I sit here going over the line edits of my first book for Harlequin Intrigue, MAN UNDERCOVER, and I have to say that my editor is certainly keeping me honest. I was pleasantly surprised to find that her ability to cut away the frivolous and help shape it into something even better has made my first experience with Harlequin a wonderful one. How nice to be in such sure hands.
While taking a break yesterday morning, I picked up the Sunday LA Times and came across an article of interest: Harlequin recently opened a free exhibit at the Paris Hotel in Las Vegas called The Heart of a Woman: Harlequin Cover Art 1949-2009. This is the same exhibit that opened in New York back in June and was featured on CNN.com.
This is an exhibit I’d love to see. And what a shame to be forced to go to Las Vegas to see it.
I’ve always been a huge fan of cover art, from literary novels to mysteries, and romances have long had some of the best graphic design. The exhibit promises to show how much that art has changed over the years, while still maintaining the underlying truth behind all Harlequin romances: that love conquers all.
And the thought of cover art has got me wondering what my own first Harlequin cover will look like. Authors are invited to submit suggestions for artwork and I came up with a few ideas I think would make great covers. But in the end I trust that these folks know a lot more about such things than I do, so, as long as they leave the writing to me, I’ll leave the cover design to them.
I find that the Intrigue covers are usually both sexy and suspenseful, and I can’t remember one that I haven’t liked. So, once I again, I’m happy to be in sure hands.
But not all writers are happy with their covers, and I’m sure a lot of readers are turned off by certain types of artwork.
Lori Devoti posted a few days ago that she isn’t particularly fond of covers with large breasts on them. So, I’m curious. For the readers in the crowd, what type of romance covers turn you off? And for the writers, have you ever been stuck with a cover you could have lived without?
Related posts:
I’ve enjoyed Kimani Press’ cover art the most and HQN is usually beautiful, except when it comes to one of my favorite authors, Susan Grant. She writes Science Fiction Romance, but her covers rarely show that. I realize they’re trying to market a product the best they know how, but it annoys the established readership and confuses the new ones.
Cover art should reflect the story and be pleasant to look at. Of course, ‘pleasant to look at’ is subjective.
Personally, I’m intrigued by classic romance covers, wish I could go to see the exhibition.
I mostly dislike like that trend to feature headless shots of the models, I heard the theory that this is done to make it easier for the readers to indentify with them but I keep wondering, mainly because it reduces people to bodies. I say mostly because I _loved_ the way the cover for the book “Cleopatra’s Daughter” was done.
I don’t like man titty covers where you can’t see the guy’s face. Even worse: headless torsos.
Man titty. LOL. I almost spit out my coffee on that one.
I’m especially irritated when the cover models look nothing like the actual characters. It can’t be that hard to find models with the same hair color as the heroine. This might be why the trend of headless models is so big.
I also don’t like when every book cover looks just the the others on the shelf. Yes, certain images can draw you in but would it hurt to be different. Last year all the covers were in purples and blues- this year is looking green. Why is that?
One thing I will never tire of is the male leaning against a wall (fence, bed, desk etc) wearing low slung faded jeans. Yum!