Subjective?: Contemptible Cover

Is that Nanoha one an example? "Panty Shot of underaged heroine" seems as good a place as any to start firming up the definition.

I don't see what's wrong with the Spice And Wolf one, from what's been said here. If I were to see that cover, I would assume that it was something between a really steamy romance and moderate-core porn.

The trope is "A work is given a lurid (maybe be sex, violence, nudity, or something else) and inaccurate cover"

edited 15th Sep '11 6:02:39 PM by Madrugada

That's the thing though. It's not an inaccurate cover. It features a main character who wears no clothes for the majority of that book.

Yes, Holo spends a good deal of time naked. No, that doesn't make the cover any more accurate.

Is the book about her being naked? Is it a sexy book? That's what that cover makes it look like. Soft-porn. If you showed that cover to people who had not read it would they accurately guess what the story was? From what's been said here, I doubt it.

I can try an experiment tomorrow night and report back. I'll show a picture of that cover to a bunch of people who almost certainly are not familiar with the work and ask them what they think the book is.

If is dependent on what people think of the cover wouldn't that make it subjective?

Only if you can find someone unfamiliar with the work who looks at that cover and goes "oh, it's about economics."

well....ok. There's something I'm not understanding about the way you guys are interpreting this so I'm out.

That's the style of cover trashy romance novels have. Trees, meet forest.

I've only seen the anime version, and only a couple of episodes of that, but from what I recall, she's a minor spirit/lesser goddess who only wears human form part of the time, and when she does, she doesn't seem concerned about clothes (Innocent Fanservice Girl), but I seem to recall her at least putting on a robe when they go into town. Her nudity is a minor issue, mainly just there for bonus fanservice, not a major element of the story.

Of course, saying it's "about economics" is a little misleading too, but much less misleading than suggesting it's about a naked girl. It's way more about economics than it is about her nudity. The only reason to focus so exclusively on the nudity on the cover (rather than, say, on the medieval European setting with its small towns and traveling traders) is, well, because sex sells.

edit: to put it another way, imagine if they'd taken the movie Titanic, and sold it with Kate Winslet's naked breasts taking up the whole of the cover. Yes, they do appear in the movie, but they're not what the movie's about.

edited 16th Sep '11 5:51:33 PM by Xtifr

Well, the company who published the book in the US said.

Take of that what you will.