Smugglers’ Ponderings: Cover Matters

Danielle

You know, I was JUST in the middle of writing a post about covers on my blog (like, literally, I went on here to check which publisher Girl in the Arena was with because google isn’t working on my comp) and I have to say I am sort of annoyed with those bloggers who are saying they can not buy a book with such heinous whitewashing. I get their frustration, but that seems just a bit harsh. Authors shouldn’t be punished because Bloomsbury is a bunch of jerks.

I don’t know what Bloomsbury’s diff is, but I certainly do not not buy a book cause theres a bald chick or a black kid on the cover. This isn’t the fifties, and teens are probably the most liberal people out there. In fact, I’m kind of turned off of covers with pale, skinny girls at this point. Variety, people!

Maili

FWIW, the author recently stated that the cover of Magic Under Glass was already in the works when the Liar fuss happened.

Perhaps Magic Under Glass remained under reader-radars because author Jacklyn Dolamore is a newcomer (and without the significant online clout that Justine Larbalestier & Scott Westerfeld have).

I think I’m too cynical to believe that. There are quite a few covers that have white or pale-skinned models when heroines aren’t between the covers, regardless of who authors are. I don’t think people (generally) give a crap.

If they did, they would note it in their reviews or comments each time it happened, but they didn’t. There was a spike of ‘I’m reviewing a POC book, see?” after the Liar fuss, but as always, that spike died after a couple of weeks. Same thing happened with RaceFail.

I just can’t see how it can be done. I mean, it’s a no-win situation. Publishers won’t change unless it affects the sales, and readers won’t refuse to buy books they want to get their paws even if those books feature iffy covers. You know what I mean?

Diana Peterfreund

It happens in every genre. Category romance authors I know have been asked to change the description of their characters to match what’s on the cover, and I grew up reading Avon historical where the cover was Fabio every time — no matter what the guy on the inside looked like.

I am not such a purist to get up in arms every time a model doesn’t PRECISELY match the description inside the book, but I do feel like it should get the POINT across in terms of general appearance. For instance, does it matter that Girl in the Arena doesn’t portray a model with a buzz cut? Whether or not she does it early in the book, you could even argue that’s a bit of a spoiler. I’ll tell you right now, if I saw a cover with a bald girl on it, I’d get a very very different impression of the book from across the room (a book about a girl on chemo? a skinhead?) the first cover of RAMPANT had a girl with short curly hair on it, but that inconsistency –even though it made one scene far more x-rated than it should have been — didn’t touch the fact that it didn’t have a UNICORN. And Amy’s hair? I don’t give a shit, and I’m the author saying that. It doens’t have red streaks on it in Under the Rose’s cover, either. Her hair is actually waist long on the cover of Rites of Spring (Break) which is my favorite of that series’ covers, and the one I think is truly accurately depicting the content of that story. Even her bathing suit is the right color — and guess what? That’s an accident. I’ve also not received ANY complaints about the fact that her tattoo has magically moved a few inches to the left. You know why that is? Because the cover, while not literally accurate, is a very accurate representation of who that character is and what’s she’s like.

Her clothing on the cover of the first two books bothered me much more, since I thought it was OUR of character and portrayed the kind of “private boarding prep school” image that was so popular at the time.

But, having said that, a lot of people picked UP the book because they liked the private boarding school kind of story, and they liked MY book because it had a similar feel, even though it had nothing to do with private boarding prep schools. And the hardcover (neither of them) didn’t have a girl on it at all.

A lot of people complained about the new LIAR cover because they thought the girl’s hair was an inch too long or too neat, or she looked too feminine, or whatever. Talk about splitting hairs!

I find it interesting that you say at two different points in the post that you think Larbalestier and her husband had “pull” with bloggers (which is total bullshit, as Larbalestier never spoke publicly about the issue until it had been blogged all over), but also that authors have no control over their covers. So which is it?

And all that pull– what do you think Tally from Uglies looks like? Does she look like the girl on the cover of Uglies? Did I care if she did when I saw that cover across a crowded Barnes & Noble and rushed over to grab it, thus beginning a long love affair with Westerfeld’s books?

Do I think covers that feature close up shots of the main character should make an attempt to get at least the RACE of the character correct? Sure, particularly if it’s important to the book — as it is for Liar and as it seems to be for MUG. But how far are you going to take it? How about the RUSSIAN cover of Wings, which depicts a dark haired naked lady with a huge tattoo on her back? How about the German cover of The Forest of Hands and Teeth, in which Mary has red hair? How about the Russian cover of Secret Society Girl, in which Amy has grown talons?

