Last month we took a look at the covers of Maisey Yate's The Highest Price to Pay. This month I'm intrigued by the differences in the covers for Susan Stephens's Maharaja's Mistress. It was first released in the UK in November 2010 with this cover
According to the excerpt available via Mills & Boon, Mia Spencer-Dayly has "dark, cropped hair" (8) and facial scars. She acquires the short hair, at least, on the Australian cover from December 2010, but now the model for the Maharaja, at least in my opinion, looks like he could equally well be one of HM&Bs Greek/Italian/Spanish/Sheik heroes:
and the September 2011 Harlequin edition reuses the Australian rather than the UK photo:
Analysing covers and iconography isn't my forte, but I can tell that the UK cover and models look different from the Australian/Harlequin one. Anyone want to help me out by providing some analysis?
Well, I'm not a cover expert, but it looks to me like the UK cover is explicitly showing them both as Indians (the book title helps here). His skin tone and hair look South Asian and she is wearing a giant bangle bracelet that we can see more clearly than her face. The Taj Mahal picture at the bottom helps with this, but to me the people are doing most of the work. I agree with you that the man in the Australian picture looks more like a generic "foriegn" hero, and the woman is unremarkable except for the short hair. In that picture the setting is doing all of the work to show the specific ethnicity of the hero. I'm not even sure how accurate that is - I don't know if the designs are recognizably Indian or just oriental. Though the architectural stone bit in the foreground could maybe be a lotus design which narrows the field a bit.
ReplyDeleteBased on this cover and the covers of The Highest Price to Pay, I'd say that the Australian branch trends towards generic models with indistinct or hidden faces possibly so that readers can more easily imagine themselves in the place of the characters. The UK branch puts the people front and center and isn't afraid to show physical difference, either because it will appeal to people who see the differences in themselves, or because readers will think "those look like interesting people and I want to read their story." To me the UK books look like stories about people and the Australian books look like stories about places and situations.
Anyone else?
Thanks, Sarah. Your readings are far more sophisticated than mine. In the light of them, I had a look at some of the other Australian covers and they, like the Harlequin covers, do seem to be of couples in clinches, whereas the UK covers seem to be much more varied in their poses.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if the designs are recognizably Indian or just oriental. Though the architectural stone bit in the foreground could maybe be a lotus design which narrows the field a bit.
It kind of said "Egyptian/Indian mashup architecture for use in a Las Vegas hotel" to me. But since I haven't ever been to Las Vegas, India or Egypt, this could say more about my imagination than it does about the architecture in any of those locations.
it looks to me like the UK cover is explicitly showing them both as Indians
That was the impression I had too, so I was a bit surprised when Mia's surname suggested that she wasn't. I've only read the excerpt, though, so I don't have any details about her ethnicity.
she is wearing a giant bangle bracelet that we can see more clearly than her face
I did wonder if that was partly M&B's way of avoiding having to find a model with facial scars. I had a look around the author's site and she commented on the UK cover that she was
A little disappointed that my heroine doesn’t sport the spiky, alternative hairstyle to complement her spiky, alternative personality, but I’m guessing that an eye patch and short, red streaked hair was an ask too far
Re your comment that in the Australian picture "the setting is doing all of the work to show the specific ethnicity of the hero," how do you read the Harlequin cover, which uses the same photo but cuts out almost all of that background? The Harlequin covers for the Presents line (less so for other lines) all seem extremely focused on the couple: the photos are cropped so that they show very, very little except the couple (usually from the torso upwards) in a very tight embrace.
My two cents: The UK cover has two people who look clearly Indian to me. The Australian and US covers have a hero that could plausibly be Indian (if you look at current models in India, they have that "anywhere around the Mediterranean" look to them these days). So I wouldn't say that the man is unlikely to be Indian, just that he is generic enough to go either way.
ReplyDeleteAs to the architecture: can we have a moratorium on the Taj unless it figures in the plot? (Maybe it does here). Given that the titular Maharajah could NOT have been Prince of Agra, it's probably superfluous, except in its suggestion that readers can only think Taj when they see Maharajah or India.
As for the HP architecture, I can't even tell what it is enough to determine its influences. But mashup has to be correct, whatever those influences turn out to be.
