- Joined
- May 14, 2005
- Messages
- 12,862
- Reaction score
- 2,846
- Location
- A Small Town in Germany
- Website
- www.sharonmaas.co.uk
Shy woman in front of the Taj
I actually had a discussion with this guy on his FB page. Five of my books are on his collage of Indian book covers. I have always known that these covers are cliched, but I am far more tolerant than he is of the fact simply because I know that covers are only a marketing tool --but a very powerful one.
For me it is no worse that swords on fantasy covers or high heels on chick lit covers, and it's not a fight I particularly want to fight -- I am far more concerned with the book's content. Putting a highly artistic, original cover on a book that is meant to capture the attention of people who like to read about India is not going to generate sales.
A woman in a sari imo is no worse for a book set in India than a woman in jeans and T-shirt for a book set in the West ... and it alerts readers to the content. As do the lotus, paisley motifs, and (shudder) the Taj Mahal. The only one of these images I really resent is the Taj, as it is a Moghul building, ie of Muslim origin, and so usually has little to do with anything within the book. Especially if the protags are Hindu. Hennaed hands usually means that marriage and love figures within the book, etc. I honestly don't know what the alternative would be; and I'm sure that we authors won't change things. If these covers sell books, publishers will stick to them.
There is a further collection of African cover images and Arab covers in the article.
How tolerant are you? Is this something we should be poking out our publishers' eyes for? Can we change things, and if we did, would this effect sales?
I see these covers more as bait; if the book between them paints a realistic and many-faceted picture of the culture represented, I don't mind using them to draw in the readers for whom they are intended.
Your opinions?
I actually had a discussion with this guy on his FB page. Five of my books are on his collage of Indian book covers. I have always known that these covers are cliched, but I am far more tolerant than he is of the fact simply because I know that covers are only a marketing tool --but a very powerful one.
For me it is no worse that swords on fantasy covers or high heels on chick lit covers, and it's not a fight I particularly want to fight -- I am far more concerned with the book's content. Putting a highly artistic, original cover on a book that is meant to capture the attention of people who like to read about India is not going to generate sales.
A woman in a sari imo is no worse for a book set in India than a woman in jeans and T-shirt for a book set in the West ... and it alerts readers to the content. As do the lotus, paisley motifs, and (shudder) the Taj Mahal. The only one of these images I really resent is the Taj, as it is a Moghul building, ie of Muslim origin, and so usually has little to do with anything within the book. Especially if the protags are Hindu. Hennaed hands usually means that marriage and love figures within the book, etc. I honestly don't know what the alternative would be; and I'm sure that we authors won't change things. If these covers sell books, publishers will stick to them.
There is a further collection of African cover images and Arab covers in the article.
How tolerant are you? Is this something we should be poking out our publishers' eyes for? Can we change things, and if we did, would this effect sales?
I see these covers more as bait; if the book between them paints a realistic and many-faceted picture of the culture represented, I don't mind using them to draw in the readers for whom they are intended.
Your opinions?
Last edited: