I know this kind of thing has been done to death, but I just can’t resist having even more fun with it! Bybee gave me the idea when she mentioned the nearly endless plethora of chick-lit covers adorned with shoes in the comments section of my last post. I agree with her observation. Shoes have to be the most overused chick-lit cover art, followed closely by the headless torso shot. I’m going to post some fine examples of this innovative art movement. I’m also going to examine some mommy-lit covers. Mommy-lit is becoming more and more popular now that so many of the original chick-lit readers have aged beautifully, married their Prince Charmings, experienced exquisite lovemaking time and time again and popped out a couple of cute little cherubs that they can hug and cuddle and adore forever. Let’s take a look at these covers, shall we?
First, chick-lit shoe covers:
I really need to try the Anne Frank novel, since I’ve always suspected that many Nazi’s were cross-dressers. Here’s a little known fact: Josef Mengele was wearing a red-sequined floor-length gown and heels to match when he drowned in Brazil. The heavy costume pulled him right to the bottom of the ocean ( =
Have you noticed how they only show legs and high heels on these covers? They hardly ever show the entire person. Why is that? Why are the legs so often cartoons instead of real legs? And why are the heels so extremely high? I don’t know a single woman who wears heels that high, do you? (If you DO know women like that, I believe I can guess your ancient professional roots)! Every woman I know wears flat comfortable shoes 99% of the time. Even the shortest women in my sphere wear low heels, but, then again, I’m from Colorado. We’re kind of rough-n-tumble out here. Maybe, in New York, scads of women run around in extremely high heels, enduring nearly constant mind-numbing pain with every step they take, spraining their ankles every couple of blocks and sometimes slipping and falling on wet pavement. Yeah, I’ll bet that’s it! The reason why we only see cartoon legs and no faces is due to the fact that every woman who sports heels like these for any length of time wears a look of such complete anguish on her visage that chick-lit book covers can’t show their faces. Their faces would be way too frightening for sweet and innocent chick-lit buyers to deal with. The legs have to be cartoon drawings because the legs of real high heel wearers are ugly. They’re covered with bruises and scabs and open pustulating sores from the numerous high heel related accidents most of these women experience on a daily basis.
Next, here are some chick-lit torso covers:
The first two novels have something to do with eating “meat.” How disgusting! With that in mind, it’s obvious that these covers were designed by men, because faceless meat-eating women are easier to have sexual fantasies about. Also, it’s quite a turn-off to display a face shot of someone masticating a huge chunk of beef. The woman on the second cover really does look like a streetcorner prostitute, doesn’t she?
The next two novels are entitled A Girl’s Best Friend. I greatly prefer dogs to diamonds because you can’t pet a diamond for any length of time without cutting your hand. Why is it, though, that the girl with the dog is wearing such an extremely short dress and the requisite heels and sitting in such an uncomfortable position on the floor? Is she from New York? Did the dog run under her feet and trip her so she “fall down go boom?” This must be why her face is absent from the cover. She’s weeping copiously, and a bawling woman is an unattractive woman. I guess her dog really isn’t her best friend after all. He sure looks guilty, peering out from behind her badly bruised tush!
The diamond cover is totally sexual in nature. See the chartreuse “balls” hanging behind the smirking woman? Chartreuse liqueur has long been famous as a potent aphrodesiac. Notice the “come hither” curve of the smirking woman’s sensuous lips? Need I say more?
The last cover is very interesting, and it’s the most appropriate of the bunch. The title of the novel is Match Me if You Can. In case you haven’t figured this out yet, the book cover is a puzzle. You need to find the matching half if you can (maybe there’s a prize involved) and then you can see the whole woman! See, it’s pretty easy to figure these things out if you think about them carefully and logically.
Now for the mommy-lit covers!
Mommy-lit covers are the most varied of all, and many of them don’t even feature women. The novels that do have one thing in common with other forms of women’s novels: they never show the woman’s face unless it’s in cartoon form. It’s simple to figure out why mommy faces are absent from mommy-lit covers. Can you guess? It’s a social issue. It’s because mommies lose their identities once they have children. They are no longer desired sexual objects or even spike heel wearing masochists anymore. It’s all about the kids, kids, kids–diapers and bottles and school and teen sex and self-mutilation and STD’s and trailer parks and welfare when all is said and done. Yes indeed, mommies don’t need faces. All they need is hands to serve and hips to push those puppies out! And, speaking of puppies, look at the first cover. This cover shows a common tragedy that happens to pets once babies start taking over the family. They’re killed because they aren’t wanted or loved anymore. In this case, the unfortunate little Yorkie is having rock-filled bunny slippers thrown at his head. Notice the evil looks on the slippers’ faces? The poor little fella won’t even know what hit him!
I’m going to skip over Tales from the Crib and look at Slummy Mummy and The Yummy Mummy. These pithily titled novels display some common mommy stereotypes on their covers. You can tell that slummy mummy is lower class because she has her skirt tucked into her underwear on one side. This is definitely “ghetto style.” Upper class women normally tuck a large stick in between their butt cheeks when they want to make a statement.
The last cover shows another stereotype: the MILF. The MILF in this picture has to hide because the other mommies may become jealous of her sex appeal and throw something akin to rock filled bunny slippers at her. The MILF is adjusting her lower heeled shoe to show that she’s inferior to normal chick-lit women. Even though she’s attractive, she’s a mom, which places her in the sensible heel, ill-fitting shoe, but I’d still do ya’ category, which is quite a bit below the young, single, spike-heeled, I’d do ya’ all over the place category. Got it?
I’ve thought of a few more titles to add to the Slummy Mummy and Yummy Mummy collection:
Dummy Mummy, and
(I wonder if she’s wearing heels. If so, this explains a lot).