Unfortunately, publishers are going to keep putting dragons on the covers (even when the book rises above the fray) because it sells better.
Doubtless you're right, Anne (hi Anne!). But equally, bare breasts would probably sell more books too - yet publishers manage to exercise good taste on this. Err.. sometimes. It's the authors and publishers who get to choose what goes on the cover; I just get to choose whether I buy 'em.
I'm allergic to Fantasy covers with girls in cloaks, unicorns and rampant swords too... Call it an idiosyncrasy but such cynical limbic brain cover-marketing puts me off.
(Actually, not entirely. I'll still buy pulp fiction - when I can find it -
because of their kitsch covers.)
What about authors who use "dragon" as a metaphor in titles when there are no dragons in the book? For example, Holly Lisle's Vengeance of Dragons (I think that was the title).
Well, from my perspective as a reader - Heaven help them... they'd better have a good reputation. Which Holly fortunately does. For instance I read Thomas Harris'
Red Dragon and while there's dragon imagery in that there's sure as heck no dragon
characters.