Polly Courtney says her writing “is commercial fiction, it is not literary, but the real issue I have is that it has been completely defined as women's fiction … Yes it is page turning, no it's not War and Peace. But it shouldn't be portrayed as chick lit."
She feels the cover misrepresents her book – it displays “the chick-lit staple of a pair of slender legs.”
Another author, Michele Gorman, who doesn’t mind her own chick-lit label, said: "But at the end of the day, we do judge books by their covers, and if it doesn't do what it says on the tin it will have disappointed readers. Publishing houses do tend to take a single broad brush approach to books by women, for women, and we as writers don't have creative control over our covers or our titles."
Here’s how a rep for HarperCollins responded: "Avon is right behind Polly Courtney's timely and important book. Our experience tells us it has a great look and feel and we think Polly will be delighted when she sees it flying off the shelves."
Hmm. I think they missed the point.
I hope it's not a publicity stunt. I don't like the cover either, too cliche.
ReplyDeleteEvery Savage Can Reproduce
I think there is a very broad difference between chick lit and women's fiction. First of all, chick list is often romantic in nature and features a woman who drinks, worries about her weight, quips, and is all Bridget Jones about men and life. Everything pretty much revolves around the relationship and the woman always obsesses about her weight and drinks when she's feeling low. The books are often humorous and light-hearted even during moments of depression or romantic doldrums. Chick lit is the lighter, fluffier side of women's fiction.
ReplyDeleteWomen's fiction is literature about women's issues and, although it may have a romantic theme or feature a romantic situation, is not all about the romance.
Bridget Jones is chick lit. Circle of Friends is women's fiction.
My novel, Among Women was once labeled as chick lit and I took offense. There is no real romance at the heart of the story, although there are liaisons between some of the characters, and the book is definitely not light-hearted or fluffy. It is serious literature, and therein lies the difference. Serious literature is going to be women's fiction.
Based on the cover, I would assume it's chick lit. If it's not, Harper Collins has done the book a disservice.
ReplyDeleteI actually have a hard time buying books with covers like that...you are what you read and all. I give Polly Courtney a lot of credit. As for HarperCollins...yes, big time miss.
ReplyDeleteBut why would an author wait for the book's launch to stir up controversy? If she were truly unhappy with the cover art, that would have/ should have happened a while before the launch, and been hashed out in private.
ReplyDeleteAltho I appreciate the differences between genres, I feel the author's timing in this case seems suspect.
Gutsy move, which I'd admire if I knew that she sat with her literary agent and HC representatives and had in-depth business discussions about what she had issue with and tried to reach some sort of compromise at the very least. Any mention of this happening prior to the launch fiasco?
ReplyDeleteSurely she saw the cover long before the launch though?
ReplyDeleteFrom what I gathered reading the article, this is her third book with them. I got the feeling that she had fulfilled her contract, but still had issues with the way the books were marketed so she broke ties with the publisher.
ReplyDeleteI can kind of understand this behavior, of waiting until the launch. I have a friend whose second book is coming out with one of the Big Six. Her first book is wonderful and the cover is striking. She is worried about the second one - she hates the cover, hates the title, but there is, apparently, no way to SUCCESSFULLY argue with the publisher to change any of it. If it were me, I might try to make nice, be happy, until I finally exploded with dissatisfaction, possibly at the launch.
ReplyDeleteYeah, there is a difference between womens' fic and chicklit, and that cover screams lighthearted, quippy popcorn for the brain.
The cover def says to me light-hearted, chick lit...
ReplyDeleteI don't blame the author. Some covers shout that the artist hasn't read the book. Others are downright misleading or inappropriate. Authors should always have the right to refuse cover art.
ReplyDeleteFrom a publisher's perspective, and someone in book marketing, I've seen books die on the vine because of an author's insistence on a dreadful title or cover. Input is one thing, but final approval should go with to the publisher. They are the ones with experience and they are the ones taking the financial risk.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, packaging or titling a book as something it's not is flat out wrong. Unfair to the author and the consumer.
There is a lot of difference between women's fiction and chick lit in my opinion too. It seems odd for the publisher to not want the cover to match the story too.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how many people will buy the book and then be unhappy when it's not the kind of book they expected. It's doubtful they'll blame the publisher.
ReplyDeleteOh boo. I know quite a few people who were at this launch, and apparently Polly was at the end of the three-book deal so she didn't actually 'fire' her publisher. And really, the book is about a woman at a lad's mag. Did she really expect a different cover? IMHO, this cover is much better than many others I've seen around chick lit land in the UK, where covers are vastly different than the US and are in the main pastel with pink curlicue writing.
ReplyDeleteThe harsh reality is, as much I'm not fond of pastel covers, the cover does need to book to fit into a particular genre. I've experienced that myself.
And can I just say to JM Cornwall... I'm not sure chick lit is just about a woman drinking and moaning about her weight. I have read many chick lit novels where the central storyline focuses on the female MC discovering herself, with the romance being a secondary storyline.
ReplyDeleteRead the blog post and the comments above, and I can see the points made in each. Personally, I think the cover and the title is a put down and I wouldn't want my name on it either. Hopefully the contents redeem it. As a woman, I would not want my covers with such a sexist cover, regardless.
ReplyDeleteThe lady in the cover has nice legs, no doubt, but I agree the cover is somewhat vulgar,and disrespectful to the author
ReplyDeleteCold As Heaven
I don't much care for the cover either, and yes - the whole point was missed, I agree.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that there's a difference between chick lit and women's fiction and contents should be marketed accordingly. There's absolutely nothing wrong with marketing a book to women, but why do it with such vulgarity if the contents aren't sex-ridden? And I'm guessing they're not, because I've read a different Polly Courtney novel and it was definitely more along the lines of women's fiction.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I love both genres. I read Sophie Kinsella's non-shopaholic books over and over without shame and giggle at Bridget Jones. At the same time, I love a book with a powerhouse woman whose immediate goals don't include finding a prince charming. Both are refreshing in their own way. One book that I am really excited for is 'What Came First' by Carol Snow - http://carolsnow.com
It definitely fits into the 'powerhouse' woman category. Comes out in a few weeks, and it's going to hit my kindle ASAP.
The conflict can arise between a marketer's point of view and the writer who knows what his/her work truly is about.
ReplyDeleteWho is the ultimate driver then ...
- the writer's, the reader's or the publisher's.
I don't usually buy a book because of its' cover.
I don't even look at books with covers like that. They are usually Harlequin Romance type drivel...and after reading the description of the story..I still wouldn't read it. It just doesn't sound interesting to me...that being said, I think she was right to speak up about how her work is marketed. No author would want that cheesy,horrible cover on their book!.. "Not 'War and Peace'"?? With this cover the work looks like it's not even 'He's Just Not That Into You'...she was right to be upset by this.
ReplyDeleteI don't like the blurring of chick lit and women's fiction. They are such different kinds of genres, and now they're being lumped together. When I want chick lit, I look for a certain cover, when I want women's fiction, a different type of cover. That said, wonder how many authors would have the guts to stand up against Harper Collins?
ReplyDeleteI don't buy a book based on the cover, but I do look at covers. This cover would have led me to believe it was "chick lit." If you read it because you thought it was chick lit, you were probably disappointed. And if you didn't buy it because you thought it was chick lit, the author would be disappointed.
ReplyDeleteI agree the cover is "chic lit" by design. An author friend of mine wrote a book which she thought would be pegged fantasy. It was pushed into a children's genre by the publisher and she was asked to remove several characters, any romance and a sex scene. The result was not good as even without these it wasn't a children's book. Another confirmation that publishers don't listen. Just one more reason to self publish.
ReplyDeleteAnn