67 Responses to “Snark it to me, Snarker!”

1. Emily Veinglory Posted: Aug 7th, 2007 at 6:49 pm

   1 I think the head and shoulders go together but may have been repositioned. But the rest is completely made up, cropped, over-manipulated and FUBARed.

2. Taekduu Posted: Aug 7th, 2007 at 6:51 pm

   2 the ass is too wide. It looks like she had a nice one that was stretched out. And what is with her neck?

3. Emily Veinglory Posted: Aug 7th, 2007 at 7:23 pm

   3 Too wide and too shallow. The pants may be low rider but half of the horse is missing.

4. Emily Veinglory Posted: Aug 7th, 2007 at 7:24 pm

   4 Come to think of it the back has no anatomy to speak of.

5. Katie Ann Posted: Aug 7th, 2007 at 7:39 pm

   5 Seems like her pants should have a waistband of some sort, and yeah the back is so flat and weird. Where’d her ribcage go? Her hips are like twice as wide as her torso.

6. christine Posted: Aug 7th, 2007 at 7:40 pm

   6 The head and body definitely do not go together. No way you can see a full profile of the face from that angle. It would look way better if that creepy face (which appears to be growing out of the side of her head) were to be removed altogether.

7. Teddy Pig Posted: Aug 7th, 2007 at 7:47 pm

   7 That is a tragic Photoshop accident right there.

8. Gwen Posted: Aug 7th, 2007 at 8:46 pm

   8 She looks like she’s taken a dump in her nice leather pants. That’s going to leave a stain. And her rib cage is way too narrow. Poor author. I imagine Ms Kessler groaned - and not in a good way - when she saw that. Here’s what I think this cover woman is thinking: “Oh damn! I broke my neck AGAIN?! That’s what I get for trying that new yoga instructor. And look what he left on my back!! Since when was splooge RED?! That’s just wrong!”

9. Nonny Posted: Aug 7th, 2007 at 8:47 pm

   9 The biggest problem is the back. It completely lacks any contour and shape. The human spine has a natural curvature, creating the “small” of the back, and then there’s the curves of the hips… Um. It looks like a paper doll. And a badly done one at that.

10. bam Posted: Aug 7th, 2007 at 8:58 pm

    10 Author Comment The human spine has a natural curvature, creating the “small” of the back, and then there’s the curves of the hips… Oh, shoot. She’s a demon, hello! She doesn’t necessarily have human physiology. heh.

11. Kathleen Posted: Aug 7th, 2007 at 9:24 pm

    11 I’m a graphic designer and I assume the artist took some great stock art, vamped it up, slutted it down, and presented it. “No no,” the art director said, “Look at that ass, I could park a plate of cheesy fries on it! Flatten that out, no man’s gonna want to look at that!” The artist humbly points out that the book will probably have a mostly female fan base, and that, in fact, the ass pictured is proportionate. “FLATTEN IT” the art director demands. So back into Photoshop the artist goes, elimanting any contours that suggest a big butt. But now, of course, the back looks weird. So they elimate any bit of contour from that. By then, bleary eyed, hungry, they stumble to the candy machine for a peanut butter cup and/or a kit kat. Refreshed and reawakened by the goddess of chocolate, they take a fresh look at the screen. Hours of work, for a body that looks like it was blocked in by Colorforms. “Fuck it,” they say. “I’m adding a weird ruby-thing and calling it a day.”

12. Ali Posted: Aug 7th, 2007 at 9:40 pm

    12 Oh, dear… it looks like her heads about to do a three-sixty. Her pants look weird… from her back down it looks flat.

13. dl Posted: Aug 7th, 2007 at 10:07 pm

    13 Her top half & bottom half are disconnected…top half has shading & contours. The bottom half are flat, out of proportion, with no shading. It appears half finished, or completed by a totally different artist. Pahleese….I’m so sick of necklaces in the back, even those masquarading as some kind of dangling lace decoration.

14. Ciara Posted: Aug 8th, 2007 at 1:11 am

    14 It’s the tiny face compared to the size of her body. Totally out of proportion. Looks like the lizard people in Farscape (name escapes me).

