nah. I think that’s a pseudonym for a different author. close, but no raptor.
Michael Waller
8 years ago
Lose the torso and focus on the lady and the cover could work and maybe reduce the author name down another 10%.
The paperback version is a competent cover, why not used that one for the ebook?
Naaman Brown
8 years ago
This is a pet peeve of mine.
[rant]
Something disturbs me about headless torsos even when they are well done.
All the covers of the romance novel that my wife and her sister had that I can recall, both lovers had faces, gazing lovingliy in one another’s eyes usually with wind blowing through their hair (and usually the male was Fabio or modeled on Fabio).
Headless torsos to me are depersonalized, objectified, not romantic and not erotic.
Cover artists of the world:
Please.
Stop.
[/rant]
I think there is a part of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory test MMPI that asks draw a man, draw a woman, and headless torsos imply something.
Amen, brother. I’m with you on that. I hate the headless torso thing. My theory on this is that cheap cover artists (the Fiverrs of the world) and DIY’ers are using headless torsos without distinguishing characteristics because they don’t have to pay licensing fees. Seriously. Why ELSE do it? God knows that there are thousands, literally, of half- (or fully) naked men out there in stock photos. Same with the women. Why make them headless, other than licensing fees?
I mean, that’s NOT an identifiable torso there. It’s about as generic as it can be.
![cover[1]](https://lousybookcovers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/cover176.jpg)
Don’t I know this name? Isn’t this “oh, Lola,” of Dinoporn fame?
Whoops. Isn’t that the name of the dino-porn chick? Am I having a brain fart?
nah. I think that’s a pseudonym for a different author. close, but no raptor.
Lose the torso and focus on the lady and the cover could work and maybe reduce the author name down another 10%.
The paperback version is a competent cover, why not used that one for the ebook?
This is a pet peeve of mine.
[rant]
Something disturbs me about headless torsos even when they are well done.
All the covers of the romance novel that my wife and her sister had that I can recall, both lovers had faces, gazing lovingliy in one another’s eyes usually with wind blowing through their hair (and usually the male was Fabio or modeled on Fabio).
Headless torsos to me are depersonalized, objectified, not romantic and not erotic.
Cover artists of the world:
Please.
Stop.
[/rant]
I think there is a part of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory test MMPI that asks draw a man, draw a woman, and headless torsos imply something.
Amen, brother. I’m with you on that. I hate the headless torso thing. My theory on this is that cheap cover artists (the Fiverrs of the world) and DIY’ers are using headless torsos without distinguishing characteristics because they don’t have to pay licensing fees. Seriously. Why ELSE do it? God knows that there are thousands, literally, of half- (or fully) naked men out there in stock photos. Same with the women. Why make them headless, other than licensing fees?
I mean, that’s NOT an identifiable torso there. It’s about as generic as it can be.