We cannot, on the one hand say we don’t care what other people think and then on the other start saying people like Bindel need to ease up. The current image of romance is one that lends itself to Bindel’s criticism, not that I think the criticism is very sound given the basis of it (cover blurbs and titles).

I think it goes back to the Adele Ashworth statement where she said “I write historical romance, not historical fiction.” If romance is just about fun and beach reads; if it is just feeding the market, then I don’t think that romance deserves to be taken seriously. It doesn’t deserve to stand next to literary fiction or other genre fiction. It and the books of the genre do not deserve to have reviews in the NY Times and so forth.

I don’t think you can have it both ways.

If I buy full-on erotica (sexy title and cover), I’m fine with taking that to the clerk. Cheesy mantitty or clinch though? I’m ashamed to be seen with it. When people see those, they smirk. The presumption is that the writing is as predictable and overblown and tacky as the cover.

I must not be the target audience for those covers. The other day I got a Samantha James (with setback) at the library and the clerk said, “Aren’t those covers wonderful? So wild and romantic.” Yish.

Honestly, I think part of it’s generation gap. That library clerk is 20 years older than I am. But this isn’t the 80s any more. While that was a fun decade, I appreciate a little more sophistication these days.

Somehow to this day I am reluctant to buy mantitty, especially if there is a face attached. But I would not object to a mantitty cover on my own book, as long as I don't have to look the cover model in the eyes. Whatever makes it sell.

I have the same reluctance to buying some books with mantitty covers, and an even greater reluctance to reading those books in public. I remember years ago, being at the bookstore with one of Dara Joy’s books in my hands. It had gotten great buzz online, but I just couldn’t bring myself to take it up to the register because of the cover.

I also prefer the chick-litty covers to Kristina Cook’s books over the cover of her new one. I realize they are not a good marketing choice because they mislead many readers (I knew she wrote historicals, but I inform myself on the internet, and many readers don’t), but personally, I would be more likely to buy one of those books because I wouldn’t be embarrassed to be seen reading it in public, and I like to read in public.

BUT, the latest cover is really hot! That has got to have you dancing aruond the room.[/quote]

When I showed my agent the very first cover, for UNLACED, her reply was, “They’re marketing it as historical chick-lit?!” At least that book had a corset on it, so it somewhat hinted at historical, but the next two covers got more and more contemporary/madcap/romcom looking.

And, yep, I love the TO LOVE A SCOUNDREL cover!!!!!! It actually reflects the tone/feel of the story–even the jewelry on the cover is germane to the book!

Somehow to this day I am reluctant to buy mantitty, especially if there is a face attached. But I would not object to a mantitty cover on my own book, as long as I don’t have to look the cover model in the eyes. Whatever makes it sell.

I will look at a book based on the cover. But it takes the blurb to draw me in. That’s how I found Sherrilyn Kenyon with Night Pleasures.

And yeah, had to go look for Waldo LOL.

BUT, the latest cover is really hot! That has got to have you dancing aruond the room.