15. lightlyfell Posted: Aug 8th, 2007 at 2:29 am

    15 I don’t think it’s the cover that’s wrong, it’s the title of the book. If it was called, “Hindsight is 20/20″, then the cover would make pefect sense.

16. Jackie Posted: Aug 8th, 2007 at 2:52 am

    16 THERAPIST: So why are you here today? JACKIE: I gave Bam my cover. THERAPIST: So? She’s an author now. She’s not snarking on covers anymore. JACKIE: I also gave her permission to snark on it. THERAPIST: What the hell is wrong with you? JACKIE: I even gave her an ARC of the book to give away. THERAPIST: You’re REWARDING this behavior? JACKIE: I know. I need help. That’s why I’m here. THERAPIST: Ms. Kessler, admitting you have a problem is an important step. JACKIE: Thanks. THERAPIST: But between this, and your rather unfortunate subject matter– JACKIE: What? I write about demons. Funny demons. Sexy demons. Only a little on the scary side. THERAPIST: — I’m worried about you. Writing such…things, reinforcing this “snarky” behavior in others…Why don’t you write about bunnies? JACKIE: Wait a second. Mom? Is that you? THERAPIST: [COUGH] JACKIE: I don’t believe this. THERAPIST: This is an intervention, dear. You need help. JACKIE: I need chocolate. I need Matt Damon, dipped in chocolate. I don’t need you analyzing me. THERAPIST: I love you, honey. I support you. I think you need a hug. And to write about bunnies. Nice bunnies. Non-demonic bunnies. JACKIE: [SIGH]

17. Lorelie Posted: Aug 8th, 2007 at 3:52 am

    17 Hey y’all, be nice! Times have been tough for Stacey since she lost the gig as Barbie’s second best friend. Truly unfair of Mattel to fire her after that unfortunate steam-roller accident. Then she had to eat all that split pea soup and perfected her 360-head-spin trick and that slut Linda Blair got the role anyways! And that is not a garnet necklace down her back, it’s a representation of the tail she would have as a demon. Well, her acting coach said it was a brilliant idea, at least.

18. Lorelie Posted: Aug 8th, 2007 at 3:53 am

    18 P.S. Jackie - the phrase “screw like bunnies” comes to mind. . .

19. Amy S. Posted: Aug 8th, 2007 at 4:00 am

    19 1) Chick’s head… too big? yes 2) Ass is too small? yes and too wide 3) Back looks oddly like front? Yes 4) Her neck is broken? Yep

20. Melissa Posted: Aug 8th, 2007 at 4:28 am

    20 The head is not attached to the body in any way, the human neck can’t bend like that. She could be part goose. The shoulders are out of proportion with the body. There is no definition on the back. Anyone that skinny will be showing ribs and indentations for the vertebrae. Possibly dimples. The ass need serious work, it doesn’t even look like a boy butt. That is the poister child for no ass. I am not even sure that anyone could have an ass that looks like that, unless it’s one of the little gray men form Stargate. Where is her other arm? Is she waving down a ride? Has a finger in her other ear? We should see a hint of the arm. Does this cover not look like a reproduction of another that is coming out soon? With a read-head? In tones of brown?

21. Melissa Posted: Aug 8th, 2007 at 4:33 am

    21 Got it. Kim Harrison “Dead Witch Walking” - US cover http://www.amazon.com/Dead-Wit.....amp;sr=8-3 Oh, and it’s poster child, not poister child. Sorry, spelling is not my bag.

22. Melissa Posted: Aug 8th, 2007 at 4:33 am

    22 also see A Fistful of Charms (Rachel Morgan, Book 4) - US cover http://www.amazon.com/Fistful-.....amp;sr=8-3

23. tbear Posted: Aug 8th, 2007 at 4:34 am

    23 1) the top looks like it’s made for a toddler, not an adult woman with breasts 2)no waist 3) she looks like she’s been removed from a hydraulic press or fell from a 50 story building, she’s so flat. 4) she really needs to go to the doctor. she has some sort of parasite crawling out her skin 5) I’m not sure what’s up with that elbow, but she eiter has a muscle that’s not in the right place, or she has to much skin???? either way. it doesn’t look right too me. anyway, that’s what I see. The one that’s really wierding me out is the wierd worm/snake thing that’s crawling out of her back.

