Home › Outlander Costuming Discussion Forums › General Outlander Discussion › On the Objectification of Sam, et al. PART II (added per the request of Terry) › Reply To: On the Objectification of Sam, et al. PART II (added per the request of Terry)
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>maureenanne wrote:</div>
I could see a picture of Jamielicious on the cover of a romance novel so I do think those highly sexualized images sell books.
Or at least we’ve been told that they do. Wonder if they’ve ever tried “not.”
Yes, there is a reason that romance covers are they way they are – it’s an instant visual cue that the book is a romance. Covers that don’t follow the trend tend to have a much harder time (especially if they are by a new author) gaining traction. It’s not impossible by any means, but fast/instant big sales is less likely.
It might be argued that one of the reasons Outlander didn’t do very well when it first came out (despite winning the RITA award for that year, the book was never on the NYT bestseller list until after the TV series came out) was because of the original cover, which gave no indication that it was a romance. And it really is a romance – romance novels don’t necessarily stop after the couple gets together. The real core aspect of a romance is a focus on a relationship – and Outlander does that in spades.
The entire Outlander series is best classified as a romance – one might further classify it as an historical paranormal romance given the other two elements, but a romance it is indeed.
Outlander proves that a romance with an atypical cover can do well – it just takes a little longer, as a lot of its success needs word-of-mouth until it reaches critical mass. It’s also helped by the fact that she ended up writing a series – and series are a great way to increase interest in all of the books that are a part of it.