Thanks to The Passive Voice, which is an indie writer site very well worth checking out, I discovered that Amazon is showcasing a whole bunch of indie books in all sorts of categories for the month of October.
Go here to check it out … Powered by Indie
So, I checked it out and decided to do a little digging. I opened up the Romance category, which is a genre I only have a vague familiarity with, but much to my surprise, the majority of the cover art features beefcake, all by himself. (scroll down past the ‘featured’ sections to the actual listings and you’ll see what I mean)
Well, colour me gobsmacked, I thought to myself. One would think there’d be a female form divine somewhere in the picture, but no.
I then checked out the standard Romance category and it appears there’s a whole bunch of covers with NO bodies, beefcake-y or otherwise on the covers, and loads more with just a woman (I assume the female half of the ‘romance’) with her back to the fourth wall, or at best looking coyly over her shoulder at us. Odd, I thought to myself.
Have any Romance readers noticed this as well?
P.S. I could only find it at Amazon (dot) com
Inquiring Minds wish to know
LOL, yes, I think it’s all coded. Beefcake covers are coded for straight women and gay men, and suggest something sizzling. (-: It’s the Female Gaze operating in this case, and it could be considered a step forward for 80-some percent of the female population.
Perhaps the headless woman thing is for books about more passive women who want to invite the Male Gaze. They get their kicks by making men lose control. The headless aspect is about women being able to replace the cover model’s features/hair color with their own (in theory, at least). So, the model loses power, but the reader with imagination can gain it.
Some modern (contemporary) romances have just an object. I think they reflect a certain materialism. Great for the reader who indulges in retail therapy. If there’s a puppy on it, it’s still materialism, but a little bit softer brand of materialism. I think it signifies unconditional love with little effort on the lover’s part.
Have you noticed that historicals mostly seem to be about dress fabrics? I think readers there are looking for textures and luxury experiences.
Then there are the cutesy cartoon covers, which are coded for a romp. Usually the heroine gets into trouble because she is hapless — hasn’t got a hap to her name, and when given one, promptly loses it. These romances aren’t usually about the men (except as trophy) but the humor. (NB: Humor is hard, so I’m not going to comment on it, except to note that Sturgeon’s law is in full effect here.)
I have a weakness for the cutesy cartoon covers, though, and I like a good, funny romance. What kind of covers do you like best?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I like covers that actually tell me a story, even if it’s just a flash of a scene from the story. I’m also a SF/F gal, so rockets, and ray-guns, and dragons. 😀 … actually one day I’d love to be able to afford an artist to create covers with the richness of an oil painting, and the detail of the CGI in some of the SF films coming out now. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
My cover is a scene you might imagine happening in the book, and it one of the main characters.
It makes more sense when the book is finished.
This character’s age is deliberately vague – part of the story which is apparent more in retrospect – this was made with the only photo which spoke to me out of thousands I viewed.
I deliberately avoided the Romance and Chick Lit type covers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The trick is to stand out from the crowd, and yet still reflect your genre, and make sense. 😀
LikeLike
I tried, honestly.
‘Literary’ – which is where I’ve ended up since ‘mainstream’ vanished, not being a genre – is all over the place, and I liked this combination.
I trumpet the virtues of considering cover and book (including formatting and layout) as a single artistic product (which will include audio when I get around to it) of the author who wishes to do all these things herself.
A feature, not a bug.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on Anita Dawes & Jaye Marie.
LikeLike
😀
LikeLike
Book covers are a source of great confusion, frustration and annoyance to me. Most of them make no sense at all, but just a few are actually brilliant…
LikeLiked by 2 people
And oh, how we agonize over them. 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, I’ve noticed. I guess you could say that men are finally getting a shot at being the object of the gaze. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Poetic justice, eh? 😀 … and the cycle continues.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I also find the current romance covers strange and largely disappointing. In most cases, those covers don’t speak to me at all. They are all interchangeable like pancakes, no character, no flavor. You can’t guess the author or the story by those covers, only the genre.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Herd mentality, I think. It looked good for the first few, game changers, and then the herd followed.
LikeLike
I’m not a romance reader, but maybe I should head over and do some beefcake gazing 🙂 The covers, often, aren’t very original; I hope what’s on the inside is a little more creative.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good Luck … hope you’ll find something original, ahem, between the covers, 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t read much (actually, any) romance, but I followed the link and had a quick look. I was particularly amused by the cover of a book called “The Protectors Sloan,” which didn’t bother with a head or legs at all but just showed a collection of muscles. I may have some of the same muscles somewhere, but if so, they are clearly in hiding. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
heh, mine too. 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
hahahaha. Some of those beefcake shots look more like creatures are about to pop out of their tummies.
LikeLike
ROFL … I’m sure it appeals to some folk, but not this little black duck! 😀
LikeLike