book covers & the many ways in which they reflect opression

[foreverlasting]

We've seen time and again that covers often don't reflect the characters in a book. Going back to the example of Anne Bishop's books, her covers featuring Cassie (The Shadow Queen and Shalador's Lady) are extremely inaccurate. In the books, she's described as having curly, frizzy hair, a full figure, and in her early 30s. The model on the books is thin to the point of potentially being unhealthy, her hair ramrod straight, and she's young. Very young. In Shalador's Lady she looks closer to 21 than 30. In The Shadow Queen, closer to 16.

Obviously, publishers are pandering to the notion that youth and beauty are what sells. What a shame to finally see a non-traditional heroine (and the only one of Bishop's lead characters who doesn't posess a dark jewel) reduced to 'what sells.'

On the bright side, Justine Larbalestier recently saw a victory. Her latest book, Liar, features a non-white protagonist with decidely non-white hair. The cover features a white girl. With, yet again, long, straight hair. After laying out the details on her blog, fans flooded her with support. Eventually, her publisher, Bloomsbury, caved.


Before and After

Major props to Larbalestier for handling such a delicate situation with strength and grace. It could have easily turned into a Bloomsbury-bashing party. Not that they don't deserve it. Check this out: 

"[Bloomsbury's] original creative direction for Liar – which was intended to symbolically reflect the narrator's complex psychological makeup – has been interpreted by some as a calculated decision to mask the character's ethnicity."

And by 'complex psychological makeup,' do you happen to mean one that is WHITE?

I call bullshit.

Either the publisher was a) too damn disinterested in a middle-list YA author to give two shits about the accuracy of the cover art, b) they're utterly oblivious to the mechanisms of race in our society, or c) this was, indeed, a calculated attempt to draw on what is perceived to be the greater audience, i.e. white buyers.

Although Labarlestier is an Austrailian author, Bloomsbury is her American publisher. If someone in America is oblivious to the affects of race in our society, they're either in denial or they've been living under a rock for a good long time. I vote either a) or c).

EDIT: Okay, I'm willing to grant that it's possible that Bloomsbury--the artists, the editors, everyone--looked at the cover and didn't even think about the implications of race. Maybe. I'd like to see a breakdown of just how many of the Bloomsbury staff involved in this decision are white versus non-white. Further, if they did simply look at the whitewashed cover and think, "Awesome! Off to the printers we go!" it could imply yet another scenario where white privilege remains unexamined and unchecked.

Being white and thus in a position of power often times means not having to  think about other people who view things from a different vantage point. Bloomsbury may not be utterly oblivious, but I'm betting they were thinking from a privileged perspective.

Maybe it was b) after all.

Comments

[wireless]

Okay, I'm willing to grant that it's possible that Bloomsbury--the artists, the editors, everyone--looked at the cover and didn't even think about the implications of race.

I'm not.

I find that too many people (authors, publishers, artists) using the justification of "artistic intent" as a logical and rational reason for making poor choices in their creations. Anne Rice uses the justification of artistic intent to explain away the fact that she is unable to complete a narrative without eighty-six pages of burning purple prose (I remember specifically the span of about eleven pages being used to describe Lestat drawing blood from an old lady and how her skin felt quite keenly). Laurell K. Hamilton uses the justification of artistic intent to cover the fact that she is unable to write a novel with valid plot that doesn't involve Anita getting her clothes off twenty-three times during the course of the novel.

More and more, too, "artistic intent" is being used to cover things like the mess with Liar. It's as if someone is sitting at the publisher's going, "Welll. What do you think we can say to cover this? I KNOW! Our artistic visions didn't mesh! That'll do it. Write that press release." It's not an answer. It's not an apology, either. It's a blatant cover-up for a poor decision that could have seriously rebounded on the author because the next thing if the publisher hadn't have backed down would have been, "Well, if she didn't like it so much, she could have pulled her book out of the deal and given back her advance!" so effectively the author ends up losing revenue because the publishers made a mistake?

Publishing any work of art requires more than the creative process and the author or artist sitting toiling for hours. It also includes others at the other ends of the publishing process to respect the authors and artists. More and more, that just isn't happening.

Even "artistic intent" has to, at some point, have boundaries.

[foreverlasting]

I agree with you that the artistic-intent flag they've been waving is nothing but a cover up for somebody's miistake. well said.

When I said I was willing to grant that the publsihers didn't even think about race, I was referring mainly to pre-production, before the book was printed and people started taking notice.

Also: In case it wasn't clear for anyone, I by no means condone the pre-production or post-production actions of Bloomsbury. My goal was to analyze the reason(s?) why they fucked up.