New Covers For Old 2024: Day II

Once again, most of the revisions here are actual improvements. Those that aren’t are mostly slight incremental changes, indicating that the author/publisher really didn’t understand what the problem was in the first place.

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
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

9 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Zsuzsa
Zsuzsa
3 months ago

I’ll admit that I preferred the old Star Borne cover. I think the new one is technically better done, but at least the old one didn’t feel the need to insult my intelligence by explaining that the novel about being “stranded on a barbarian planet” is “speculative fiction.”

Hitch
3 months ago

Dragon’s Tooth: Kirsten font.URGH.
Murder in Calico Camp–recipes? FOR what, DOG???
Fallen…sob, Papyrus font.
Bible Camp 3–improved.
Starborne, I’m with @Zsuzsa, below.
The Good, the Bad and the Fugly–yeah, no, Neither is good.
Rise of the Shadow Seekers–vastly improved.
Genesis: uh, whut?
In a Wolf’s eyes–technically, better but still lacking.

Friends in Dark Corners–this week’s Irony Award Winner.

axolotl
axolotl
3 months ago

Rise of the Shadow Seekers is looking great. It’s always good to see someone taking criticism in the right spirit and upping their game. I think most authors these days in this crowded, AI-and-crap-saturated market do realise that being featured on Lousy Book Covers is exposure and not necessarily a bad thing. Although I kind of miss the days when the Internet blew up hilariously because of Norman Boutin’s ‘All Publicity is Good Publicity’ crusade!

Hitch
3 months ago
Reply to  axolotl

Oh, I do miss the “you dun me wrong, pardner!” posts. We had some wham-bang DOOZIES, and it’s been a while.

Since that one guy that insisted that having that indecipherable cover (sigh) meant that, sure enough, people would click on it to “figure out what it was.” That one, that one sort of bizarro-world belief (“It’s so bad, it’s good”) is the one cover art rationalization that I can never “get.”

Hitch
3 months ago
Reply to  Nathan

Yes. It seems to me that over all these years now, didn’t we have ONE? One guy that said “you know, I see what you mean,” and he redid his cover? Do you remember? I could be hallucinating (what, Hitch, again?) but…I thought we had one. One Sane One To Rule Them All.

It’s sad when that happens, it truly is. I mean, the ones that are convinced that bad=good.sigh.

Hitch
3 months ago
Reply to  Nathan

Of course.

Marc
Marc
3 months ago

I would like to have a betting system, where we can document whether we think the new cover will be better or worse (with lateral moves counting as worse because why bother investing more time and effort into it in those cases) before revealing the new one.