Many solid improvements today, but yes, there’s another one whose “improvement” is solely the correction of a typo. If it’s a flaw that I would cite to judtify posting the cover, how could I not acknowledge its correction?
  |
  |
  |
  |
  |
  |
  |
  |
  |
  |
Many solid improvements today, but yes, there’s another one whose “improvement” is solely the correction of a typo. If it’s a flaw that I would cite to judtify posting the cover, how could I not acknowledge its correction?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another one whose “improvement” is solely the correction of a typo. If it’s a flaw that I would cite to judtify posting the cover, how could I not acknowledge its correction?
Okay, that’s fair enough, but I’m not sure “Adding my vanity award medal” to the cover should be enough to count.
But again, if I’d call out a vanity award in the original posting…
I guess if incremental improvements qualify, it makes sense that incremental steps further toward the abyss qualify as well.
In fact, that was a step backward. I do notice, however, that the picture on the new cover for The Salt Covenants is a bit sharper with a better resolution (though still not enough) and slightly less vertically squished (though also still not enough).
As with the cover that fixed only its “suspucious” typo in your previous posting, I do notice a few other minor aesthetic changes to this corrected cover as well, though calling them “improvements” might be going too far.