• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

Hot...or not. Cover-art article

If that were true, Jamber, it would not explain why so many woman-targeted romance and urban fantasy novels have a woman on the front cover. Generally in risqué clothing.

Thing is, publishers spend a good deal of money learning what covers work for different target groups. So if they are slapping sexy pictures of women on the covers of woman-targeted fantasy books, it's because those covers sell well to women.

Notice however: the woman targeted covers are sexy and strong, not some negligee-clad woman clinging to Conan's leg. Much like male targeted covers have some sort of wish fulfillment, so do these covers.
 

Nihal

Vala
Kevin got it right, at least for me. I don't get that bothered by half-naked women as I get by a female "protagonist" who exists just to walk around being sexy and to be the damsel in distress, so the hero can save her and show off how kickass he is. It's even worse when the author tries to paint the female warrior as a powerful warrior, she's know as a powerful warrior by everyone in story but her actions just don't reflect it, she's nothing more than a useless crybaby who needs to be rescued, when not too busy being sexy.

I guess this is a quite personal view. Revealing armors are stupid, ok. Sometimes they're pretty too and I must confess pretty things appeal to me, not in a sexual way, just because they're pretty. Bare skin don't offend me, maybe because I live in a tropical country and while we don't walk around naked you still get to see bikinis, shirtless men and such - cmon, sometimes we have a Mordor weather here + beaches! What offends me are shallow characters created just only to appeal and actually break the story flow, slaping you right out of the immersive mood.

Lately I've reading a book where the heroine is kinda like this. They present her as a beautiful, clever and spirited young woman, but I only saw her acting spirited when it would place her even in more danger so she can be conveniently be rescued by the heroes party. Seriously?
 

lawrence

Troubadour
- cmon, sometimes we have a Mordor weather here + beaches! What offends me are shallow characters created just only to appeal and actually break the story flow, slaping you right out of the immersive mood.

Lately I've reading a book where the heroine is kinda like this. They present her as a beautiful, clever and spirited young woman, but I only saw her acting spirited when it would place her even in more danger so she can be conveniently be rescued by the heroes party. Seriously?

:) 'Mordor weather' ...made me smile.

Yes, overt manipulation of a character is sure to cause that breaking of the story spell, makes you feel ripped off. You glimpse the puppet strings. I guess it's a similar principle when it comes to cover art. A bit of subtlety wouldn't go amiss.
 

Nihal

Vala
Yup. My point is: Annoying? Yes. But we'll survive. It's how those scantly clad characters are employed that can really scare me off.

A bad cover art, for example, can be a turn off too (since I'm design and illustration oriented it's a big one for me). But I've read books with awful covers, it usually takes some extra pushing as a friend's recommendation or already knowing the author's work.


As a female this issue doesn't enrage me as some people guess it would, it just looks silly. Female warriors who are constantly portrayed as helpless offend me. When you put more thought on on her armor than her behaviour it's a sign to stop, you're overthinking the issue.

And while it's silly, bare skin is appealing for me the same way a cool hair is, it's not that I'm sexually attracted to it nor I want to be those characters, as some people speculated, but because it's beautiful. So are lizards and bugs!

Now, about males showing skin being sexy... It's more a personal taste, but I like a little mystery, haha. A disarrayed and open shirt can be sexy, but so are armors, they speak of power and of a fighter.
When I stumble upon a character being described as a greek good with exploding muscles, his bare chest covered with sweat I must admit that I... I... I laugh out loud, it can't be helped! I imagine him flexing his muscles and pouting while he tries to be sexy, it's so stereotypical, hilarious! I'm not into the Connan trend, also my personal taste disagrees with all the overly muscled steaming hot male culture.

This Mordor weather thing appeared during some bad heat waves. The running joke was "Oh, Rio de Janeiro has a mountain climate... Mordor.". Technically incorrect but awesome haha.
 