So I wouldn't say that the man is unlikely to be Indian, just that he is generic enough to go either way.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Sunita. That and Sarah's suggestion that in the Australian (and perhaps to a lesser extent the Harlequin) edition "the setting is doing all of the work to show the specific ethnicity of the hero," make me think that these covers perhaps provide support for Amy Burge's analysis of some sheikh covers:
Perhaps what these covers indicate is that ‘sheikh-ness’ doesn’t necessarily have to come from the skin colour of the hero but can be indicated in other ways. For example, on the cover of The Sheikh’s Ransomed Bride the display of fabric, wood carving on the bed frame, a stone archway and a pool are Orientalist markers which signify the ethnic identity of the sheikh as well as his geographical locus in the east.
I checked the novel via Google Books and there doesn't seem to be any mention of the Taj.
I did find a description of Mia's injured eye: "the [...] web of scars [...] gave her milky eye the appearance - or so the plastic surgeon had insisted - of a moonstone set in filigree."
I wouldn't be surprised if the differences are because of the perceived demographic, or if Harlequin/Mills & Boon have periodic surveys of their readers and compares that to the particular geographic area in which those readers live. Despite what the book's description of the heroine is like, I'd think the UK version would appeal to readers in a heavily Asian/Indian population, especially because the hero and heroine both look Asian. They're both looking out directly at the reader, and that spells a certain claim on the reader's attention as real and authentic, in the same manner as someone looking directly at you in person, rather than elsewhere. Somewhat like the "female gaze," except, hmm, "non-white."
ReplyDeleteThe other two--more "generic"--covers would possibly appeal to areas where the readers might like a bit of "exotic" in their reading, but that's it.
On the other hand (if I'm right about the gaze idea), the Harlequin cover presupposes that there aren't subcultures in the U.S., and that a reader in Western Washington state would have the same frame of reference as someone, say, in a less heavily minority populated area. Me, I live south of Seattle, where there are a lot of people from India (Sikhs and Hindus in particular), and am of mixed race myself--quite common here--so I find the UK cover particularly hot. :-D
I do know that the Seattle area itself may be a hotbed of romance writing activity, and it is one of the biggest book-reading cities in the U.S., but unfortunately I don't know whether it's among the top romance reading cities in the U.S. (science fiction, yes, I'll believe that). If it is, then it's very possible that Harlequin's marketing department may have a dated impression of who their readership is. When I think of the economy and current pressures on print publishers these days, it may well be possible that Harlequin/Mills & Boon has not had the budget to update their perception of their readership.
Certainly, the 30-something and younger readership would not have as much of an objection to a mixed race or a differently-abled couple as older folk, since the younger have been acclimatized to the idea since they first set foot in kindergarten....certainly so on the west coast.
it may well be possible that Harlequin/Mills & Boon has not had the budget to update their perception of their readership.
ReplyDeleteCertainly, the 30-something and younger readership would not have as much of an objection to a mixed race or a differently-abled couple as older folk, since the younger have been acclimatized to the idea since they first set foot in kindergarten..
Actually, that may be an important factor in the difference between the UK covers and the other two because Mills & Boon UK recently revamped their cover designs and I got the impression that they did so specifically in order to appeal to a younger audience. On the 26th February 2010 Mandy Ferguson, Managing Director of Harlequin Mills and Boon in the UK revealed that
one of the challenges for the brand is to attract in readers in their thirties and forties. [...] we're actually working on a major sort of relaunch for the autumn and the brand will get a really fresh modern look.
The Mills & Boon makeover page dates the change to September 2010.
Re your comment that in the Australian picture "the setting is doing all of the work to show the specific ethnicity of the hero," how do you read the Harlequin cover, which uses the same photo but cuts out almost all of that background? The Harlequin covers for the Presents line (less so for other lines) all seem extremely focused on the couple: the photos are cropped so that they show very, very little except the couple (usually from the torso upwards) in a very tight embrace.
ReplyDeleteHmmm. I'd say that the Harlequin cover does a couple of things. Because it's a close-up, it allows the reader to focus more on the couple's faces - his particularly - so we can more easily tell he is the titular Maharaja. So in this version of the picture, the people are back to doing the work. However, if you don't pay close attention it really is more "two beautiful people in a pool" than "Indian man and beautiful scarred heroine." Not that we get her scars, but I still think the unique features of the story come out more in the UK cover.
Given that the titular Maharajah could NOT have been Prince of Agra, it's probably superfluous, except in its suggestion that readers can only think Taj when they see Maharajah or India.
