I have noticed this too! Forever Amber and Susan Carrolls books (ghastly by the way) as well as several others feature these "headless women".
I find it rather silly (as I find with most fads), but not really disturbing. The first time it is almost clever, but when you see one on every shelf it just becomes trite and annoying. But, on the flip side, I have seen many covers feature just a person's head. So, you might say, for every headless body there is a body-less head.

I agree with you that it might just be used to draw attention to the clothing. Maybe it is also used so that the reader to make up a complete image for themselves? Or maybe the author's discription does not match the image's face?
Or maybe it is just symbolic, a woman who has lost her head. I have know several such women...
CMK

when you see one on every shelf it just becomes trite and annoyingCMK, "trite and annoying" is really what I, too, think most of the time of this type of cover art. I'm not disturbed in a creeped-out sort of way, just disturbed in the sense that marketers have obviously found a vulnerable spot of many women readers and they can use it to sell all kinds of crappy writing. Or even worse they can give these silly covers to older works and make potential readers think, say, Jean Plaidy and Philippa Gregory are of the same calibre. It makes me long for the days of plain old one-color dustjackets with nothing but the titles and authors' names on them.

As usual I'm slow to pick up on things like this. I googled 'cover art + headless women' and got page after page of book buyers and potential readers talking about this. One person even posted images of her most recent paperback editions of Jean Plaidy's historicals, all with the headless women covers!

This reminds me of the gothic romances of the 1960s and 1970s, except I got a kick out of those covers: I thought they were funny and they did signal the genre was romantic suspense.

Yeah, there are lots of disembodied heads on covers, but that's so traditional it's hard for me to consider them equivalent to headless bodies. I guess the next thing in cover art will be representations of distinct body parts -- actually that's already being done in a somewhat more limited way. I recall a few years ago a book cover with a headless male figure in, I think, Tudor clothing with the fellow's codpiece as the focal point -- it was appropriate because the subject title was A Mind of Its Own.

Heh! The 'symbolism' of women losing their heads: CMK, that's astute!

Ha! If only we could fuse the heads back to the bodies we might get a whole person on the covers! A whole series of headless women covers is a bit weird. How odd would that be to display on a shelf?
Ever since I read that book by Susan Carroll I have steered away from books that plaster a headless woman on the cover. I can't help thinking of cheezy period romances when I see it now.

Perhaps it is very shallow of me, but sometimes I am drawn toward books with interesting covers. I realy like some of the newer sorts that have a rather eclectic prints. I just gravitate to them, even if I know them to be "bad" in terms of story/writing.
Also those newer Waugh reprints with vintage-y drawnings and patterns on them. I also love the B&N Classics because they have pieces of art work featured on the front. That would be an interesting topic to discuss, are you ever influenced by cover art?
CMK

Freida you do know how to title a thread!

They have just redesigned the covers of Deanna Raybourn's books to match this fashion-with the addition of a man's hand in a "strategic" place. There was a HUGE kerfluffle on her blog about it-most of her readers hate the new covers-they seem to feel that her books have been taken from the mystery realm (original covers: misty colors, an architectural detail like a gate....no people) to the bodice-ripper shelf. I wonder if the publishers think that if they leave the head off, we will all imagine our own face there? (I'd be smacking that hand away, I can tell you-unless of course it is Colin Firth's.....sorry-different fantasy!)

Cece, I'm glad the title didn't put you off opening this thread! I worried about that after it was fait accompli, wondering how many posters would assume I wanted to discuss true crime, corpses and such, and then wouldn't bother to see if that was my intent. I was in such a tizzy after about forty-three tries at posting and losing everything I wrote each time (luckily I was copying and pasting) that I didn't think to revise my working title.

CMK, I'm certainly not immune to good cover art. I like those covers of B&N Classics, too, especially the one for Vanity Fair which is taken from Sir David Wilkie's Chelsea Pensioners Reading the Gazette of the Battle of Waterloo. I'm not sure what it has to do with Thackeray's story, but I like it anyway.

