Though this is the first time I recall seeing a cover by Harlequin posted, I did mention a particular book cover by the same outfit in a comments section that would almost certainly earn itself the wink wink nudge nudge tag on here.
[Continued] On that one, though, there’s nothing wrong with the artwork or typesetting or layout; it’s just an extremely unfortunate juxtaposition of one person’s title with a different person’s image that could be due to an oversight on some third person’s part. With the cover on this post, what blows my mind is that this is clearly no oversight: somebody approved this badly designed cover for the mass market paperback more than 24 years ago, and somebody kept it for the digital republication now.
I was half-expecting to see a cue the attorneys tag here, but no, Harlequin really did approve and release this cover. At least—if the covers of the many other books by this author are any indication—it’s not the author’s fault. Also, fun fact: this cover is the same one used on the mass market paperback when it was first published more than 24 years ago. Maybe we shouldn’t be too surprised the credit for the artist is nowhere to be found in the free sample; who’d want to take “credit” for this dreck?
Bugsey
3 months ago
I would’ve expected this to be from the ’80s or ’90s… the release date was 2025. Even if this is a re-release of a book from that time, the cover almost always get an update to fit with the other books nowadays.
Harlequin Romance covers have certainly deteriorated.
How embarrassing is it for a major publisher to appear on this site?
Though this is the first time I recall seeing a cover by Harlequin posted, I did mention a particular book cover by the same outfit in a comments section that would almost certainly earn itself the wink wink nudge nudge tag on here.
[Continued] On that one, though, there’s nothing wrong with the artwork or typesetting or layout; it’s just an extremely unfortunate juxtaposition of one person’s title with a different person’s image that could be due to an oversight on some third person’s part. With the cover on this post, what blows my mind is that this is clearly no oversight: somebody approved this badly designed cover for the mass market paperback more than 24 years ago, and somebody kept it for the digital republication now.
And all I can say is…
I was half-expecting to see a cue the attorneys tag here, but no, Harlequin really did approve and release this cover. At least—if the covers of the many other books by this author are any indication—it’s not the author’s fault. Also, fun fact: this cover is the same one used on the mass market paperback when it was first published more than 24 years ago. Maybe we shouldn’t be too surprised the credit for the artist is nowhere to be found in the free sample; who’d want to take “credit” for this dreck?
I would’ve expected this to be from the ’80s or ’90s… the release date was 2025. Even if this is a re-release of a book from that time, the cover almost always get an update to fit with the other books nowadays.