are we seeing a trend: urban fantasy book covers

[kaigou]

I think the images speak for themselves.

   

The problem is that I'm not sure what they're saying.

                   

plus, bonus variation on a theme!

Comments

[temporus.livejournal.com]

Um, hot looking women with tatoos will turn their backs on you? Or something?

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

A response (lower down) had links to a publisher's discussion of the "butt shot," as the publisher called it. The essay notes that in stagecraft, the most powerful attention-getting position on the stage is downstage, center, facing the audience. Second-most powerful is downstage, center, but facing away from the audience.

Thing is, most of the illustrations, the woman isn't actually facing away. She's doing a three-quarter turn, like she's trying to see the reader out of the very farthest stretch of her peripheral vision.

I think that's what keeps tweaking my brain about the poses.

[wiredwizard.livejournal.com]

I think what concerns me more is that I own 10 out those 15 books...

[miladyinsanity.livejournal.com]

I only have 7. That is, I've read 7, but I think I only own 4.

I think the back only part is trying to pull in an 'air of mystery' around the protag?

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

I was talking about this over dinner with the SO, and his suggestion was that to have someone facing off -- away from the reader -- means you can indicate a threat in the background. It's a more potentially dynamic kind of illustration, showing the character in a forceful, take-action pose along with giving some hint of the story's content.

Thing is, that doesn't really seem to be a good description of a lot of those covers, where the woman's too busy casting a coy or come-hither look over her shoulder to actually notice any big bad walking straight for her. *snort*

[miladyinsanity.livejournal.com]

They are all too pretty to be anything but come-hither. Kinda, too pretty and too stoopidly preening away to be anything but notice any Big Bad Predators coming after them.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

Heh, I just realized after you posted that, that I don't own any of them!

I am bad, bad, urban fantasy fan. Then again, I can't stand 90% of all vampire fiction and I tolerate werewolf fiction even less. So, uh, yeah.

[wiredwizard.livejournal.com]

=shrug= I'll read just about anything, unless it's really horrifyingly bad, or it puts me to sleep.

[ldragoon.livejournal.com]

That urban fantasy is kinda like soft-core porn? :P

Edit:

EEK! Which is not to say that I think it is! I love urban fantasy. I just mean, that's kind of what the covers are saying to me.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

Yeah. As mentioned above, tonight's dinner discussion was about the photography/cinematography uses of such poses, and the messages of them. The SO pointed out that hands-on-hips is an active, even defiant pose -- but I replied that this is only so if the legs are shoulder-width apart, enough to give a good, solid stance. Otherwise, when hand is on hip and one hip is higher than the other (indicating off-balance between feet/legs) and one shoulder's a little higher than the other... it doesn't say action to me, or even defiance. It says, "why doncha come up and see me some time, big boy."

So, yeah. Soft-core porn notes are definitely in there, if purely by body language and not necessarily by actual content.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

The message is:

Urban fantasy is about hot slutty looking women viewed from behind.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

With weapons!

You can't forget the big weapons!

(Although I really have to wonder about the cover image for Devil Inside -- not only is the torch beautifully phallic, but if you look between the character's legs... *cough*...)

[cteare.livejournal.com]

Well, I only own two of those.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

I own none!

[windsorblue.livejournal.com]

Have any of these books been published post-Serenity? Because the pose reminds me of the end of River's fight scene with the Reavers at the end of the movie. Maybe they're saying, "Hey! Joss Whedon fans! You like messed-up chicks who kick ass, right? Right??"

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

Heh. Actually, I believe several of them were -- this style has been around on urban fantasy covers for six or seven years now, at least. (I think the first really influential ones were at least one of LKH's, and then someone else started using the pose as a branding feature for some series...)

Per reply above, CP and I were talking about this tonight, and when I mentioned your comment about River, he said, "well, there's yet another phallic symbol weapon." Which, if you think about it, often negates the woman in position-of-power: strong enough to turn her back on the audience yet still clutching some phallic extension. To which I pointed out that I'm almost positive the image of River used in the promos showed River holding shotels, or similar -- nasty-looking weapons with a distinct curving blade. Very un-phallic, now that I thikn about it.

Branding a subgenre

[dangrgirl.livejournal.com]

I have actually heard an editor talking that using tatooed females on urban fantasy novels has deliberately become a branding element.

Juno books editor Paula Guran has a series of posts on urban fantasy covers, dissecting the common poses used: Butt Covers (http://juno-books.com/blog/?p=284), The Pose (http://juno-books.com/blog/?p=315). There are more posts on the topic, but I can't seem to find them right now.

Re: Branding a subgenre

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the links -- very interesting essays, though raising more questions than actually giving any insight as to the intended psychology of the style. I mean, sure, we could call these all (or mostly) butt-shots, but in the majority, the woman isn't looking off to the distance at a threat or potential about-to-be-dusted bad guy. Devil Inside is the only one in which a woman is both holding a weapon and looking straight away from the reader; For a Few Demons More is the only one where the woman is actually moving away from the reader.

The rest all have three-quarter turn either from the hips or the shoulders, giving them just barely enough twist to be looking hard to the side, giving us image in profile (if they aren't twisted far enough to give the reader the whale eye). Reading folks' responses, and those essays, and looking over the covers, I think that's what gets me the most about these images. These women aren't actually showing strength: they're showing off assets and giving the reader a coy sideways glance.

Hrmph.

[maaya1x2.livejournal.com]

Where are the nekkid men?

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

If I find any, I'll let you know -- but the only time I've really seen any of note is on SF space opera style covers, and even then it's mostly just bare chest. If you can ignore the mostly-naked woman at his feet, clinging to his legs. OMG the flashbacks to the original Star Wars poster, excuse me...

*gets hives*

[annotated_em]

...that clearly the cover designers are all over my demographic for "Mmmmm, that's kinda hot."

[bonniers.livejournal.com]

Kinda????

*wipes drool off keyboard*

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

Would that be hotter with, or without, the three-quarter pose that creates a sideways glance?

[annotated_em]

*snerks* I like the ones without the sideways glance better, myself, but that may be a matter of taste.

[stormywriting.livejournal.com]

"We think women have sexy bodies and personality is irrelevant." ?

But that goes so much against what the books themselves are saying.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

See my response above, to Dangrgirl (http://kaigou.livejournal.com/488200.html?thread=3931912#t3931912).

Yeah, you're right about what's inside most of these books. I wonder, though, now that I think about it, whether the sideways glance is meant to connect to the reader -- include the reader in the image, to some degree -- but I can't help but see that as a variation on the same old come-hither heavy-lidded expressions of old soft-core porn dime-store novels.

[stormywriting.livejournal.com]

It MIGHT be, but you can't escape the various states of undress and certain overly exaggerated body parts.

There is a dark allure to them, which captures the feel of the books in most cases, but all lined up, it says something.

[drich.livejournal.com]

I think it's the 'anti-bodice-ripper' indicator. They're supposed to represent women with spine (hah) and grit who don't go all heaving-bosom fainting. No more being a mannerly doormat, they'd rather be kicking ass and taking names. Ah, demographics and marketing, ya gotta figure it's working.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

...except that very few of the women are actually kicking ass, or even looking like they could. Most of them actually look like what you'd expect to see if you were walking down the street in a heavy bordello-infested area: that kind of slight lean, twist in the spine, look over the shoulder to see if you're heading this way without being obvious about it. Man, I keep getting flashes to the cover images of those bad '50s exploitation movies and novels, with the "prostitute with heart of gold" so often shown in a similar pose... heh.

Well, marketing. Yeah.