Want to help prevent bad book covers BEFORE they become an embarrassment?
Of course you do! Check out CoverCritics.com!

Vittorio’s Mistress

Vittorio’s Mistress

I totally believe this art wasn’t stolen. Also, I’m lying.


  1. It’s bad art, but this stock images (and so many more horrible ones like it) are widely available for sale on romancenovelcovers.com. Jimmy Thomas is about a million years old now, but he still churns these ridiculous images out for less than $10 for ebook-use-only options. I don’t think it’s stolen. Just badly chosen.

    1. I don’t think it’s particularly bad cover art for the genre — it’s certainly on a par with what Harlequin has been using for decades — and while there are some premade covers are romancenovelcovers.com, the majority of the images featured there are simple stock photos, without all the backgrounds and props (for use by a digital artist). The fact that the models are competently composited into the image, which is then artifacted and splattered with poor typography (and the beveled edge!) leads me to conclude that it was acquired, not with a licensing fee, but with a “Save as.”

      And I’ve got no quarrel with Jimmy Thomas for being old — it happens to all of us, and he’s still fit and presentable. The only problem is that romancenovelcovers.com is one of the easiest-to-use image sites for indie-published books, so Jimmy’s face is almost exclusively seen on self-published stuff. I always counsel people to avoid covers that are instantly recognizable as being self-published — whether or not there’s anything objectively amateurish with the image — and Jimmy’s face unfortunately qualifies.

    2. Yeah, it looks like both boobs have been digitally messed with, presumably because the “artist” didn’t like the fact that boobs flatten out when a woman lies on her back (trust me; I know about these things). The result is weird android boobs badly transplanted/digitally-airbrushed onto an otherwise human model.

      1. A woman friend once told me that it’s easy to determine if someone’s had a boob job. If they “flatten out” when she’s on her back, they’re real. If they remain “perked up” they’re fake. Er, “enhanced.”

        Anyone here care to comment on that? For educational purposes only, of course.

        1. My problem with the whole damn image is that it’s not sexy, or hot, or anything. It looks like what it is–two people staged to shoot an image. I get nothing from it. I’ve seen a lot of shots that really are “whoa,” but this one doesn’t do that for me. And bad/lame erotica is worse than if they’d just put a blank background on there. IMHO.

          James: sorry, bro, no firsthand knowledge here of faux boobs.

  2. Wait a minute. Is that her left breast or a dislocated shoulder? The other shoulder looks dislocated too. That is strange.

    1. The round thing closest is her right shoulder.
      The round thing furtherest away is her left breast.
      Her right breast is under the sheet.

    1. The art was used for the Kindle cover of Julia James “Baby of Shame” 2010. Different cover art was used for the hardcover 2006, paperback 2005 editions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: