Love Reads!

I was reading though some of my favorite blogs for content ideas and came upon and interest blurb on GalleyCat . Though the description on that page was vague it included a link to an opinion piece written by a writer for The Philadelphia Enquirer . In this article the writer tackled her dislike of book covers that have pictures of women taken from behind. She regarded as a tried and tired form saying “The cover, though, is literal and beyond cliche, the obligatory back of a woman in a vintage gown, barefoot on a blurry country road, a truck in the background. In a time of innovative design, the cover is visual Splenda.”

Personally how a whole article on this was written, to me personally is astounding. As I see it though, though she makes good references to her “disjointed body parts” theory, mentioning authors such a Jennifer Weiner; her story has no merit. It in my mind is just a book cover, though many authors penning southern women’s lit seem to follow this trend, I don’t see the problem, it brings to each reader a different idea. What should be important is the title and the book synopsis. So to Helen I say this, though your efforts to get a story out were courageous the idea falls flat, unless you would be able to find a link that connects this covers and a principle of feminism all the article really serves as is a free add for some good writers.

What do you think? Do many women’s lit covers seem redundant? What about the contents of her article? I want to hear what YOU think!

Trackback URI | Comments RSS