A few thoughts about the latest trend in romance book covers

In the last several years, there has been a significant change in romance book covers, for both contemporary and historical romances, towards cartoon depictions of the main protagonists. I work as a cataloguer and have the privilege to see new books before the public. It would be hard not to notice the shift, probably the biggest one since I started working for the library.

I have mixed feelings about this new trend. It gives authors the ability to present their protagonists the way they think they should be presented; I get that. At the same time, they mess with the reader’s imagination. Once you are visually nudged in a certain direction, it’s not easy to ignore it and conjure someone’s physical appearance in your mind. It has happened countless time in movies, isn’t that? In some instances it does work (I love to imagine Count Dracula as Gary Oldman presented him, or King Aragorn as Vigo Mortensen); some other times — I would say more often — the overlaying is less successful.

I prefer not to see any face on the cover. I don’t mind human figures from the back, or from the neck down, but not the faces. I can count on one hand the fortunate examples, and rarely in romance fiction. It’s also possible that most readers don’t care — after all, it was said that at the height of his career, the famous model, Fabio, was featured on sixteen covers per day. You couldn’t avoid him if you wanted to read a romance book.

Among all the genres, romance novels sported some of the most horrendous covers: ripped bodices, clinch covers, images that would be today perceived as sexist, and with a good reason, not to mention the visual horror of blended images, usually with two heads floating in the clouds or in front of the mountains; “winter” covers with she and he dressed in the 1980s knitted sweaters and caps with ear flops… The era of shirtless (and faceless male torsos (The Six Pack Special!) did bring in some memorable covers, though (Jacy Burton’s Play-by-Play series, for example). Such covers are still among my favourites: female and male upper bodies, or just male torso, hot but not vulgar.

Perhaps, this new trend is trying to outrun the many stigmas tied to romance fiction: being trashy, being shallow, being cheap. New covers bring new vibes — of subtle romantic tension (even for the steamy novels), and of visual cues about the characters and plot.

The fashionable illustrated (cartoon) covers are also visually appealing thanks to the injection of bright, almost neon colours – green, fuchsia, orange, red, yellow. They often imply a humorous tone, although the cover and the story sometimes don’t match in that sense (if they did, 2/3 of romance novels published these days would be rom-coms.) Some covers are definitely better executed than the others. They also could be too much revealing, and sometimes misleading. For example, if you are not partial to romance stories with a specific type of characters (like overweight heroines, or doctors, for example), you’ll see the clues on the cover. If you hadn’t known, you might have read the book, and liked it. If you don’t care about romance novels with pets in them (I love them), the cover will warn you.

Still, my biggest issue is the representation of the physical look of the primary characters. I don’t think authors should force their visions upon us but rather let us form our own. My characters are firmly set in my imagination to the smallest detail. My Elizabeth Chatwin, for example, resembles Hedy Lamarr, a great silent movie era star, whose photos I studied when I was writing the book. Many readers wouldn’t even know who Hedy Lamarr was, but they’re free to imagine Elizabeth however they want.

This current cover hype has spread not only onto mysteries, but also on general fiction. I like them there more than in romance novels. They could be quite beautiful. Nonetheless, it’s a new fashion, another dictate of the publishing industry (I always cringe a bit when I hear these two words together. Publishing, writing and art should never be an industry), and many known and unknown authors are willing to jump on that particular bandwagon. Take the above-mentioned Jaci Burton as a case point: her latest book which I’m reading now, Housebroke, has him and her on the cover presented in that cartoonish manner, along with four of the five dogs appearing in the book. He doesn’t look older than eighteen, nor did she, even though the main character is about thirty in the book, and she isn’t a late teenager either. It looks infantile, silly. The story itself feels bland, without juice, it’s overly simplified and templated, without depth and without much chemistry between Linc and Hazel–a far cry from some of her earlier novels from Play-by-Play series. (The five dogs are the most interesting part of the novel.) And we all know she could do much better. In other words, not only that she tried to plant particular images in our heads, but those images don’t correspond with the characters in the story, except when it comes to hair color.

The bottom line is always the same — what matters is what is between the covers. I’m frustrated not with the covers, or old and new trends, but with my inability (and not only mine, as I hear) to find a decent romance (or other genre) read, even by the well-known and beloved authors. Not only covers have changed, apparently.

One fact remains: the best books I’ve ever read didn’t have anything on the cover except the title and the author’s name.

Any thoughts on covers you want to share?