24. Jackie Posted: Aug 8th, 2007 at 4:38 am

    24 “P.S. Jackie - the phrase “screw like bunnies” comes to mind. . .” **giggle**

25. Ann Bruce Posted: Aug 8th, 2007 at 5:06 am

    25 “No no,” the art director said, “Look at that ass, I could park a plate of cheesy fries on it! Flatten that out, no man’s gonna want to look at that!” Yeah, probably shouldn’t be sharing this (buy hey, I’m writing under my pseudonym and not my real name so my Mom’ll never know), but when I hit the occasional strip bar (hey, I want to see what guys find so…fascinating), I find myself preferring the girls with the curves as compared to the ones without. I don’t want it overblown, but SOMETHING needs to be there. And this translates into my book-buying habits as well. And the guys with me agree, if who they give their dollar bills to is any indication.

26. Ann Bruce Posted: Aug 8th, 2007 at 5:10 am

    26 THERAPIST: I love you, honey. I support you. I think you need a hug. And to write about bunnies. Nice bunnies. Non-demonic bunnies. You can make the bunny kick-ass and she can go around solving murder mysteries. I did this when I was 8. My teachers looked at me funny ever since.

27. shuzluva Posted: Aug 8th, 2007 at 5:21 am

    27 Jackie, thank you for *ahem* asking us to share this tragedy with you. Why would someone use a photo for the head, shoulders and arms of the woman and out-of-whack poser for the armpits down? Really? If I had a poser back, waist, ass and legs I’d make sure they looked sexy and my ass was smaller than the width of my shoulders. And I had a SPINE. A spine would really help this chick. Yeah. We should shove a metal rod in there before she sinks to the ground like a jellyfish. Eh. I’m still looking forward to reading it!

28. Jackie Posted: Aug 8th, 2007 at 6:07 am

    28 Hey — someone teach me how to do the spiffy block quote thingy, please? Ann: There’s something about a bunny kicking ass that reminds me of Monty Python. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa–! Shuzluva: You’re welcome!

29. Jambrea Posted: Aug 8th, 2007 at 6:08 am

    29 It does look like the head is on backward. I still can’t wait to read it. I LOVED the first one.

30. Ann(ie) Posted: Aug 8th, 2007 at 6:21 am

    30 Hmm, there definitely is a trend for showing the heroine from the back. What’s up with that?

31. Kimberly Posted: Aug 8th, 2007 at 6:33 am

    31 To me, one big problem seems to be that the distance between her crotch and her waist is too short. It sort of looks foreshortened in the way it would be if she were leaning forward, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. I think we should also be able to see her spine from this angle. And watch out for those Latin translations—they can be lethal, I know!

32. Lorelie Posted: Aug 8th, 2007 at 6:59 am

    32 Hey — someone teach me how to do the spiffy block quote thingy, please? It’s done like this {blockquote}Words Here{/blockquote} Except you replace the {s with the appropriate

33. Lorelie Posted: Aug 8th, 2007 at 7:00 am

    33 > No idea what happened there! Sorry Bam! I didn’t put anything after the carrot, didn’t close it! Crappers.

34. Jackie Posted: Aug 8th, 2007 at 7:03 am

    34 It’s done like this {blockquote}Words Here{/blockquote} Eeee! Thanks so much, Lorelie! You rock!

35. dillene Posted: Aug 8th, 2007 at 7:07 am

    35 She must have a skull shaped like a creature from “Aliens” considering the relative distance between her chin and her neck. Maybe this book is the first in a line of Xenomorph romances.

