman on the cover. Some are downright porn so I steer clear of the authors work.
It’s the covers on the erotica that’s shelved in the romance section embarrasses me. (And this is from someone who reads some erotica–Emma Holly, Angela Knight, some Lora Leigh, others). Even the sidebar ads on this blog are sometimes a bit too bare for my comfort.
I have radically reduced my shopping in Barnes & Noble’s romance section. Walking by all the face out erotica covers with mostly naked men is just too much–it’s as if these covers validate the misconception that we’re just reading these books for sexual gratification. That’s just not true. Sex in a book is fine, but what I really love is the HEA and the kind of romance hero who is supportive and kind (to the heroine).
Besides, I can’t take my kid book shopping with me. My four-year-old is likely to say, “Mommy, why is that man naked?” in a loud, high pitched voice. Ugh!
Pattie and Susan, I so agree with you.
Here’s one data point: I really wanted to buy Madeline Hunter’s Lesson’s of Desire new, because she’s one of my favorite authors and I’d gotten all her previous books used. But I just could not take the embarrassment of ordering it at my local bookstore. That cover, oh my maude, that cover. So I got it from paperbackswap instead.
And I spent the money I saved on a lovely book cover I bought on ebay.
Book covers are subjective, just as reading taste is – what one person likes, another will not.
I personally prefer covers without any people on them. I like to imagine the characters on my own – and that goes for the books I write as well. Two of my three book covers have no people and I love them. However I’ve heard that in terms of sales, covers with no people sell the least. Maybe because they lack the “code” that was mentioned above?
I’ve never tried those book covers because it’s rare that I carry a book around with me unless I’m travelling (if my kids are with me, who has time to read??) but short of publishers changing their marketing tactics, they seem like a good idea to me.
I do agree with the “who cares” sentiment, but on the other hand, romance readers and writers battle assumptions that romance novels are “porn for women” and then bam! look at the covers. It sends mixed messages as to what we’re reading and why we’re reading it.
I’m with Pattie’s comment — the book ads on the right of this blog entry are a hilarious juxtaposition to the content of the entry. I’m wondering how much farther that guy’s jeans have to come before he has full frontal nudity — surely less than two centimetres (not that I’m waiting for it to happen … I think that one is really on the outer limits of possible good taste).
I have seen this discussion online before, and it has been said that the publishers *did* try less suggestive covers in the 90s (you’ll remember the string of books with a single flower on the cover or what not), and they didn’t sell as well. So back to the clinch covers.
I hate them, too. I will NOT buy a book with a trashy cover in the bookstore. I have bought them through Amazon before, but only authors I love. Otherwise, I will get them from the library or from paperbackswap. So, yes, authors are losing out on customers because of these covers.
Also, I can’t read them anywhere but in my bedroom. I have 2 young children, and I just am not wanting them to see such racy covers. Or getting the ‘looks’ from whoever happens to be around in a public space.
I’m glad some readers have the ‘I don’t care’ attitude when it comes to reading books with clinch covers in public….but the majority of us *do* care and don’t want co-workers or friends or family members to think less of us b/c we are reading a book with a half-naked man on the cover.
Personally, I liked the 90s trend after the 80s Fabio decade. I also do like Elizabeth Hoyt’s covers. Classy. But that example cover someone mentioned…TJ Bennett? I looked it up on Amazon…GORGEOUS. I would buy a million romance books if they had this kind of beautiful cover art! See, it can be done, publishers. Please take note.
Kristin, I am confused. At one point you say the “majority of readers *do* care” and at another you say that sales dropped when they tried less suggestive covers.
This would indicate to me that the number of people turned off by racy covers is fewer than the number disinterested in books that have tame ones.
Well, I can only attest to what I am reading on here…seems like a lot of us care. But if 20% LIKE suggestive covers and stopped buying as much romance in the 90s….then sales DID drop. But the majority of book buyers (the 80% who still bought romance) perhaps appreciated the less racy covers.
The only reason I can think of that less romance was bought is that somehow readers were confused by the content of the books when they had roses or whatnot on the covers. I’m not sure how that is possible…are readers really needing to see half- naked bodies to know it’s a romance?
I don’t have any sales figures about how much sales went down. But this is what I’ve seen online when this topic was brought up. Since they brought back sexy covers, I can believe this might be true.
Diana, sorry if I confused you with my comment. I’m just a reader like everyone else giving her opinion…sometimes I don’t make 100% sense. But hopefully this clarified my messy thoughts somewhat.
Lord, as I looked over what I typed, I re-read your comment. I guess what you were trying to say is that those who hate racy covers still bought romance…while those who ‘liked’ racy covers stopped. So, therefore, racy covers work best b/c women will buy them regardless of the shame factor???
I go with the idea that supposedly racy cover lovers were confused by flowery covers or ’safe’ covers, so less romance was purchased. Those who were embarrassed were used to ’suffering’ the racy cover to get their romance fix….
Um, am I just being ridiculously confusing now?
In the end I guess I just want to clarify that I really despise racy covers! LOL!
I think some titles can be just as bad as the covers themselves. I don’t like suggestive cover art, nor the suggestive titles.
I vote by not buying those books.
I have two children and cannot have sexy covers lying around. While I do not generally care whether strangers approve of my reading selections, I know if a man was sitting next to me with a magazine that featured near-nude women and men, I would assume he was reading porn. So strangers, IMO, would be entitled to assume I am reading porn (or reading for the sexually explicit material) as well, when they see some of these covers.
For everyone who is suggesting that we who choose not to buy or publicly read some of these books with explicit covers are somehow weak or unusually susceptible to the judgments of strangers, I would like to know if you think the same of people who choose not to dress provocatively, or engage in PDA. On one level, these just choices about personal comfort.
Hoyt’s latest has a relatively demure image on the front, and a very sexy stepback. I ripped out the inner page so I can read it in the living room. This is one idea.
Also, I would love to know who is doing the research on which covers sell, and if it meets or even approaches standards of scientific inquiry. If romance publishers are like most multibillion dollar industries, they are run by men, and I would like to know how they are gathering their data.
Finally, the worst problem with the covers is that they mislead. It is false that a racier cover means a racier read. JR Ward’s books are very explicit, with very tasteful covers, while the Hoyt I just read was PG rated with a very racy stepback. I am tired of explaining to people that in 400 page book there might be 15 pages of sex, most of it not explicit. Hmmm…wonder what might lead rational people to think otherwise???
[...] have to admit, however, I’m not a fan of the overtly revealing covers. An author friend of mine was recently concerned about her own cover art that showed enough to make [...]