Eloisa James has revealed the cover for her upcoming release, Four Nights with the Duke, #8 in the “Desperate Duchesses” series (on sale March 31, 2015) .
What I like about it: I like the delicate coloring, the sumptuous fabrics, and the background setting…looks like this duke owns a palatial estate.
What I don’t like as much: I’m not a fan of unclothed women on covers, and I especially dislike the open dress/bare back thing that seems to be popular at the moment in romance. Although I enjoy many romance titles, I’m definitely not into “naked” covers. It won’t stop me from picking up this book, of course (I already have it on preorder…I LOVE Eloisa James), but if this author was unknown to me, I’d probably be inclined to skip it.
You might say, “It seems to be a genre thing. What kind of covers SHOULD a romance novel have?”
Well, for example, here are two covers of books also published by Avon/HarperCollins in styles that I find more appealing. The first is Louisa by Ellie Macdonald, a book I am currently reading specifically because of the cover. I had never read Ellie Macdonald before, but this cover really caught my attention. (I will probably post my review of the book by the end of the week.) The cover is fairly demure, and I love it:
She’s fully clothed, looking pensive, pretty dress, pretty colors. The funny thing is, I can almost guarantee that the love scenes in this book are more explicit than anything readers will find in Four Nights with the Duke. They certainly seem steamier than what we normally see in an Eloisa James book. So why is this cover so much less revealing? Just wondering.
Another favorite: Just Like Heaven from Julia Quinn. Again, I loved this cover, even before I found out that the red shoes tie into the story. It’s pretty and feminine and appealing without showing a lot of skin. I want to be skipping down this garden path in this frilly dress with these shockingly red shoes.
For those romance readers out there, what do you find more appealing: a demure cover or a sexy cover?