I've been coming across a lot of books lately that have had complete overhauls in the cover department between the hardcover and paperback releases. Sometimes I'm torn (does this mean any sequels aren't going to match the original hardback? Are they targeting a new audience? What if I liked the old cover?), and sometimes I'm all for it (Ooh, shiny!). Here's one I came across recently that I was really torn on at first. They are two totally different approaches, and have little - if anything - in common. On the one hand, I loved the original cover. On the other, the new one, though bleak, has a lot of visual interest and tells more of a story. It's intriguing. I didn't think I really liked it at first, but then, um...I ended up buying it. So yeah, it grew on me.
What do you guys think? Do you like the old cover or the new? If you've read the story, which do you think suits it best, and if you haven't, which makes you want to read it?
Which one did it better?
Last week on FFO: We went a little Hairshow, with The Frenzy, Delicious and Texas Gothic going head to head. I was a little surprised by the results, as nearly everyone seemed to love my least favorite cover, Delicious. It was a little funny to me when I was putting the post together because even though all three books use a similar style and very hard to ignore element, and even though they have strong similarities, I really liked two (The Frenzy and Texas Gothic) but really can't stand the cover for Delicious. It's not much different, and yet something about it... Pass.