Some of Hardy's books in the paperback editions have sublime covers, in my opinion -- most are reproductions of paintings of bucolic scenes: the one for Far from the Madding Crowd, for instance, appropriately enough, has a fellow shepherding his flock through a gate. I don't have my copy of the book handy to give attribution, but it seems that cover has struck a chord with several RP posters in the past because several years ago someone here at RP tracked down the title and artist (his name was Farquhart, Farquhar, or maybe Urquhart...anyway, something Scottish, I think). I'm a sucker for that sort of thing.

However, I am NOT a sucker for those covers with perky line drawings that herald chick-lit. I'm afraid I will pass anything like that by without giving the book a chance. It can be rather a shame when some stories (and writers) get pigeonholed in this way; but of course, it can also be a blessing when it appeals to a built-in audience. There are always two sides to these things.

Ach!! I just found that the 'headless women' cover designers have also got a hold of some of my beloved Daphne du Maurier's and Anya Seton's books, namely My Cousin Rachel and The Winthrop Woman. Elizabeth Winthrop and Rachel definitely had heads, so these designers haven't a clue!!

Cece, maybe the kerfuffle over Raybourn's books indicates a rebellion is brewing! The headless wonders are perhaps the 2000s version of the '60s/'70s gothics and the '80s/'90s bodice rippers. I thought all the flowery and lacey covers for romances were a bit silly but those were positively tasteful in comparison. Strategically placed hands -- hee!

I hadn't thought of the face substitution thing, but then I don't think I've actually imagined myself in the place of a book protagonist since, hmm, probably my teen years. I can imagine myself in a book's setting but only as ME, not as the writer has written a character. See, I always knew I was not and never would be, say, Jane Eyre, no matter how much I empathized with her.

Thank you, CMK and Cece, for plenty of grist!

Hi all,
As usual Frieda, you have made me sit up and take notice of something that had gone over my head. I usually go into the library looking for a particular book and do not have the time to scan the shelves as often as I would like. My own opinion is not only to the publishers (or rather, the sales and marketing departments) want us to insert ourselves into the story, but perhaps jump full into the fantasy that the body is ours as well. You know, the perfect body with that (usually) well-tanned muscular hand attached to that overly-well-tanned and overly-muscular arm placed in a semi-inviting place with the promise of so much more - how many of our significant others' arms match that arm and the body that is surely attached to it? I think it is a sad ploy to play up the sexuality (real or imagined) in a book. This grates on my nerves because it sends the message to me that unless there is sex or romance involved, a woman won't be interested in reading it. Like you, I long for a classy dustcover. Not necessarily plain, but something I won't mind my children seeing on the tables and countertops of my home.

A quick tangent: One of my book clubs is reading Mary Roach's new book, Bonk. Correction: THEY are reading it, I threw it across the room in a fury by page 12. The topic is sex. The cover shows two ladybugs "in the act". Why is this necessary? I think the headless woman and the ladybugs speak to a reading public that is perceived to be there as a result of shows like Sex in the City, et al, and does not necessarily represent the reality.

Am I typing in circles?
PAM

I hadn't really noticed the headless woman trend beyond a few Philippa Gregory novels, but today I was at Target and in their (limited) book section I finally noticed: there was truly an entire shelf of headless women. I immediately remembered this thread and had to laugh.

Yikes!

PAM, Bonk is not all bad, I found parts of it very interesting. However, her book about dead bodies, Stiff was much, much better IMO.

Another thing that really irks me is when the book has been made into a movie/film and they put the lead actor or movie poster on the book cover. I don't know why this bothers me so much, but it does. If I wanted to see the actor's face I would watch the movie! Yesterday, at B&N, I was forced to buy one of these books becaue it was all they had left. Oh, how it annoys me! I guess I could always recover the front...
CMK

I remember reading a discussion on a feminist blog about headless women in advertising (the example was from an ad for The Tudors tv series) and the consensus was that it was (yet another) way of objectifying women's bodies.

