As I'm sure a lot of you are aware, a small kerfuffle emerged on Twitter a few weeks ago after Mary Pauline Lowry's article, entitled "YA Cover Girls On Top," appeared in the Huffington Post.
While Lowry was quite complimentary towards bloggers in some aspects -- our enthusiasm, our passion, our ability to get things changed when we want them changed -- she took some jabs at our love of covers.
I quickly realized that while the cover was an eye-catching match for my wild little novel, it was not at all in the vein of typical YA covers, which most always feature a slender, sexy, Caucasian female protagonist. I was concerned that these covers, so adored by readers, contribute to the general societal pressure that demands that young women conform to impossible standards of beauty.
I saw there is a contradiction in the fact that even though YA bloggers are using their book blogs to engage in the confidence-building act of expressing their opinions about books, they value book covers that reinforce an image of beauty unattainable to most women and girls, and therefore self-destructive.
Let's take a quick jab at the first issue: the idea that we require slender, sexy Caucasian female protaganists.
As a sexy slender Caucasian female -- well, I know I'm the last three, and my boyfriends seems tot think I'm the first -- I kind of don't agree with this. And most other people, be them other sexy slender Caucasian women or sexy curvy African women or scrawny Asian men or muscular Native American men, seem to disagree.
Sure, if there's a gorgeous cover that happens to have a sexy slender Caucasian female on it, I'll take a look at it. But for the most part, despite the popularity of the covers, they're boring. They look like everything else, or they look strange, or I just don't like them. I'm not a fan of covers with people on them for the most part; sticking a sexy slender Caucasian female on the cover doesn't mean anything to me.
I value covers that are beautiful, eye-catching, speak to what the book is about. It's why I can't stand the redesigned covers for the Robin Wasserman's Cold Awakening series. It's just a ridiculously skinny girl made out of water. Are they well-designed? Sure, maybe. But they're not THAT eye-catching, the girl looks way too skinny, and they have nothing to do with the books. (And I also have an issue with how they renamed them. But whatever.)
Or a better example might be The Selection cover. Bright colors. Big dress. Overly skinny girl. A better cover than Wasserman's, but I'm not a huge fan of the model -- she's too skinny -- and the dress itself is a turn off to me. I do like the font choice.
And then there's something like Sophie Jordan's Firelight series? Love the covers. Sure, they've got a pretty white girl on the cover, but I'm attracted to the makeup that's on her face and the design of the font, not the girl themselves.
Then there's the matter of our love of covers themselves.
I also learned about YA bloggers' fetishistic love of book covers. Now I grew up reading books for what was inside them and never gave much thought to their covers. To quote Annie Dillard, I knew that "Some books were bombs that exploded in your head, and others duds," but like Dillard, I could never tell just by looking at a book if it would be a life-changing bomb or a boring dud. But 21st century readers are much more steeped in visual culture. They also have a lot more competition for their time and attention, so they want books that are not only meaningful reads, but also visually satisfying. And they see the book's cover art as inextricably linked with its contents.
I don't understand what's wrong with it.
The cover of a book is the first glance most people get of a book. In that instant, it sets up whether or not we should pick up the book. We understand if it's a contemporary, a fantasy, a historical fiction. We can tell whether or not the book will be darker or along the funny side. The title helps narrow down the topics. The image itself helps with the characters, the setting, all of the basic stuff that you would learn if you pick it up and turn to the back of the book to where the summary is.
The cover is what gets me to look at the summary. It gives a snapshot of the book. And if that snapshot looks like it sucks, why am I going to want to read it?
People who think a movie trailer looks terrible aren't going to see the movie. If you're looking for a Broadway show to see and you're skimming the images on Broadway.com, you're going to pick one that catches your eye -- title, the background of the cover, who is standing on the front.
Book covers are no different.
If your book looks terrible, it's a bad reflection on what's inside. If your book doesn't match the topic inside and I pick it up and look at the back, I'm not going to want to read it.
Once you get me to pick up the book, if the summary sounds good, I don't care anymore if it's "visually satisfying." I'm going to buy it, read it, and put it on a shelf where the odds of me seeing the cover again are equal to the odds of me rereading it.
But you have to make me want to read it.
Lowry's original cover? Her redesigned cover? I wouldn't read it either way.
Here's the summary of Lowry's book:
The Earthquake Machine tells the story of 14 year-old Rhonda. On the outside, everything looks perfect in Rhonda's world but at home Rhonda has to deal with a manipulative father who keeps her mentally ill mother hooked on pharmaceuticals. The only reliable person in Rhonda's life is her family's Mexican yardman, Jesús. But when the INS deports Jesús back to his home state of Oaxaca, Rhonda is left alone with her increasingly painful family situation.
Determined to find her friend Jesús, Rhonda seizes an opportunity to run away during a camping trip with friends. She swims to the Mexican side of the Rio Grande and makes her way to the border town of Boquillas, Mexico. There a peyote-addled bartender convinces her she won't be safe traveling alone into the country's interior. So with the bartender's help, Rhonda cuts her hair and assumes the identity of a Mexican boy named Angel. She then sets off on a burro across the desert to look for Jesús.
The original cover (right) reminds me of a college textbook. Does it have the Mexico theme going? Sure, of course! But it's dull. It looks like it's going to be about the life of somebody who built a machine to measure earthquakes in Mexico. The stark black/yellow, the simple image... it's nice, to be sure, but it doesn't look like something I would pick up.
The redone cover (right) has a model that fits the main character. But, um, that's it. It looks like somebody vomited up purple-and-green Photoshop all over it. The font choice and color are terrible -- I can barely read it -- and the pose of the model is awkward. She looks like she's sucking her thumb. If the last one was a college textbook, this is about a girl who gets sucked into doing faerie drugs and turns into a faerie drug addict. Or something.
And then there's this (right). A cover I drafted up in ten minutes. Is it great? No. On the other hand, I'm not trying to sell a book. However, it takes elements from the first one -- the yellow, the simple fonts -- and ties it into the androgynous girl in the second one. There's a Mexico skyline inverted at the top. It's simple. Enough to catch the eye, enough to get a general idea that this is a contemporary story about a girl. And that's really all you need. Mine is nowhere near great, but I'd like to think it's better than the first one because it makes it clear that it's YA-ish, and better than the second because no color vomit.
It's not a matter so much of having a great cover. I love covers that are pieces of artwork. But if your cover doesn't match the ideas in your book, why do I want to read it? If you're presenting me something that looks terrible, what's going to make me want to take a peek inside, especially when a great book with a great cover is just around the corner?
... what do you guys think about covers?