Legendary Sidekick

The HAM'ster
Moderator
Revealing armors are stupid, ok. Sometimes they're pretty too and I must confess pretty things appeal to me, not in a sexual way, just because they're pretty. Bare skin don't offend me…
Okay, this would explain a lot.

I have daughters, and they love mermaids and fairies who are basically beautiful young women who wear bikini tops or tiny dresses. I've also drawn a few female protagonists who tend to show a bit of skin but in a way that's meant to be cute, not sexy. I've noticed that my female characters tend to be appealing to my daughters, my wife, the science teacher in the classroom next to mine (a woman), a woman on DA that I used to play Monster Hunter with (who drew fan art of my characters in their undies), and some women from this forum.

It was a little confusing at first, like I'm getting away with something. The characters are appealing to me, but also to women. What have I done? Your words explain it perfectly.
nissa_s_descent_by_legendarysidekick-d5sl4bh.png

Oh… and none of those girls I drew are damsels in distress by any means.

Especially this one:

who is described in the quote below.
 

saellys

Inkling
I agree wholeheartedly with Alexandra's point.

For writers who want to appeal to a basically male (heterosexual) audience, the sexualised female on the cover probably does what it should.

But for writers who want cross-gender or female appeal, it would make sense not to assume a male (and heterosexual) gaze. The trouble is we're all used to the tradition, I suppose...

We know it works, so we keep on doing it, regardless of the potentially harmful things it normalizes and perpetuates.

Personally, I can't imagine why anyone would want to appeal exclusively to a heterosexual male audience when they know there are other options. But then, I am not a heterosexual male.

If that were true, Jamber, it would not explain why so many woman-targeted romance and urban fantasy novels have a woman on the front cover. Generally in risqué clothing.

Thing is, publishers spend a good deal of money learning what covers work for different target groups. So if they are slapping sexy pictures of women on the covers of woman-targeted fantasy books, it's because those covers sell well to women.

Notice however: the woman targeted covers are sexy and strong, not some negligee-clad woman clinging to Conan's leg. Much like male targeted covers have some sort of wish fulfillment, so do these covers.

Woman appear on the covers of romance and urban fantasy novels because they're often the main characters. (In my admittedly limited experience, urban fantasy has the highest concentration of female protagonists in literature today.) Risqué clothing gets tossed in because the publisher hopes to attract male readers if possible, and/or because women have been thoroughly indoctrinated to objectify themselves the same way men do. The male gaze is everywhere.

I have yet to figure out exactly what male readers (and film viewers) really mean when they say a female character is strong. I have heard it applied to literally everything from "She carries a gun!" to "She didn't sleep with the male protagonist!" and "She has a rape-revenge story arc!" I've seen comic book artists justify their female characters wearing practically nothing by saying they're "strong" and "empowered" and "confident". My strength and empowerment and confidence do not add up to sexy poses or clothing, and I would much rather see female characters written and portrayed with the same depth and thought and compelling arcs as male characters than to be told, time and again, that a female character is "strong" for some arbitrary reason.
 
Last edited:
Speaking to definitions, to my mind, if a character chooses to exercise their will in spite of difficulties–be they cultural, physical, disabilities, or whatever–then they are a "strong" character.

In my mind, this would apply to male or female characters. But I think that most people might think of "strong female" characters as those that have a will to exercise at all. This is a little disconcerting if true. Maybe it speaks to the idea that we are so used to women being portrayed as accompaniments that when they appear to have a mind of their own, we call them "strong".

Not sure if I made the point or not in an earlier post, but going back to the cover question. I don't think having "sexy" women on covers is a sexist at all, so long as there's a good reason for them to be sexy and on the cover. If it's contrived to get them into the outfit, then it could be sexist (depending on the contrivance), and if it is doesn't belong on the cover then it could be sexist (or just marketing via sex appeal). I disagree with the idea presented that "it's not sexist if it doesn't look absurd for a man to do the same pose/outfit". Speaking from personal experience, I'm not offended at all when a man is portrayed "sexily" for use in marketing.
 