36. Heather Posted: Aug 8th, 2007 at 7:45 am

    36 Certainly either her neck is broken, or hidden behind that hair she has the head of a horse, and what looks like her face is just the end of that. I’m figuring on the latter, because if it’s the former then on top of the broken neck she also has an overly huge head underneath that hair, and it’s better to stick to one easy answer for both, IMO.

37. Jaime Posted: Aug 8th, 2007 at 7:53 am

    37 The one thing nobody mentions are her gorilla arms…she has arms that come out of that tiny top and go on for days over her way tooo wide ass! I think her neck is growing out of her right clavical…either that or she is from Men in Black and she took over that body and the neck broke and she had to shift the head over to her shoulder for support? Bummer, Jackie, but I will read it anyway. =}

38. celeber Posted: Aug 8th, 2007 at 8:16 am

    38 Her chin is even with her shoulder. That is extremely odd. She is either trying to walk like an egyption or has a really bad kink in her neck.

39. Cathie Posted: Aug 8th, 2007 at 8:49 am

    39 Oh it doesn’t look ‘real’ Its better than the one on Amazon that had the back all blemished and maybe they took the blemishes out? LOL (Its up on Amazon and you can see). I so loved the first cover that the longer I look at this one, the more stiff it looks. (I am bad, I am sorry, but really they must of use a mannequin for it?) (you know those things they have in stores with the clothes on them to model them in the windows). But i’m gonna love whats inside this one!!!

40. Jackie Posted: Aug 8th, 2007 at 8:52 am

    40 Cathie, it’s a little known fact that the leg on the HELL’S BELLES cover is actually mine. (My other leg is horrid, so they didn’t use that one.) ((What? I write fiction. I’m practicing!))

41. BevL(QB) Posted: Aug 8th, 2007 at 9:45 am

    41 JACKIE is the problem, not the COVER PIC!! I don’t think there is any problem with the cover pic AT ALL! She is the most desirable Were-Gecko I’ve ever seen! Obviously Jackie just doesn’t have the writing chops needed to give this glorious creature a story worthy of her lizardness!

42. Teresa W. Posted: Aug 8th, 2007 at 12:55 pm

    42 She does look like she’s getting ready to do the Linda Blair move with her head!

43. catie Posted: Aug 8th, 2007 at 1:06 pm

    43 The lower 3/4 of her body is flat–no dimension and yes, the ass is entirely too small. Upon second glance, the angle of her profile is wonky. I don’t know that it looks as though she has a broken neck, but there’s definitely a werewolfish quality to the top quarter of her body and being as the main character is a succubus, I don’t think that’s the image one would necessarily want conveyed.

44. Ciar Cullen Posted: Aug 8th, 2007 at 2:04 pm

    44 Emily has it right. The original is a full back shot. They pasted a profile onto the side of her head. She’s a two-face! Maybe that’s part of the plot?

45. SweetNSourGirl Posted: Aug 8th, 2007 at 2:25 pm

    45 It’s a weird angle. The ass is way too wide and not nearly full enough. Where are the curves? Real chicks have curves? Her back has no line thingy that shows it’s a back instead of a front! The arms look alright, if a little long. Nice muscle tone, though. What’s with the outfit? There’s a sperm on your back, girly!

46. Richelle Mead Posted: Aug 8th, 2007 at 4:01 pm

    46 Oh goodness. There’s no way I can comment on this. We’re at the mercy of others for our covers as it is. I can’t continue the angst…

47. Jackie Posted: Aug 8th, 2007 at 4:05 pm

    47 I can’t continue the angst… Sympathy for the devil, indeed.

48. Eli Posted: Aug 8th, 2007 at 4:12 pm

    48 1) Her head looks like it’s on backwards. 2) The bra thong-thing creates the illusion of a belly button ring on what I guess is supposed to be her back. 3) She has absolutely no ass, if she did the pants are low enough that a bit of crack would be showing 4) The strap bisecting her shoulder makes it appear that her shoulder blade is considerably off center. 5) The “light of the purple moon” look gives her a splotchy, just been rolled out of the morgue fridge look. But once the book is open to page one who cares whats on the cover.

