11 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Hitch
4 years ago

Yeah, this setup was too, too easy. Another shame; perfectly decent artwork (if a trifle bland) and dreadful font choices.

Morag McD
Morag McD
4 years ago

What a shitty thing to do. Whatever you think about the cover – and I really can’t see why you think it’s so awful – this is just really, really nasty. Karma, mate, karma.

Morag McD
Morag McD
4 years ago
Reply to  Nathan

No, love, over 90,000 Twitter followers. Which is why I can recognise a nasty, bitter asshole when I see one. Especially one whose bitterness comes from the fact that his crappy books don’t sell.

Francois Tremblay
Francois Tremblay
4 years ago
Reply to  Morag McD

Your taste in covers is absolute trash. This looks like it was drawn on Paint. Not professional at all.

Sheri W.
Sheri W.
4 years ago

So you are an expert on art? Or do you just get a cheap thrill on being nasty? This is a stupid page, not sure why I clicked on it. I like the cover.

Hitch
4 years ago
Reply to  Nathan

Which one do you think is Lisette and which one is Megan, you think, Nathan? (One could be Laura…)

I find the odds of chance a bit too remote to have two women, out of the blue, both appear on this particular cover and attempt to chastise the site and posters here.

Myk
Myk
4 years ago
Reply to  Sheri W.

Hi Sheri, I don’t know if I’d call myself an expert on art, but I am a creative professional — this cover IS objectively bad. The art, while nearly serviceable, is not quite up to the level of a professionally published work, and even if it were, the type choices and arrangement ruin it. Mind you, none of this is to say that the BOOK is bad, not an attack on the author personally. Its simple, straightforward critique.

Last edited 4 years ago by Myk