I tried to pick some of each genre and a variety of publishers (I thought - darn those Penguin imprints) from well-established authors. Anyway, here we go:
Historicals -
the good
the so-so
the bad
Now, I admit, Jo G's cover is fine, in theory, but what was the marketing department thinking? What customer are they trying to attract?
Onward! The contemporaries/paranormals -
The good
the bad (there seems to be no in-between)
Which come from same publishers, you ask? From the Penguin family: Emma Holly, Jo Goodman, Nalini Singh, Lora Leigh, Candice Hern. From Harper Collins: Stephanie Laurens, Suzanne Enoch, Rachel Gibson. From Simon & Schuster: Loretta Chase, Karen Hawkins. From St. Martin's: Cheyenne McCray, Jenny and Bob, Sherrilyn Kenyon, Lisa Kleypas. The Susan Grant book is from Harlequin (isn't the guy's back fabulous??).
I had more examples but I got tired. ;-) It really is just the luck of the draw (no pun intended), isn't it? At least the bad covers weren't horrifically bad (and there are plenty of places you can find the bad covers to
Some random thoughts -
> I prefer the headless covers, personally. I don't need an artist's (usually completely wrong) version of the lead couple. Apparently, I'm not alone. Yay!
> The marketing decision to do the duet of Suzanne Enoch stories (one historical and one from her contemporary Sam & Rick series) in a single volume was brilliant, says me.
What do you think about the state of covers today, peeps? Any exceptional examples to share (good or bad)?
Labels: 2 cents, book stuff, covers
I like the Liz Carlyle covers - not sure if it's the bright colour of the gowns on a crisp white background but they seem uh, crisp ;)
The covers have become really hodge-podge. You have ones with artist renditions and then you will have something cartoony and chic and then almost pulp fictionish (the cruisie - can't say I like that cover at all!) So it seems that every thing is out there and you can't really pin-point a group of genre romance. Eg - the extraterrestrial one is really just an easy cover that has nothing 'other worldly' about it.
Okay, I'm babbling ;)
Cindys
Cindy - to me, the Crusie cover works because the book isn't a romance, really. The cover looks more chick-lit-ish (even though it isn't that either).
I agree about covers becoming more and more generic. Do they think they will attract more readers that way, I wonder? Because I doubt it. A cover would have to be way awesome for that to work and none of these (not even the "good" ones) are that great.
It's a quandary. I know they say not to judge a book by its cover but it's hard! Especially when the cover is bad. It seems as if the publisher didn't think the book was worth the effort.
Hi Chantal - that's why the covers are all different, I'm sure. Everybody's tastes are different. :o)
The LL cover is a near miss for me. I like the cat in the background and I like the color and the font but the guy wigs me out a little. Is it just me or does he look like Marky Mark? LOL
I don't know what's up with the EH cover...it's so busy and the font is bizarre. Usually she gets lucky with covers but this one, not so much.
Sybil - Hmmm, maybe they changed Lisa's after B&N posted the cover? I like the red, though.
Thanks for the correction on Jo's book - my notes were on the back of an envelope...bad C2!
Do Lora's and Emma's covers look better in person?
And finally, yes it is very bad that you have all of them but two! ;-) Unless you lived close enough to me that you could share. Actually, if you have a copy of Suz's Force of Nature - do you take bribes?? Email me and maybe we can work out a deal. LOL
I like the Lisa cover.