Oh PAM, I haven't seen the cover of Bonk with the ladybugs!! doing it. Seems cornball to me. That book would have two strikes against it immediately for me -- the title and the cover design -- and I would be about as likely to pick it up as I would something untranslated in a language I don't speak.

I guess most marketers go by the overused adage: Sex sells. Yeah, it probably does. I just don't like the in-your-face pervasiveness. Romance is something else; it's not just sex. I like nonhormonal romance best. Give me "misty, watercolor memories" (Bergman/Hamlisch?). I am such a sap.

Sheri, I only recently noticed the headless thing, but once I did I realized it was everywhere!

CMK, I'm of two minds about the movie tie-in covers: if I like the adaptation, I don't mind the cover; but if the film is lousy I want to tear off the offender. Well, you've got me curious: Do tell us what book you bought.

One of my favorite book-to-film adaptations is Elizabeth von Arnim's The Enchanted April and I have an old-style Virago cover with Josie Lawrence as Lottie Wilkins in the film "Enchanted April." (I love Lottie!) I have another edition with a cover showing Polly Walker as Lady Caroline (same as the film poster) -- I don't mind that one either. it was (yet another) way of objectifying women's bodies.ajpa, it could be, but I just don't understand why these type covers are aimed at women readers and women, sure enough, buy them. The substitution thing is really the only thing that halfway makes sense to me -- yet, somehow, it seems rather pitiful as well.

I don't know if the headless phenomenon is widespread. I have seen it in the UK -- in fact, I think it might have started there. Has anyone noticed that UK covers, when they survive importation, are often prettier than US ones? Sometimes I think the romance and historical varieties are even downright mawkish in their prettiness.

frieda, I think maybe the headless women started in advertising and spread to book covers? Graphic art has it's fads & fashions.
I was just thinking recently that UK covers can be more polished looking ... it's like the artists have greater freedom. In US books the artists seems to be required to stick within certain rules for the particular genre?

I bought Little Dorrit, which is still being aired here as a mini-series. I read awhile back that it was being made into one, but knowing that these films usually show in the UK first I thought I would have plenty of time to buy the book and read it before it was aired in the US (I like to read the book before I see the movie/film version). But then, three weeks ago, I was flipping tru the tv guide and saw that it was on that night! So, I didn't get to read the book first.
CMK

Frieda, your two strikes against Bonk made me laugh. With greatest respect shown for SheriZ6's feelings, I will add that I am simply not a Mary Roach fan. Hated Stiff (also a book club read) and now this one. If it weren't for my book club, I would not have ever picked up either book. In fact, with an 11-year-old bibliophile in the house, I darsen't bring Bonk into the house for fear she will pick it up out of curiosity and begin reading it. I have it tucked in my car, way beneath the passenger seat, in a black canvas bag that blends nicely with the navy blue carpet.

Another vote against movie stars on the covers. If I wanted someone else to tell me what a character looks like, how he acts and sounds, I would have seen the movie. If I am choosing the book, I want the freedom to let my own imagination be my guide. Exception: Colin Firth as Darcy and Jeremy Brett as Sherlock Holmes. Casting at its best.

And every single time I see a headless woman cover, an overly provocative cover or a blatently sexually-ignited cover, I think of Daisy from Keeping up Appearances propped up in bed with her feet kicking up and down as she reads on of "those" books.

PAM

In US books the artists seems to be required to stick within certain rules for the particular genre?Yes, that seems true. Good point, ajpa. Mysteries can be used as examples: Police procedurals are stark or dark (and usually very ugly, in my opinion); cozies are often so 'cute' I think they can't get any sillier...but then they always do; and the historical types have various scenes that try to evoke the time setting. Other genres and subgenres are just as cliched, so the art-style is a visual code. I guess it saves the browser/reader time -- and also tends to put one in a rut. It's sort of like the splintering of radio stations into single musical genres and it's easy to get stuck on what is familiar and not trying anything new -- not like when one radio channel (and you often could get only one channel) offered a potpourri. Sometimes specialization is not for the best.

