Sell me on Janet Evanovich?
I finally came around to the idea of reading One for the money, before seeing the new film. Then I found out the film was Catwoman-level dreadful according to Rotten Tomatoes, and I saw the movie tie-in book cover.
There’s a line of thinking among graphic novels fans that you can often tell a dud book by the way women are drawn on the cover. Basically, if the woman is posed so as to show her bottom and her breasts at the same time, her characterisation is likely to be so poor that its not worth picking the book up. For a more detailled version of this critique, you could try blogs like Escher Girls, which doesn’t make it through my work content filters, oddly for a site which is about redrawing the skeletal structures of cartoon characters, so you might not want to view it at work. There are several other, similar sites.
Now, this cover is a photo of a live model, so she’s not going to be quite as distorted as in comic books, but let’s analyse the photo using that technique, because the first thing I thought when I saw her was “Escher Girl!”. The trick in this is to trace the line of the woman’s spine, and see if she has either a broken back or the sort of s-shaped spine that, in the real world, would require lengthy, uncomfortable corrective treatment. There are other questions asked to. Are the woman’s breasts in an anatomically normal position, or do they emerge from her armpit? Do her legs have the shape of chicken drumsticks?
I can see that its debatable, but to me, this looks like the sort of “Don’t pay for this, run a mile.” cover that would put me off a comic book. Given that it has this strike against it, and that the world is full of good books, should I read Janet Evanovich? Care to tell me why she’s fantastic in the comments?