There are no walking cows in sunglasses in Going Bovine! They never walk single file across a street in the Lonely Heart’s Club! Those shoes on the cover of Mandy Hubbard’s debut aren’t even Prada! 🙄

At some point, you just have to roll with the punches.

Diana Peterfreund

OUR of character = OUT of character. Sorry. 🙂

Danielle

Diane–YES! I tried saying that on the Story Siren’s post and was greeted with some rather hostile comments. Yes, its ridiuclous the publishers cant get the basic descriptions of the characters right, but to get really, honestly upset by it is just silly.

Thea

Thanks, everyone for the comments! It’s really interesting to see where everyone falls on the spectrum.

A few things…

Diana, Danielle and Holly – “I am not such a purist to get up in arms every time a model doesn’t PRECISELY match the description inside the book, but I do feel like it should get the POINT across in terms of general appearance. For instance, does it matter that Girl in the Arena doesn’t portray a model with a buzz cut?”

I think this is the point we were trying to get across. In Girl in the Arena, the cover is actually extremely misleading. I think it’s a gorgeous cover, but very little of the book is actually IN the Arena. In fact, the whole book is about the heroine shedding the image and rules that the Gladiator Association has placed on her – when I see her character, it is the strong, defiant girl with the shaved head. Not the pretty girl in the scanty costume in the arena. Granted, this cover DID catch my interest, and is a striking, pretty cover. It just doesn’t convey the actual content of the story, or the character IMO. I’m sure other opinions vary, though.

I agree that it’s silly to get up in arms about cover details not matching exactly what characters look like, etc – but when it’s something so drastic (and, frankly, insulting) as changing a character’s race (or making an overweight character skinny) in order to make the book more “appealing” or to sell better…that’s an entirely different story. And that’s what Ana and I were trying to convey with this post.

“I find it interesting that you say at two different points in the post that you think Larbalestier and her husband had “pull” with bloggers (which is total bullshit, as Larbalestier never spoke publicly about the issue until it had been blogged all over), but also that authors have no control over their covers. So which is it?”

I don’t think we articulated this well enough, and we certainly didn’t mean to insinuate anything negative with our sentence concerning Justine Larbalestier and Scott Westerfeld. What we mean is that, because Justine Larbalestier (and her husband) are already established authors, bloggers and readers were paying more attention to the release of Liar. They have an online following that Ms. Dolamore does not. Thus, when the cover of Liar was released, it was met with outrage – because people were looking. They were anticipating the release, and they *knew* that Ms. Larbalestier’s heroine was a black young woman with short, curly hair. Whereas with Magic Under Glass, I don’t think many people were aware that the heroine was a dark-skinned, Far Eastern, “trouser girl.”

As to the second part of your comment, Ana and I were trying to acknowledge that authors – at least the ones we have interviewed and talked to – seem to have very little say in what their book covers actually look like. We mention this to emphasize, especially in the midst of all the anger and boycott talk, that the cover of Magic Under Glass is NOT the author’s fault.

Also, I think it’s funny that you bring up Westerfeld’s Uglies. My ten year old sister just recently finished reading the book and complained to me that Tally looks so beautiful on the cover of the book – why would she want to change? This is from my baby sister. I agree that the cover is striking, but again, misleading. Certainly, it’s not as disturbing a discrepancy as with Liar or Magic Under Glass, but it’s worth mentioning.

Finally, regarding bloggers and power trips – I think it is awesome that bloggers have made an impact in some situations, as with the Liar cover. That is AWESOME, IMO. I haven’t really been part of nor have I seen any of the abuse of power/bitching about lesser character portrayals on covers, but I do tend to agree with you, Danielle and Holly – there are some causes worth fighting for, and some that are plain silly. I don’t really care that someone’s eye color is different or whatever on a cover. But I think I speak for Ana and myself when I say that it IS a big deal when something so fundamental as a character’s race is changed on a cover.

Finally, Maili – “I don’t think people (generally) give a crap.

I just can’t see how it can be done. I mean, it’s a no-win situation. Publishers won’t change unless it affects the sales, and readers won’t refuse to buy books they want to get their paws even if those books feature iffy covers. You know what I mean?”

I’m going to have to disagree with you here, respectfully. I don’t think that getting publishers to acknowledge that whitewashing their covers is a bad thing is a fruitless or pointless undertaking. We’ve already seen that people can cause positive change with the Liar cover reshoot. Maybe the majority of people don’t give a crap in the long run – but Ana and I do. I’m certain other bloggers and readers do too.