Last edited:

saellys

Inkling
Speaking to definitions, to my mind, if a character chooses to exercise their will in spite of difficulties—be they cultural, physical, disabilities, or whatever—then they are a "strong" character.

In my mind, this would apply to male or female characters. But I think that most people might think of "strong female" characters as those that have a will to exercise at all. This is a little disconcerting if true. Maybe it speaks to the idea that we are so used to women being portrayed as accompaniments that when they appear to have a mind of their own, we call them "strong".

You hit the nail on the head.

Not sure if I made the point or not in an earlier post, but going back to the cover question. I don't think having "sexy" women on covers is a sexist at all, so long as there's a good reason for them to be sexy and on the cover. If it's contrived to get them into the outfit, then it could be sexist (depending on the contrivance), and if it is doesn't belong on the cover then it could be sexist (or just marketing via sex appeal).

What exactly, in your opinion, would be a good reason for a female character to be sexy and on the cover?

One of my husband's co-workers loaned us Fanboys a few months ago. I got as far as the menu screen before deciding that it wasn't my cup of tea, but what fascinated me was the difference between the front and back covers. The cast is on the back cover hanging out by the van in which they have all their adventures, and the lone female character, played by Kristen Bell, is wearing a cute sweater and jeans, her hair styled normally, a girl-next-door smile on her face.

On the front cover, she's wearing Leia's metal bikini from Return of the Jedi, and her pose and expression is on the tame side of seductive. There are many layers of problems happening here; the cover is meant as an homage to the original Star Wars trilogy posters, which often sexualized/subordinated Princess Leia, so thematically it "makes sense," but it is nevertheless clearly an excuse to get Kristen Bell in a state of undress in the hopes of boosting ticket and DVD sales.

I disagree with the idea presented that "it's not sexist if it doesn't look absurd for a man to do the same pose/outfit". Speaking from personal experience, I'm not offended at all when a man is portrayed "sexily" for use in marketing.

It's pretty rare to come across men portrayed sexily (as in actually sexily, and not just a male power fantasy--the difference has been discussed over in the other sexism thread) for use in marketing. The most recent example I've encountered was a photoshoot with Tom Hiddleston in a bathtub, which didn't quite compare with the levels of objectification, contorted poses, and abbreviated clothing that happen to female models all the time. The "it happens to men too!" argument gets brought up a lot in these situations, but the sad fact is that it really doesn't, not even remotely on a comparable scale.
 
What exactly, in your opinion, would be a good reason for a female character to be sexy and on the cover?

Because she wanted to be? Sometimes people like to show off. If there is a relatively main character that enjoys showing off, then it would be sexist to *not* include them on the cover on the grounds that they should be more demure for our sensibilities. It would also misrepresent the character.

Then there are characters, perhaps from primitive tribes, where the females don't wear tops. I'd say it is sexist to say they can't be on the cover unless they cover up when we have no problem throwing a guy in a loincloth. Not because it happens to men too, but because those women are choosing to dress that way.

One of my husband's co-workers loaned us Fanboys a few months ago. I got as far as the menu screen before deciding that it wasn't my cup of tea, but what fascinated me was the difference between the front and back covers. The cast is on the back cover hanging out by the van in which they have all their adventures, and the lone female character, played by Kristen Bell, is wearing a cute sweater and jeans, her hair styled normally, a girl-next-door smile on her face.

On the front cover, she's wearing Leia's metal bikini from Return of the Jedi, and her pose and expression is on the tame side of seductive. There are many layers of problems happening here; the cover is meant as an homage to the original Star Wars trilogy posters, which often sexualized/subordinated Princess Leia, so thematically it "makes sense," but it is nevertheless clearly an excuse to get Kristen Bell in a state of undress in the hopes of boosting ticket and DVD sales.
o_O That's surprising! I watched it on TV and I don't remember her even being in that outfit. In fact, she had that geek look throughout the movie which was a nice change. Still, the movie on the whole was the cliche "don't see what's in front of you because you're a moron" story.

