I am deeply confused by the artwork. The body is rendered well, although I don’t think the boobs and the stomach area look quite right. But it could be a photo, for how good it looks. The head, the hair and the hand with the sword look like either a completely different artist painted it, or a mediocre artist painted over a photo. It’s blended well, but unfortunately, not painted well.
And why the sword if she has that freakishly huge riffle?
Her rib cage is too deep. Her breasts are in the wrong place. Or something. The proportions are off. Her head? Too small for the body? Plus she looks naked in front.
I’ve been bugged by similar anatomy before, so I looked up some models… I guess you can get that double boob look from the right angle. So the body could be a photo. But the head, the hair and the hand with the sword are definitely painted on by somebody with not so great painting skills. The fist is stubby, the head is too small, yes, and the hair is just bad. The sword is probably the best of the painted on parts, unless the rifle is painted too.
The _lines_ of the body are rendered well, but this person (I won’t use the word “artist”) has no clue about the volumes of a body, or anatomy, or anything else. My guess is that he traced over various body parts from various unrelated drawings from various comics and tried to assemble those pieces into something human-looking.
Are people afraid of capital letters these days? I would think that the “daughter of war” should be able to withstand an onslaught of uppercase and would not feel the need for a safe space in the word “W ar”.
![cover[1]](https://lousybookcovers.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/cover1-2.jpg)
I am deeply confused by the artwork. The body is rendered well, although I don’t think the boobs and the stomach area look quite right. But it could be a photo, for how good it looks. The head, the hair and the hand with the sword look like either a completely different artist painted it, or a mediocre artist painted over a photo. It’s blended well, but unfortunately, not painted well.
And why the sword if she has that freakishly huge riffle?
At least this cover is not a rip of the Red Sonja poster we’ve seen before.
Why the sword? Swords never run out of ammo, but an empty rifle is just an awkward club.
(Doesn’t Nathan have a tag for warrior women kitted in cool/sexy but totally impractical/untactical uniforms?)
I’m hoping I never have the volume of covers needing it.
Her rib cage is too deep. Her breasts are in the wrong place. Or something. The proportions are off. Her head? Too small for the body? Plus she looks naked in front.
I’ve been bugged by similar anatomy before, so I looked up some models… I guess you can get that double boob look from the right angle. So the body could be a photo. But the head, the hair and the hand with the sword are definitely painted on by somebody with not so great painting skills. The fist is stubby, the head is too small, yes, and the hair is just bad. The sword is probably the best of the painted on parts, unless the rifle is painted too.
The _lines_ of the body are rendered well, but this person (I won’t use the word “artist”) has no clue about the volumes of a body, or anatomy, or anything else. My guess is that he traced over various body parts from various unrelated drawings from various comics and tried to assemble those pieces into something human-looking.
It didn’t work.
For the life of me I can’t tell if this is a photomanip that went terribly wrong or a painting that went terribly wrong. Or both.
Yes. You understand my dilemma now.
Rotten rotoscopy?
Are people afraid of capital letters these days? I would think that the “daughter of war” should be able to withstand an onslaught of uppercase and would not feel the need for a safe space in the word “W ar”.
Time to man up!
THE DAUGHTER OF WAR
ZERO HOUR
*Woman up, I should think.
Case up, at any rate.
In a universe parallel to our own, ‘eighties Cher was a kick-ass warrior.