Skip to main content

Bad book-covers revisited

An irregular feature of the original 52 Books blog was Bad Book-covers, where I would pick an ugly, inappropriate or badly designed book-cover and criticise it to pieces. I think I will make this a feature of this blog as well, although it can not be a regular one as sometimes I don't come across a noteworthy bad book-cover for weeks on end. Mostly they just tend to be dull and uninspired, which makes it hard to say anything catty about them, but occasionally I come across a real doozy, which is when I start sharpening my claws...

As a life-long reader I feel that I and other readers deserve books with good covers. The cover is one of the selling points of a book, and is one of four features I consider when making an uninformed book-buying decision (to use marketing jargon). The title is another one, the back-cover introductory blurb a third, and a sample read is the fourth and final feature I consider (I only consider authors as a selling point if I'm familiar with them). If the cover is dull, bland, cheesy, salacious, garish or just plain ugly when it shouldn't be, I will think twice about buying the book. Sometimes, of course, I don't discover that the cover is bad until after I have finished reading the book. This is when it first becomes apparent whether a cover is appropriate or not.

Today's cover is a mixture of "already thought it was bad" and "didn't think it was that bad".



This is the cover for Sister Carol Anne O'Marie's first Sister Mary Helen mystery. As it describes sinister goings-on, the dark, broody background with its bad-weather colours and swirling dark clouds is quite appropriate, as is the ornate, manuscript-like lettering of the title. The woman on the cover, however, also looks decidedly sinister, with her red suit and that "I'm-going-to-hurt-you" expression combined with those almost diabolical eyes. She looks, in fact, like a psychotic Jessica Fletcher. This would be fine if the villain of the story were a nun, a fake nun or a psychotic religious type (or indeed a woman), which is what I thought when I first looked at the picture. But this is supposed to be Sister Mary Helen herself, which brings me to the "didn't think it was that bad" aspect of the picture. What makes it so bad, in the "inappropriate" sense, is that she is wearing a wine-red suit. First of all, who ever heard of a nun wearing red? Secondly, Sister Mary Helen wears a navy-blue suit. It is mentioned a couple of times in this book, and in the other book I have read in the series as well. Obviously the cover artist either didn't read the book and didn't get very accurate information to go on, or they decided to take an artist's licence with the colour of the suit because navy-blue would have made the cover too gloomy and the nun nearly invisible. Whatever the reason, this cover gets a thumbs-down from me.

Comments

Maxine Clarke said…
Good posting. Have linked to it on Petrona at:
http://petrona.typepad.com/petrona/2006/06/cover_stories.html
Love that nun!
Anonymous said…
Please don't blame the author, or even the artist, for inaccurate covers. The editor sends instructions to the artist, who has probably never read the book. If it says red suit, that's what the artist has to paint. Unless you're Stephen King, or some other very, very, big shot, you the author have no say at all in the cover.
Bibliophile said…
Anon, do you see me blaming the author or artist? If the sentence "Obviously the cover artist either didn't read the book and didn't get very accurate information to go on, or they decided to take an artist's licence with the colour of the suit because navy-blue would have made the cover too gloomy and the nun nearly invisible." has offended you, read it again, especially the first part and I think you will see that I am merely discussing why the artist might have made the error.

Popular posts from this blog

Book 40: The Martian by Andy Weir, audiobook read by Wil Wheaton

Note : This will be a general scattershot discussion about my thoughts on the book and the movie, and not a cohesive review. When movies are based on books I am interested in reading but haven't yet read, I generally wait to read the book until I have seen the movie, but when a movie is made based on a book I have already read, I try to abstain from rereading the book until I have seen the movie. The reason is simple: I am one of those people who can be reduced to near-incoherent rage when a movie severely alters the perfectly good story line of a beloved book, changes the ending beyond recognition or adds unnecessarily to the story ( The Hobbit , anyone?) without any apparent reason. I don't mind omissions of unnecessary parts so much (I did not, for example, become enraged to find Tom Bombadil missing from The Lord of the Rings ), because one expects that - movies based on books would be TV-series long if they tried to include everything, so the material must be pared down

List love: 10 recommended stories with cross-dressing characters

This trope is almost as old as literature, what with Achilles, Hercules and Athena all cross-dressing in the Greek myths, Thor and Odin disguising themselves as women in the Norse myths, and Arjuna doing the same in the Mahabaratha. In modern times it is most common in romance novels, especially historicals in which a heroine often spends part of the book disguised as a boy, the hero sometimes falling for her while thinking she is a boy. Occasionally a hero will cross-dress, using a female disguise to avoid recognition or to gain access to someplace where he would never be able to go as a man. However, the trope isn’t just found in romances, as may be seen in the list below, in which I recommend stories with a variety of cross-dressing characters. Unfortunately I was only able to dredge up from the depths of my memory two book-length stories I had read in which men cross-dress, so this is mostly a list of women dressed as men. Ghost Riders by Sharyn McCrumb. One of the interwove

First book of 2020: The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel by Deborah Moggach (reading notes)

I don't know if I've mentioned it before, but I loathe movie tie-in book covers because I feel they are (often) trying to tell me how I should see the characters in the book. The edition of Deborah Moggach's These Foolish Things that I read takes it one step further and changes the title of the book into the title of the film version as well as having photos of the ensemble cast on the cover. Fortunately it has been a long while since I watched the movie, so I couldn't even remember who played whom in the film, and I think it's perfectly understandable to try to cash in on the movie's success by rebranding the book. Even with a few years between watching the film and reading the book, I could see that the story had been altered, e.g. by having the Marigold Hotel's owner/manager be single and having a romance, instead being of unhappily married to an (understandably, I thought) shrewish wife. It also conflates Sonny, the wheeler dealer behind the retireme