Yeah, it makes sense that advertising has had great influence on book cover art. Ads have been cropping out and focusing in on human body parts for...how long? Probably since cave art -- I figure some of that had to have been a form of advertising. Maybe we ought to blame (partially) the fellow who drew that drattedly-ideal Gibson Gal. Women's mags -- such as Cosmopolitan, though I don't even know if Cosmo is still around -- ought to be blamed, too. Why have women's magazines featured so many absurdly-attired, unreal women anyway? Or the more appropriate question is probably: Have women really found (still find) them so enticing? And if so, why?

CMK, how was the Little Dorrit mini-series? If I ran across a Little D book with a cover featuring those actors I probably wouldn't even know it, unless it has one of those banners or cover blurbs saying "Now a Major Motion Picture" or "Now an Acclaimed BBC-TV Production" or some such. I dislike those.

PAM, your concern of keeping the inappropriately explicit out of sight from your eleven-year-old daughter reminds me of my father keeping the 1950s Mickey Spillanes, and others of that ilk, in a box on the top shelf of his study closet. My brothers and I found them after dad forgot about them being there, and naturally we devoured every smutty detail. That was the era of lurid and sexist covers that are now big collector items.

That's a thought: I can't imagine present-day cover art-styles being collectible, but who knows what folks in the future will find nostalgic or amusing? I didn't think the 1950s and '60s stuff was particularly special back then, either. Someday, somebody will probably be hunting for the 'headless women' covers.

Daisy's kicking feet! That's so funny.

Frieda, your 'Headless Women' thing has set me thinking, partly because I hadn't consciously noticed the lack of female bonces but now wonder if it is meant to add an overtone of mystery to the character/story . . .probably where non was intended by the author.
I had a look-around online at the Barnes & Noble site and found some of the original and reproduced art work interesting. I thought the Austen P&P cover of a stately home dining room fitted my mental picture of how Darcy may have lived (although painted 50 years later than the book) the couple of Jame Eyre covers did nothing to explain/give the feel of the story . . . and I read there that a 'similar' writer to Bronte is given as Danielle Steel . . .
I think the Vanity Fair picture is related to the part of the book dealing with the Battle of Waterloo; is Becky Sharpe's bad husband at the Duchesses of Richmond's ball on the eve of battle? A very thin connection.
Used you to get those old Penguin p/backs in the US? General fiction was orange, crime was green and so on then they added little line drawings, then photos and now stuff from TV/film adaptations.
I know nothing of book publishing/printing, but wonder if it is cheaper to use an existing piece of art work from a gallery or to employ an 'in-house' illustrator . . .perhaps without heads cost less than a full body. ;-)

re Little Dorrit shown on the BBC this winter. I haven't read the book (not a big fan of Dickens) but found the setting/costumes etc of the usual high BBC standard, but the ending was SO confusing, who had been married to who, who's child is this etc.

And Frieda, while I have your attention, have you read Gaynor Arnold's Girl in a Blue Dress? A first person account of the later life of the wife of Alfred Gibson (aka Charles Dickens) who he treated so badly and put aside. She looks back on happier times and watches her marriage fail, her many many children distanced from her and her husband roam.
Arnold really gets into the 'spirit' of that stuffy late-ish Victorian period.

