Book Covers

Via Broadsheet, I recently read an interesting article by Karen Heller about the covers of books for women, and how they tend to feature “disjointed body parts” — backs, arms, legs, feet — without faces.

The thinking, or so I imagine, is that readers will look at these women’s body parts or backs and identify. “Why that’s me!” or “That looks just like my old friend Susie!” In other words, they think we’re stupid.

Those kinds of covers are usually a turn-off for me, but out of curiosity I turned to my trusty GoodReads to find the best and worst covers of books I’ve read lately.

A Novel Ian McEwan’s Atonement features an entire little girl sitting on some steps.
Little Children The cover of Tom Perrotta’s Little Children catches your eye immediately.
The Monsters of Templeton The Monsters of Templeton initially had a lovely embossed silhouette cover…
… but the next printing featured — the back of a woman’s head.
On Chesil Beach McEwan’s On Chesil Beach features an unidentifiable woman. It’s a horrible book, so go figure…
A Novel Another silhouette cover — this is probably my favorite of all the books I’ve read in 2007-2008!
Advertisements

Links of the Whatever — 2008.05.10

  • I kind of want a fagbug. Is that wrong? It is just so damn cute and awesome. [Via Feministing]
  • Manliness vs. Guyliness — an interesting post from Edward Keenan’s Act Like a Man. (Is it weird that I read a blog about manliness?)
  • How to Win a Street Fight — yes, I read the Art of Manliness, too. Sue me. It’s interesting to read this and imagine a female doing these things. I think a woman giving her “best war cry” would be remarkably intimidating, if for no other reason than being completed unexpected.
  • Cleavage at Work: Yay or Nay? asks Jezebel, and I have to give it a great big nay. The article states “On one hand, fuck a mothertrucker who can’t concentrate and look you in the eye just because you’re wearing a scoopneck shirt” but heck, I’m a reasonably heterosexual female and I can’t keep my eyes off the things if they’re just… out there.
  • The new/old Starbucks logo is causing a (minor, fringe) ruckus, according to Salon’s Broadsheet. Personally, I like the old/new logo better — it looked sleek and modern. The new/old/new logo makes me think of fish-flavored coffee from the 1800’s. On the other hand, I think “Slutbucks” is a wonderful new word.
  • Manbabies switches the heads of dads and their babies in PhotoShop. It’s remarkably disturbing. [via The Daily Dish]