I can understand the homage, but I don't think it accurately represented the movie so I can see people saying that is sexist also. Unless Kristen Bell begged to do it, in which case, it would be sexist to not let her as one of the stars in the movie do something related to the movie that can serve as marketing—although I still don't think that should be the cover, maybe a viral campaign or something.

It's pretty rare to come across men portrayed sexily (as in actually sexily, and not just a male power fantasy--the difference has been discussed over in the other sexism thread) for use in marketing. The most recent example I've encountered was a photoshoot with Tom Hiddleston in a bathtub, which didn't quite compare with the levels of objectification, contorted poses, and abbreviated clothing that happen to female models all the time. The "it happens to men too!" argument gets brought up a lot in these situations, but the sad fact is that it really doesn't, not even remotely on a comparable scale.

Yes it is rare, and I think that speaks to the culture of America. There are a lot of guys that will not pick up something with a sexy picture of a guy unless it says "Men's Fitness". I wasn't making an "It happens to men too" argument, I was saying I as a man do not care if it did happen to men.
 
Please reference links so we know you weren't taken over by a robot :p

Her armor was no worse than the armor worn by the celts or by the Dahomey warrior women. All I'm saying is that it *can* make sense—it probably doesn't usually.

*cough* The celts are credited with the invention of mail armor in Europe. Yes, there is documentation of cases where some of them went into battle without anything on, but they were better armed and armored than they're often given credit for, at least as far as can be told by the archaeological record. ;)
 
*cough* The celts are credited with the invention of mail armor in Europe. Yes, there is documentation of cases where some of them went into battle without anything on, but they were better armed and armored than they're often given credit for, at least as far as can be told by the archaeological record. ;)

This is a bit besides the point though? I'm not talking about them throughout their entire history. And accounts state that even when some went into battle naked, there were others that went in armed. One account said some might wear a plate over their chest or similar while others went in naked. A lot of this is believed to be a psychological thing (freak out your enemies), but none of this hurts my point: it has happened.

In fiction, it is also a common tradition in mythology: the hero goes into battle naked I mean. It is reasonable that a pious individual would test themselves with costume armor or nudity in battle.

There are examples of people going into battle naked, there are examples of armor for men that were useless outside of a parade; it is logical that if women took a larger part in battle (read: were allowed to / accepted alongside men), then they would also develop "dress armor" that was more for show than utilitarian and that a hapless person would find themselves wearing said armor in a battle situation.

Peasants frequently went into battle with barely more than quilted armor and if you look at tropical/hot areas, there is a lot of evidence of people fighting battle while still having a good portion of their bodies exposed.

In a fantasy situation, which is about as close to mythology as we get anymore, it is reasonable to expect individuals to test themselves or believe themselves invulnerable. Also, there is usually magick, and that can be a game changer as well. Going D&D route for a quick example, if a person can cast mage armor on themselves and get the same benefit as if they were wearing a full suit of chain mail, then they can easily fight in their underwear and be as protected as everyone else. Then it boils down to what do they *want* to wear, not what they feel compelled to wear. Also, there is something horrifying about someone relatively unarmored killing armored men and women and not flinching at their weapons.

I'm not saying it's wise or that it should be portrayed as common as it is sometimes argued that it is in fantasy, but I am arguing that it can be reasonable and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.
 
Last edited:

lawrence

Troubadour
Very relevant pic, Devor! I have to confess that part of my reaction was; Nooooo!...the beautiful elf is all ruined!

Would it have seemed so awful a tragedy if she were not so 'attractive'? In a thoughtful reflection, yes, of course, gorgeous elf warriors are no more valuable than kindly old peasant women that have the faces and bodies of half-trolls.

But the immediate reaction, before my higher conscience has time to kick in...oh my, I am so shallow!

And I guess that little insight into human nature is why publishers will continue to use the hot cover girl to try for that all important prolonged glance over their book.
 
Top