Here is a link that might be useful: Girl With a Head and a Blue Dress

I just started the book, so I can't say if the film (which still has two weeks to go) is staying true to it. But I do like the film well enough. I love Andrew Davies work and think the camera shots are so wonderfully unique. One thing that annoys me is how the BBC (etc.) re-use actors. Matthew MacFadyen is playing a lead role, as well as Alun Armstrong. I can't help thinking of MacFadyen as Darcy (who, in my honest opinion, did very poorly in the role) and Armstrong as Bucket in Bleak House. I suppose they have long-term contracts with the film companies, but I still think they could find other actors to fill the rolls instead of repeating the old ones.

Another cover situation that bothers me: Oprah book club stickers! Because the book isn't worth reading unless she gives her seal of approval? I have to wonder how many people read books just because St. Oprah suggests them?

-veer, I didn't think anyone other than myself disliked Dickens! I am sooo interested to hear why it is you are not a huge fan. For some odd reason, I keep finding myself reading another one of his works. I don't care for the writing, but I love the time/place/settings!

I was looking online about this subject, headless women, and found this interesting article. Link below.
CMK

Here is a link that might be useful: headless women article

Christinmk, I had a similar problem when Geoffrey Palmer, who played Lionel on As Time Goes By, appeared in a Masterpiece Theater production as a really rotten father. LIONEL can't be a bad guy!

BTW, I love Dickens.

christin, I'm another reader who has never liked Dickens. The only work by him I'm found tolerable is his "Christmas Carol." It seems odd, as I like the period he lived in and I even share his birthdate....

Vee, that is one busy cover for Girl with a Blue Dress -- appropriate, I suppose, for a Victorian novel since the Victorians overdecorated everything, it seems.

Those of you who don't like Dickens' books: Is it the oversentimentality, the 'Pickwickian realism', the prolixity...?

What is it about the Victorian era -- in spite of Dickens --that you find to your liking (or interest)?

I go through spells with Dickens: I particularly like Great Expectations and Bleak House, having read those several times each. I like "A Christmas Carol" despite the schmaltz. Some Dickens, though, I have had to struggle through. It does seem a bit peculiar that we can like the adaptations of his novels without liking the novels themselves. Generally, as a reader I will choose the book over the film, but I've found for me that several Victorian-era writers are more watchable than they are readable; e.g., George Eliot and Elizabeth Gaskell.

Actually, the more I know about Dickens the man, the less I want to reread his works -- sometimes ignorance is bliss.

A friend asked me if I had yet noticed 'the nape of the neck' and 'the hands behind the back' covers. I haven't yet, but she says they are getting almost as common as the 'headless' and 'nothing but legs' covers. Do you know any examples of what she's talking about?

CMK, I consider the Oprah Sticker a service: if a book has one, I can avoid it. Ms Winfrey's taste seldom overlaps with mine.

CMK, Frieda, I think the sheer sentimentality of Dickens' and his feeble and vapid females puts me off plus the much-too-long and over-charactered books. Perhaps if I had fist read them in installments as they were originally published I could deal with them better.

I love anything about the Victorians and their era (or time-period as you say in the US) but don't forget that Dickens was really pre to early Victorian. Her Majesty had over 30 years to reign when CD died.
He certainly brought the evils of the huge urban population explosion to the attention of the worthy Middle Classes but there is so much more to those days; some of it totally out of favour today. The self-confidence, the feeling of 'rightness', the Imperialism, the missionary zeal, gun-boat diplomacy, the early shoots of educational empowerment, larger then life characters . . . not unlike the Post War USA?
And here endeth today's history lesson.;-)

Sorry Frieda, I didn't mean to digress from the main topic!

'Love' was too strong a word. I really like the Victorian era, but I like a great many other time periods too. Anything not of my own time I like; I find escape in books from other places and times.