And as to the last part of your comment, well, all I can say is this is the point of our post. Maybe you’re right, and it all boils down to sales and what sells for a publisher. Maybe the boycotters are right. But Ana and I are trying to propose an alternative method of instigating change – by communicating. Encouraging others that feel the same way to speak up, contact the publisher, and let their feelings be known. At the very least, it’s worth a try. And I’ll take that over settling for the broken status quo.

Gillian

As far as I’m aware (and bear in mind, I am no expert), the people designing the covers rarely actually read the content of the book before they put the cover together so it’s little wonder covers rarely match the story.

It’s horrible when the race (or size, if that is important to the story) of a character is ignored as far as the cover model goes, but if anything else is mis-represented I really have to remember it’s called cover art for a reason. The cover model for the Mercy Thompson series is a prime example. The character in the book only has one tattoo and yet the cover art depicts her as being covered with them. It doesn’t stop me from buying the book because it’s the story I’m after and the cover attracted me to the story in the first place.

Colleen

The Magic Under Glass cover is only one part of the larger issue which among many YA/children’s book reviewers and bloggers is about diversity in children’s publishing. There are not enough books with kids of color published every year – and that imbalance is only exaggerated by the Liar and MUG covers.

Whether or not to boycott is a personal issue – it is always a personal issue. Arguing about whether or not someone should boycott is unnecessary. Those who want to will, those who don’t won’t. There are plenty of things to do other than boycott as you point out there. Basically, everyone can do something on this issue.

It does bother me that we continuously say the author holds no blame here. Whether they like it or not, the author owns that cover – he or she allows their name to put on it. If they think it is wrong and indeed are contractually bound to accept it regardless then in a case like this, where a dark skinned character is being masked as a light skinned one, then I think the author is morally bound to speak out against the choice. Justine said she didn’t like it and she wished it was different. Jaclyn should do the same.

While covers can certainly be silly and stupid and romanticized and everything else (and I agree with you about Simone Howell’s cover – I actually mentioned that ages ago when I reviewed it) putting a light skinned model on the cover of a book about a dark skinned person is a very serious decision, especially when selling that book to teens. This decision says that dark skinned characters are not as desirable to the reader, not as worthy to the buyer and not as valuable to society.

In essence, we prefer to hurt the feelings of dark skinned teens in order to court the dollars of pale skinned ones.

This is not only a lie, it is particularly cruel lie. Long hair vs short hair is one thing but white vs black? That is 1960; that is 1860; that is just not who we are and if publishers think it is, then we damn well need to change that perception.

I have certainly mentioned covers I think are silly or lame but this is not that sort of frivolous discussion and I would hope that everyone realizes that.

Simon John Cox

I am almost certain that the publisher’s decision to use a white model on its cover has nothing to do with any kind of “ism” and everything to do with marketing. I would hazard a guess that someone in Bloomsbury has done some research and found out that 75% (or whatever) of people who buy its books are white, compared to only 10% (or whatever) who are black…so they put a model on the cover with whom the majority of its readers can identify.

Yes, it’s stupid to have a white person on the cover of a book about a black character, and yes it seems cynical, but that’s how marketing works – by creating positive associations between product and consumer…and (presumably) Bloomsbury has done research that shows the majority of consumers are white.

You might say “but a white model might turn off potential black readers”. This is a valid point, but the numbers would bear out the marketing decision – using my 75%/10% numbers above if 5% of people are put off by a model off a different race then with a white model they lose 0.5% of all potential readers (10% x 5%), whereas with a black model they lose 3.75% of all potential readers (75% x 10%).

Arbitrary numbers and a lot of assumptions, but it makes my point that publishing – like any business – is all about the numbers.

You might also say that you yourself wouldn’t be affected or turned off by a model of different ethnicity, but perhaps you don’t represent the norm. Perhaps a lot of people are – I don’t know.

Anyway, those are just some of my thoughts on the whole issue.

As a slightly related aside, when I was in a Borders shop in London recently I spotted a section called “Black Literature”. So patronising – as though they aren’t good enough to sell unless they’re made to stand out separately! I can’t think of a more effective way of making black authors seem different to other authors than by giving them their own section. A good book is a good book – just put them in with the rest of the authors!

Helen M.

This is such a good and important issue and I am so glad that you suggest contacting the publisher rather than boycotting since that hurts the author and the industry. Sanctions hurt the people, not the government (if we are to go to a wider arena). Thanks for the post!

KMont

I was going to respond with some points, some responses to others here, several things, but the fact is I’m not in a minority so I just do not know how it feels to have ones race passed over time and again on a book cover. I can sympathize and stand up for a minority – and I do – but there’s nothing like that shoe being on my foot.

