I’ve been reading a lot of romance for the past 10-15 years. I think the older style covers can tell you fair amount about the book (sub-genre, heat level, publisher, etc) but nothing about the quality of the writing. In fact, one of the things I like least about the current illustrated covers is that I can’t interpret them as quickly.

Most authors don’t have huge control over their covers. Self-published authors are limited by the availability of stock photos and their budget for designers. Traditionally published authors usually don’t have much choice in their covers.

OP here. Thanks for all the replies! Agree wholeheartedly that there are badly written books in all genres. I have less patience for bad writing in other genres. If a plot is formulaic and predictable in a detective novel, it ruins it much more. There is a lot of very good writing in the romance genre -- I definitely don't want to perpetuate the bad writing myth.

I definitely don't think an illustrated cover is any sort of guarantee, of course not. It's really the clinch covers that I am asking about. I do understand that there has been a shift away and wondered if there is some kind of message being sent (by the publisher or whoever designs book covers) about content. I have unconsciously stayed away from all photographed/choreographed covers -- and I am trying to examine if this is just my hangup or if there is a difference being communicated by the covers?

Thanks to PP above on the shift away... will follow those links.

To the PP who mentioned Jasmine Guillory, I have read everything in Libby!

Friend, we ALL like well written books, and there are poorly written books in all genres. I wish people wouldn't perpetuate the myth that romance is badly written as a genre.

The move to illustrated covers is recent and controversial. A lot of books originally published with clinch covers have been reissued with a more neutral cover. So no, an illustrated cover doesn't guarantee anything about the writing or steam level. Often the author has no say in the cover, either.

Anonymous wrote:I’ve read 120 romance in the last several months and I agree that you can’t judge a book by the cover, in either direction. I’m thinking of Pucking Around (spicy MMMF with cutesy cover) and Kayley Loring’s silly holiday covers for her surprisingly sharp and witty stories.

In short, no you shouldn’t necessarily shy away from the cringey covers. Even among the spice and contrived forced-proximity scenarios, there are some

. Sorry hit send!

There are some amazing stories in the genre. You already know how much magic the (much maligned) genre has, so feel free to explore it despite (or because of?) the cheesy covers.

I’ve read 120 romance in the last several months and I agree that you can’t judge a book by the cover, in either direction. I’m thinking of Pucking Around (spicy MMMF with cutesy cover) and Kayley Loring’s silly holiday covers for her surprisingly sharp and witty stories.

In short, no you shouldn’t necessarily shy away from the cringey covers. Even among the spice and contrived forced-proximity scenarios, there are some

Anonymous wrote:I thought I read that the covers of romance novels actually helped fuel sales of kindles and romance books on kindle -- because readers did not want to feel judged on the subway? It was a long time and my memory isn't what it used to be . . .

As for new covers - I laughed at Ice Breakers. I have a tween and teen and all of our brains were confused.

That's really interesting about kindle sales.

I mostly read on mine because I use my library card and Libby to send books to it, but I think I've read so much romance that I don't care what people think of the covers if I have a physical copy.

There's a bookstagram traditional called "Stepback Saturday" and people post the inside photo from a book and people guess what it is. I don't have a good enough memory to "play," but I enjoy seeing all the art!

I thought I read that the covers of romance novels actually helped fuel sales of kindles and romance books on kindle -- because readers did not want to feel judged on the subway? It was a long time and my memory isn't what it used to be . . .

As for new covers - I laughed at Ice Breakers. I have a tween and teen and all of our brains were confused.

Just here to say your should read Jasmine Guillory

Anonymous wrote:The steamy covers generally are telling the reader that it's going to be a steamy book. The illustrated covers denote more of a fun, less steamy book. There are plenty of well-written steamy romances, but you need to like steamy--which generally also means they have more complex issues involved.

Colleen Hoover has been writing for years, but took off due to TikTok and referred to as "ugly cry" books. They are not fun but aren't sex driven either. So you get that middle ground kind of cover.

Not the case anymore! There's a ton of talk about how those illustrated covers are appealing to teens and many of the books aren't really appropriate. Ice Breaker by Hannah Grace is a recently popular example. The sex scenes are plentiful and descriptive.




The Brown Sisters books are another example. Not appropriate for teens, but the covers are sweet and cute.

I started to appreciate clinch covers when I realized how much work went into them. One of the reasons publishers moved away from them is because they were done by artists originally and then by photographers and models.

In a nutshell, publishers are cheaping out. Covid was also part of the problem, of course.

There's a fantastic podcast that talks about this. Here's a little video summary:

https://www.tiktok.com/@chels_ebooks/video/7262441969073343786

The same person talking about romance covers: https://www.tiktok.com/@chels_ebooks/video/7172619049958935850

Could there be a little internalized misogyny to our reaction? I used to have the same reaction. But then I thought about how these are covers that show the female gaze on books that center female characters, mostly written by female (at least presenting) authors, and in a genre that makes up a substantial part (about 20%) of book sales. What makes us embarrassed or hesitate about them?

The steamy covers generally are telling the reader that it's going to be a steamy book. The illustrated covers denote more of a fun, less steamy book. There are plenty of well-written steamy romances, but you need to like steamy--which generally also means they have more complex issues involved.

Colleen Hoover has been writing for years, but took off due to TikTok and referred to as "ugly cry" books. They are not fun but aren't sex driven either. So you get that middle ground kind of cover.

I started reading Romance books a few years ago after a lifetime of reading mostly classics and "good literature" books. Despite the predictability and formulaic nature, I really enjoy them, especially the rom-com type, but do need a certain level of good writing. I know how ridiculous it sounds to be snobby about the romance genre but, for the escapism to work for me, it has to be decently written, I guess. So, for example, I like Sophie Kinsella, Christina Lauren, Emily Henry, Marian Keyes, to name a few.

Reading the other thread about Romance series, I realize that I have gravitated toward the books with the drawn/illustrated covers as opposed to the steamy photographs. In fact, that thread made me realize that I have actively avoid those books and assume that they are badly written--but I have never read one! Is this a ridiculous and unfounded bias? I would love to be told I am wrong because I read a ton and have read everything in my library by the above authors as well many others. What do other fans think? What can we judge by the covers?