The oversentimentality is what really estranges me from Dickens work. I am, unfortunantly, not one of those people who can 'look on the bright side' of things. I haven't read a great deal by him (only on my fourth now), but I do seem to prefer his later/darker work (said to be produced in his 'maturity'). Much of that dreadful optimisim seems to have cooked out of him by that time. That is why I liked Bleak House too; it was darker. Little Dorrit seems, so far, to have some of those same qualities about it, which I so like. ;-)
It also bothers me how he keeps repeating themes and in his books. It's like he found a pattern that turned out to be popular so he kept repeating it, with just small changes made from book to book. And his characters are sometimes absurdly unrealistic. They seem to be more like personifications than real persons, if you get my meaning.

re: 'Feeble and Vapid Females': I have to wonder if they (like most of his characters) were all based on a person Dickens knew? I don't think he meant to make all the women seem so empty. I think I read somewhere that these sort of characters were based on his sister-in-law, with whom he had a close relationship. I don't mind feeble and vapid females at all. Maybe because I know one and am close with her (at least she is not headless, lol!).

"Actually, the more I know about Dickens the man, the less I want to reread his works -- sometimes ignorance is bliss."

Why exactly? I think I know what you mean. I recently found out that he was paid by the section for his serialized stories. So he wasn't just long-winded? He wrote because of the money? It saddens and annoys me when I hear an author is only in it for the money and doesn't really want to contribute to literature or create any legacy/history for posterity.
CMK

Of course he wrote to a formula-writers have to eat too! It would be nice to think that all writers only do it for the love of literature without thinking of the money, but that isn't fair. I don't mind that he wrote serials-but he treated his wife and family abysmally. That is the subject of the book discussed above, Girl in a Blue Dress.

I will have to go to work on Monday and scan the shelves for headless women!

We have classics from a few different publishers - the Penguin Classics, which have black covers with works of art on them, Vintage (Random) which have a more modern feel, and a cheap range called Wordsworth Classics which also have art works.

Vee, Penguin brought out a range of modern classics last year with the orange covers, and are doing a further range this year. Many people like them because they are cheap, but some don't like the 'sameness' of them.

With regard to the FTI covers (trade talk for Film Tie In), I generally dislike them a lot, but obviously it works for the publishers, as many people seem to buy the book after seeing the film. One that bothers me a great deal is the cover of The Boy In The Striped Pyjamas.

With this cover
{{gwi:2117356}}
it was not obvious to start with what the book was about (as it was not in the actual book)

But this:

{{gwi:2117357}}

leaves no doubt.

frieda, I have noticed and even read one of the "hands behind the back" book with cover. I only wish I could recall its title, but I read several books per week. Maybe in time it will come to me....

I agree that Dickens' personnages seem more like caracatures than actual people. I am constantly put off by the bleak venue of the surroundings of his work. I think because this author was shoved down my throat as a girl it really turned me off, as well. Actually Dickens' writings remind me a bit of Lewis Carroll. Tres bizarre.....

As ccrdmrbks pointed out:

>Freida you do know how to title a thread!

It sure caught my attention!

It occurred to me that the headless covers might also be directed at that. Since the eye moves to the face on any figure, to remove the head gives a moment of incompleteness, something to catch the attention. Which is the point of a book cover, right?

I was just thinking about this long-ago thread as I read The Greatest Knight and now The Scarlet Lion by Elizabeth Chadwick-books about William Marshall and his wife Isabella. The first cover is a nearly headless man-face only from the upper lip down and all of his torso. Second is a woman from the nose down to her knees. They were done by the same artist-maybe he can't paint eyes and foreheads?

Heh! balrog, you may be onto the real reason for this spate of headlessness (I'm seeing more male figures as well).

Cece, yep, this artwork signals a certain type of book -- usually historicals or historical romances, such as those written by the likes of Chadwick. I never know, though, whether to take 'em seriously or not, since many of the reissues of 'classics' have also shown up with faceless/headless new covers. No doubt it will run its course -- it has already become preposterous in many instances. I expect to see parodies soon; maybe they are already out there.

'tis the fashion-and this too shall pass!

I agree with Balrog, that it is just a new way to grab the would-be book buyer's attention. There is such competition now for the niftiest book covers. I'l be glad when this particular fad ends....