New Covers For Old 2022: Day XV

Most of these are improvements… but they’re not LARGE improvements.

Original Cover

Updated Cover

Original Cover

Updated Cover

Original Cover

Updated Cover

Original Cover

Updated Cover

Original Cover

Updated Cover

Original Cover

Updated Cover

Original Cover

Updated Cover

Original Cover

Updated Cover

Original Cover

Updated Cover

Original Cover

Updated Cover

Spread the love
6 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Hitch
2 years ago

Oh, dear. So many bad covers, so little time!

(I swear to god if this list stuff doesn’t work…)

<ol>
 <li>Prison Planet–from mediocre to less-horribly mediocre.</li>
 <li>Molly’s Misadventures–do you know, when I first saw that cover, on LBC, I thought the fleshy bits were two old knees, from some old person? Not hardly, you’d think, the sort of misadventure you’d advertise. Gotta give her some points for upscaling it somewhat. Still not a fantastic cover, but arithmetically better than the old Knee one!</li>
 <li>Taken by the Wild Hunt: Y’know, I really liked the original base layer artwork and hated everything else. Now, I just hate all of it.</li>
 <li>Open Season: Sigh. </li>
 <li>A Destiny to Die For: Angelina probably sued but either cover is simply bad. Bad, bad and oh, yes, bad. </li>
 <li>Phantom Quartz: well, the dog got top billing here….</li>
 <li>Bible Dramatizations: It’s hard to know what to say here. Technically, it’s vastly improved, but…whut? </li>
 <li>Timothy Mean–decidedly better. Still not clear, but…props for VASTLY better. </li>
 <li>Dr. Eddy: Oh, come ON! Really? Author, get with it!</li>
 <li>One Day at at Time [sic]: honestly, better before and that’s not even including the typo (“at at” instead of “at a”) on the cover. And, for crying out loud, a phrase that’s overused much AND was the name of a hit show for dog’s years? Yeesh.  </li>
</ol>

I don’t know if that will work, Nathan–probably not. I’m trying it to help you troubleshoot. (For those who don’t see the orig. post, I’m using unordered list HTML *in* the post to see if that somehow works, as the built-in Rich Text editor appears to be choking on lists, both numbered and bulleted. Gonna be pissed if I have to retype this sucker, though.)

Hitch
2 years ago
Reply to  Hitch

Wahl, that didn’t work. sigh.

War Goat
War Goat
2 years ago
Reply to  Hitch

I sometimes manually type lists. Particularly in email environments where rich code is disabled and text-only is required. But…
1) Old
2) Fashioned
3) Text
4) Lists
5) Are
5) Sometimes
6) Wonky

Hitch
2 years ago
Reply to  War Goat

LOL, no, you don’t say? 🙂 I mean, c’mon, I’m seriously trying to help him troubleshoot. It’s more work for me to do what I did, than to either manually do it, a la your post, or use the ul/ol’s that are sitting here.

Just trying to help. Oh, well. It’s a weird one! (maybe he needs to clear the CSS, before lists?) It’s truly odd.

Naaman Brown
Naaman Brown
2 years ago
Reply to  Hitch

[ol]
[li]Bible Dramatizations[/li]
[li]Timothy Mean[/li]
[/ol]

Drat.

Last edited 2 years ago by Naaman Brown
Hitch
2 years ago
Reply to  Naaman Brown

IKR? It’s frustrating as hell. I’m going to have to resort to Goat’s manual listing, but I prefer lists with neatly-aligned hanging indents, dammit. I’m funny that way.