True! The interesting thing to me is that I didn't even notice the Taj the first time I looked at the picture - I was too busy looking at the faces. It looks like an after-thought to me, as if someone was afraid the cover model and the word Maharaja wouldn't be enough explanation.
I can definitely see the UK cover appealing more to a younger demographic.
I didn't even notice the Taj the first time I looked at the picture - I was too busy looking at the faces. It looks like an after-thought to me, as if someone was afraid the cover model and the word Maharaja wouldn't be enough explanation.
ReplyDeleteLooking at other M&B covers in this line, it seems that all of them have a main picture featuring one or more of the protagonists, then a band containing the title and author's name and then, below that, a strip containing a photo which depicts the setting via relevant objects or locations. So, for example, on the cover of Maisey Yate's The Highest Price to Pay there's a catwalk, on the cover of India Grey's Craving the Forbidden there are champagne bottles, and on the cover of Sarah Morgan's Doukakis's Apprentice there's part of the Eiffel Tower.
So if the settings seem like an afterthought that perhaps reflects what the guidelines for the line have to say:
Readers are whisked away to exclusive jet-set locations to experience smouldering intensity and red-hot desire.
At the heart of your novel there must be two memorable and engaging characters who leap from the page but who remain credible, no matter what their situation.
It would seem that for the UK editors of this line the settings are important, but less important than the central characters, and that seems to be the impression the UK covers are giving.
Karen, Sarah, and Sunita, I'd also like to emphasise how grateful I am to you for your comments. I've learned a lot from this discussion.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that covers are aimed at the maximum number of readers and tend to steer away from anything that will deter someone from picking the book up. My heroine with the spiky purple hair had a distinctly Stepford Wives look, which was disappointing. But mass marketing means mass appeal.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure you're right, Liz, and I wonder if that creates some parallels with the most recent controversy about whether authors of YA fiction may be asked to rewrite their novels to cut out LGBT characters, or cut out any references to their sexual preferences, or change their gender in order to "straighten" them. Cleolinda provides a summary and notes that one response to the controversy came from a reader who said that
ReplyDeleteAs a reader, I don't want to be force-fed something I'm not comfortable with reading or dealing with. This goes for anything, not just homosexual content.
Do homosexuals exist? Do rapists exist? Do drug addicts and drug dealers exist? Do dark and scary things exist?
Cleolinda then states that
You can be a wonderful, non-homophobic person and still be complicit in catering to people like this, tiptoeing around them and hoping to keep their business--people who equate "homosexuals" with "dark and scary things." That is the problem: good people taking the safer path. Just make it easier for readers to deal with. Just take out the dark and scary things so a good book will sell more and be more widely read, whether it's now the same book at heart or not. That's what all of those complaints up there have in common, whether the issue was cultural, racial or sexual: it was something that the agent or editor might not personally have a problem with, but something that they were afraid would turn prejudiced readers away.
Obviously covers which replace spiky hair with a "Stepford Wife" look, or conceal a character's disability, or lighten their skin so that they look "generic enough to go either way" aren't exactly the same as books which have been re-written to avoid mentioning homosexuality, but I do see some similarities inasmuch as it seems that "mass marketing" can lead to the erasure of important differences.
It seems to me that covers are aimed at the maximum number of readers and tend to steer away from anything that will deter someone from picking the book up
ReplyDeleteI was thinking about this a bit more and wondering if the fact that the characters in the book can look different from the models on the cover perhaps suggests that
(a) people may respond differently to visual images than they would to the written equivalent of those images and
(b) editors trust that authors can get readers to sympathise/empathise/fall a bit in love with characters whom, at first glance, the readers might have a prejudice against.
I'm behind in my blog reading and I just got to catch up with the comments. Laura, thanks so much for doing these posts on cover differences. I know that authors have little to no control over the covers, especially at Harlequin, so my attitude about a cover is never carried over to the author. And I never pay attention to covers or titles when I buy categories; if I did that, I'd miss books by many of my favorite authors.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I think the M&B covers are so very much better than the Harlequins. The Bad Blood covers (even with the weird one for the Bollywood heroine story) are just so much better than their US counterparts, but that's just one example. If M&B is consciously trying to appeal to a younger audience, that's even more interesting. And it's not necessarily that older US readers are uniformly more conservative, but if they're used to their covers, they're not necessarily going to appreciate the difference. The titles, on the other hand ... but let's no go there again.