So I’ll just say that this post makes excellent points. Communicating as you are suggesting is a hell of a lot better than boycotting.

I will say that as a reviewer, I stopped commenting a long time ago on book covers not accurately representing the characters within, just kind of grew apathetic to it all because it’s an across-the-board problem as yall have suggested (unless there was one that really stood out for some reason to me). I would hate to assume it’s a case of racism every time I read a book that doesn’t depict the correct ethnicity on a cover, but perhaps it’s worth it, worth commenting more on the covers in general too, during a review. I don’t, however, care to place blame on reviewers that don’t point these kinds of things out. Why assume that the reviewer is being deliberately negligent? I forget to include points in my reviews all the time.

Karen Mahoney

katiebabs:

Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t that happen with Liar? Justine saw the white washed cover first and never went back to the marketing department or her editor and give her opinion?

Just to correct this point, Justine did in fact voice her objections to the publisher & marketing department. She says this is her blog post where she first spoke about the issue in public:

http://justinelarbalestier.com/blog/2009/07/23/aint-that-a-shame/

As you can see, even though she objected strongly to the whitewashing, her objections were overruled – at least to start with.

Kaz

Adrienne

the cover looks like a rip off of the Gemma Doyle series…if I was the author I would be peeved…for a second I thought you finally reviewed the 2nd book in that series… 😆

I agree 100%, it’s 2010, show us some color on the pages and stop with they shenanigans already…

and people give a crap or this wouldn’t have so many comments today.

Simon John Cox

Hi Diana

You said that you’re “having a tough time wrapping my brain around how a “marketing decision” like you describe can possibly be viewed as anything other than racist”.

Racism is about treating someone differently because of the colour of his or her skin. So yes, I suppose publishers who do what I describe (NB this is just my assumption) do treat black people differently…but only if their research showed that this particular demographic behaved differently to others.

This kind of thing isn’t about ethnicity, it’s about market segments – a market segment could be “black people”, but it could equally be “people over 65” or “people who live in cities” or “people who are on Facebook” – it’s just a way of separating people into different categories in order to target products at them more effectively and sell more of whatever product you’re selling.

Do you see what I mean?

If you’re selling a soft drink somewhere where there are a lot of black people, you’d probably put up a poster with a black person drinking that drink. But that doesn’t mean to say that the company is prejudiced against white people – it’s just trying to hit its market segment.

You say “You’re saying yourself that a “positive association” between product and viewer involves that hypothetically majority viewer seeing only its own skin color on the cover of a book. So it follows that you are saying that seeing an accurate cover with a minority on it would produce a negative association?”

Perhaps it could, I don’t know. It doesn’t necessarily follow – people could be ambivalent. Also, I’m only guessing that people might identify more positively with an image of someone of their own ethnicity – I haven’t got any data about it. It’s just a hypothesis.

You say “Yes, it’s a marketing decision. But it’s one that has to do with race.”

And in this case, it does. But in another case, having a lurid yellow cover with a picture of a microphone could be doing exactly the same thing, only it might be intended to lure the under-18s and exclude the over 18s (I don’t know, it’s just a quick example).

So this cover thing is about race…but in a way it’s not *really* about race.

I’m not sure I’ve explained myself very well. Do you see what I mean?

Simon John Cox

By “white people buying books comes first” I mean “they found out that white people buy the majority of this kind of book before marketing to them”. I don’t think I was clear enough there.

Diana Peterfreund

Simon, I understand what you are saying. I am saying that it is a racist marketing decision. It can in fact be both. Saying you think fewer people will buy a book with a yellow cover on it is a marketing decision. Saying that you think fewer people will buy a book if you in accurately depict its contents as not including a person of color by putting a white girl on the cover is a marketing decision that takes racism into account.

Now, saying you think the best cover for a particular book is something that doesn’t have a person on it at all could in fact be taking racism into account, but it also might not. And there are plenty of books with no people on it — my first book had no people on it, and the main character was white.

Simon John Cox

I’m not racist, by the way.

Even though that is the defence of the racist.

But I’m really not.

I’m just putting the argument across from a marketing point of view.

Please don’t hate me.

Diana Peterfreund

I don’t know how else to explain the difference to you, Simon.

When you target diet coke to women soda drinkers by making an ad showing a woman drinking diet coke, you are not telling the women OR the men who see the ad that what is in the bottle is lemon water. You are still telling them it’s diet coke.

When you target a book about a POC to a majority white readership by making a cover showing a white person on the cover, you are telling the white and non-white readership who sees that cover that the book is about a white person. You are saying that what’s in the can is lemon water.

