.jpg)
I have a real antipathy to bare muscle-chested males on book covers, and am unlikely to buy a book with this kind of front cover. If the man is clutching a mainly naked woman, that makes a double reason not to buy the book.
Why? Because these covers give the impression that the story relies heavily on physical attraction (and sex).
I write romances, I write about a man and woman being attracted to each other. Yes, maybe physically attracted in the first instance, but if that’s all there is between them, then the relationship is shallow. I much prefer an emotional connection and deepening love rather than a relationship based solely on physical attraction and/or a need for wild sex. Any bedroom (or elsewhere) scenes in my novels are the result of a blossoming love, and not just sex because they can’t keep their hands off each other.
There seem to be more and more covers with naked males/females, but I’m not sure why some authors choose to have these bare chests or part-clad females on their covers. Do they think readers will buy the book, hoping for sexy (or even erotic) scenes? Am I weird that I don’t find these covers – or bare chests - particularly attractive?
Attractiveness to me is a smile, an intense gaze from dark eyes, or even twinkly brown eyes (yes, I admit I once fell for a man who really did have twinkly eyes when he smiled!). After that comes the character and personality of the man. If that doesn’t turn me on, then his chest, bare or otherwise, certainly won’t.
I’ll leave you with two images. Not exactly a bare chest, but the (infamous) wet shirt scene from Pride and Prejudice.
To me, this is much sexier than a bare chest, but I didn’t pause the DVD at this point. Here’s where I stopped
the DVD and replayed (again and again!).
This to me was infinitely more sexy. The smouldering look of
love.
A bare chest with six or eight pack is the last thing that
would attract me to a man, in real life or in fiction – and so I’m not
interested in books that show bare chests on their covers.
Does that mean
I’m in a minority? Maybe more to the point, would I sell more books if my front covers showed bare-chested heroes?
To me, bare chests and half dressed women scream "historical" and since I like historicals, I will check out the blurb on the back. My understanding from a lot of authors is that they don't get a big say in their covers. I think we are the exception, Paula. The covers that bother me more are the ones that look contemporary when they're not, or who have blond heroines when they're described as brunettes, etc.
ReplyDeleteI dislike bare chests on covers, regardless of whether they're historical or contemporary. Also, I think I've seen more on self-published work where obviously the author has chosen this kind of cover. Whatever! On my Cover Art forms, I always write 'No naked chests, please!'
ReplyDeleteI think the cover needs to reflect the story. If bare chests and half naked ladies are appropriate and give a hint to the content of the story...I'm all for them. But I don't think every cover should feature them just for the sake of nakedness. :)
ReplyDeleteGood point, Debra - but I suspect that many covers feature them to 'attract' readers, rather than to reflect the story.
ReplyDeleteI notice that none of our covers feature naked chests :-)
"Just for the sake of nakedness." Hee hee!
ReplyDeleteBare chests don't really do much for me, but I'm old. I prefer a well earned head of silvery hair and a white flashy smile. A three piece suit turns me on, still today as it did when I was 30. I love my man in a three piece suit.
ReplyDeleteOr any man, actually.
I feel exactly the same as you, Paula, and always request 'no naked flesh' on covers! I especially find it amusing that so many Scottish historicals feature half-clad kilted highlanders - I suspect that's a figment of some women's imagination. I prefer the second pic of Darcy!
ReplyDeleteBare chests don't bother me but, like Jennifer, I get very annoyed if I read the book and find the cover bears no comparison to the protagonists or the situation.
ReplyDeleteThe second Darcy picture is definitely (and infinitely) sexier and more appealing than the wet shirt one. I don't like people on my covers at all, to be honest, bare-chested or otherwise, and if I must have one I'd always go for a back view, no faces.
ReplyDeleteI had a bit of an issue with the cover for Maid of Oaklands Manor as the one they gave me showed a smiling, blonde girl, round-faced and chirpy-looking, and my heroine is small, dark-haired, and having a pretty miserable time for much of the book! (not selling it, am I?! But then, she's a 1912 scullery maid, and the girl in the picture they gave me looked more like a well-to-do 1970s girl with a pretty hat on.) Luckily they were accommodating and changed it. Still not ideal, but WAY better!
So - no, not lovin' the "I'm hot, buy me," kind of covers, to me they cheapen what might be a beautiful love story.
Jo, I am a sucker for a tux and a bow tie!
ReplyDeleteRosemary, we obviously think the same! I've noticed the half-clad highlanders too ;-)
ReplyDeleteTerri, I totally agree about the 'I'm hot' message these covers give, and about the cheapening effect too.
ReplyDeleteA cover featuring people with little clothing on suggests erotica to me. If the book is erotic that's fair enough as it will attract the appropriate audience. If it isn't then readers who don't want erotica will avoid it and those who did want erotic content will be disappointed.
ReplyDeleteThat's an excellent point, Patsy. I suspect that more non-erotic books have bare chests than vice versa!
ReplyDeleteCovers are supposed to attract attention, because no one will buy a book that doesn't cause them to stop and take a second look. That's why so many products geared to men have sexy women in the ads. I've read about what attracts women to book covers, and apparently the two biggest draws are babies and bare-chested men. Also, dark-haired men are more of a draw than blonds, so, even if the hero is light-haired, you'll see a dark-haired model on the cover. As for me, babies don't interest me, and I like looking at a handsome man as much as the next woman. I admit, occasionally I have bought a book just for the cover, but the model has to be my idea of gorgeous. Ah, Nathan Kamp. I love him. But I haven't bought every book he's on, either. :)
ReplyDeleteIt all goes to show we're all different, Linda, because bare-chested men don't attract me to a book at all! I'm far more interested in the blurb - and if that mentions a sheikh, or billionaire, or Regency rake, I put the book back on the shelf! But that's the subject for another post :-)
ReplyDeleteI've come to this late, Paula, but it's something I've had an issue with for a while. It does depend on whether the book is 'erotically inclined' or not, I guess, but I really dislike 'headless' bare torsos, especially when the woman is also headless. This seems to me to just portray the main characters as 'bodies' rather than people with real feelings. Like you it's the eyes that 'do' it for me, although I'm not averse to a bare chested hero, provided we see his face, although I like to see him with a shirt on, albeit unbuttoned!:) I wonder why half dressed men and women appear in so many historicals though, since my understanding is that in those days, a woman who showed herself to a man she wasn't yet married to, in this way, would have been termed a 'wanton'and been shunned by society! :)
ReplyDeleteJust my thoughts, but this is such an interesting topic and I think everyone has their own views on the subject.
You've made some very good points, Lyn. I agree completely with what you say about the 'headless' people on covers - the emphasis seems to be only on their bodies.
ReplyDeleteThat's also a good point about scantily glad women in historicals. At that time even an ankle was considered 'erotic', never mind the rest of her!