And when we are talking about races of people and not flavors of beverage, that makes it ABOUT RACE. And since this marketing decision is based on discriminating against one race in favor of another, then it’s racist.

Of course it’s about money. Of course it’s about appealing to the widest possible audience. Doesn’t mean it’s also not a racist decision.

Maili

Simon, using coke/diet coke as a comparative analogy is not a good idea. Let’s use your way to illustrate the problem of the Magic Under Glass cover:

Marketers decide Coke need more sales and the bigger slice of the consumer market is female, so they put a Diet Coke label on a bottle of Coke and market it as Diet Coke to the female market.

Would you still say that that’s acceptable?

If not, then you’ve finally grasped why the Magic Under Glass cover (and the like) is not ethically acceptable.

Simon John Cox

Effectively, Coca-Cola marketed Diet Coke to men by putting a Coke Zero label on a bottle of Diet Coke, yes. Same product (virtually), just under a different label.

But we’re in danger of getting bogged down in a cul-de-sac here. I don’t disagree that putting a white person on the cover of a book about a black person is insensitive, distasteful and unethical; I was just interested in the motives behind it – which I think are more cynical than sinister.

Diana Peterfreund

Simon: I don’t think racism has to be “sinister” in motives. Cynicism, negligence, indifference. That can all have racist outcomes. Go read MLK’s letter from a Birmingham Jail about “white moderates” to get another perspective on this.

http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

Yes, the word “racism” has these horrible connotations, but to pretend it’s not happening just because it doesn’t come along with the “evil” that is associated with the word “racism” isn’t helping anything.

____________

Thea, thank you for all your responses. A lot to chew over. As for Tally, no I don’t think I’m reading too much into it. She has a change of heart in UGLIES — she learns the truth of the pretty operation, she bands with the Smoke, she tries to bring down Dr. Cable. And, notwithstanding any of those things, it’s established quite clearly that Tally is NOT “ugly” by today’s standards. Shay, before she runs away, states this many times. David says so too. The text of UGLIES is quite explicit about this, showing her over and over again insisting that yes, she IS ugly, that it’s a SCIENTIFIC FACT that everyone who hasn’t had the operation is ugly, blah blah blah. She’s brainwashed, and it takes a rebel like Shay and an outsider like David to reveal that to her. Also, the pretty operation is about far more than looks. It’s about privileges. Until she has it, she can’t join the rest of her society.

Gerd D.

You know, I barely tend to care if the cover design is in sync with the story on a detail level long as it doesn’t obviously go against it.

“Magic under Glass” is a beautiful executed cover that piques my interest, and long as it doesn’t turn out to be a modern teen-drama or worse (in a getting the genre wrong sense) Sci-Fi I’m contend with that.

I do find it questionable what some point out going on in advertising, where pictures featuring black models or actors might get “lightened” up to make them look more acceptable to a general audience.

Now that’s a issue to be in arms over, but book covers featuring white, or white looking models when the lead is actually coloured, that’s sure something that should be noted, and publishers should be reminded of the fact that we (hopefully) don’t care for a characters ethnicity as much as for the quality of the story, but going up in arms over it?
Don’t think so, unless you would insist on using a white model (or better yet a white male model) on a book like Waris Dirie’s “Wüstenblume”

And debating hair styles, or colours, or clothing, is taking things to far … kudos, no less, to anyone that can tell prada’s from shoes. 😀

Veronica F.

wow Diana, I didnt know some authors had actually even been asked to change their characters descriptions! that’s seriously messed up; and so is this trend on the book covers with bloomsbury and others.
Booksmugglers- u can bet I’ll be writing a complaint to the publisher this week, as well as posting about it on my blog. thanks for informing unsuspecting readers like me of these sorts of things 💡

Shannon

Thank you for this post! A friend and I constantly have this discussion while roving about the Barn (B&N).

I’ll be sharing this post with all my friends, and we’ll be sending out the complaints.

Dreadful Penny

Thanks for this post and for focusing on letting concerns be voiced directly to (and about) the publisher and their marketing team AND not a boycott of the book. In fact, my heart sunk a little when I read that Bloomsbury’s actually messing with the publication schedule of the book at this point. I mean, I agree that it’s an egregious mistake, but it really seems like the author is the one who’s getting jerked around.

printer ink refillsinkjet printer ink

Hey There. I found your weblog the usage of msn.
That is a very smartly written article. I’ll be sure to bookmark it and come back to learn extra of your useful info. Thanks for the post. I’ll certainly
return.

I am greatful that you taking a time period to evaluation my account.

You are welcome to have a look at my webpage also for additional facts and effective
tips :: printer ink refillsinkjet printer ink