49. Julie Posted: Aug 8th, 2007 at 4:14 pm

    49 The tie on the back of her shirt, the little dangly thing, looks like it’s affixed to her skin like some kind of leech.

50. Lady T Posted: Aug 8th, 2007 at 4:55 pm

    50 I think the reason that the cover girl here is all out of proportion is due to her trying like hell to get that bit of demon sperm off of her back without touching it with her bare hands:)

51. Shiloh Posted: Aug 8th, 2007 at 5:17 pm

    51 hips looks very very wide considering how dang skinny she is. head doesn’t match either.

52. Shannon Posted: Aug 8th, 2007 at 6:03 pm

    52 It appears that everything above the bra goes with one girl. From below the bra to pants actually looks like something I drew in 4th grade art class… Also, the little string tie on the bra wouldnt actually be hanging like that if gravity was in effect. And maybe it isnt, but I strongly suspect it is. The pants seem to have been taken from a third picture, and are chopped short. A large part of her ass is missing. The part that should rightfully connect to the waist, because her hips are way to wide for the rest of the body. The way her hair is falling also makes it look like her head is hanging in the air over her body. And maybe it is. The zero gravity atmosphere just holds it conveniently above her body, if a little off center. And I would imagine that at the angle she is standing, if she has any chest to speak of you would see some of it. I mean, I could be completely wrong. But…methinks not… This could just be me, but I dont normally rest my hand on that part of my body when I am standing in that kind of pose. It looks like its putting a lot of strain on those wrist tendons. And the middle part of her body is glowing. Somewhat radioactive, maybe. Or so pale she reflects the light around her…that could be a useful defense mechanism. Blind your opponents with your pale skin.

53. LynTaylor Posted: Aug 8th, 2007 at 6:09 pm

    53 Yay!! You’re back Yes, it does look quite odd but unfortunately I can’t quite put my finger on it just yet. I don’t like those saggy baggy pants though *shakes head* What were they thinking ?

54. Jill Myles Posted: Aug 8th, 2007 at 6:31 pm

    54 Okay, when I first saw Jackie’s cover, I thought it looked sweet! But now that I’m looking at it again…she’s got like, a play-doh torso. Fuckin’ freaking me out. Nevertheless, I will still buy it on publication day because I love me some Jackie Kessler.

55. Jill Myles Posted: Aug 8th, 2007 at 6:33 pm

    55 FYI the one on Amazon.com looks a lot better. Please tell me that it’s the finalized version? http://www.amazon.com/Road-Hel.....amp;sr=1-2

56. Wicked Writes Posted: Aug 9th, 2007 at 6:29 am

    56 1) Chick’s head… too big? Well, half of her head seems to be missing and she has issues with hair. 2) Ass is too small? Too flat. No bumcheeks. 3) Back looks oddly like front? She has no spine and no shoulder blades. 4) Her neck is broken! She doesn’t have one. OMG! That’s it! This chica doesn’t have any bones. She’s like Rubber Girl. I bet she can bend in 25 positions and that’s why she gets all the sex0rz. Makes sense as to why her head is loping off to one side and her arse is flatter than a pre-teen’s boobies. I think she also ran over to Meljean Brook’s ‘Demon Moon’ and stole that girls clothes. I miss Fabio cover art. Fabio had pretty hair.

57. Suzette Posted: Aug 9th, 2007 at 11:31 am

    57 Yup…weird things happening with this cover. The Cover Gods were not involved with this one at all! A big shame cause you know the book is gonna rock!!

58. danette Posted: Aug 9th, 2007 at 11:59 am

    58 Poor chicks ass is way too small,how’s a guy supposed to smack that. Is that a string from her shirt going down her back or is it a demon tail wrongfully placed?

59. Shannon Posted: Aug 9th, 2007 at 1:53 pm

    59 I have to say, the one on amazon is a bit odd too. I think they just added some shading along the back, but it kind of looks like she has some kind of skin disease…

60. Cathie Posted: Aug 9th, 2007 at 2:29 pm

    60 Loved the cover for Hell’s Belles. I had no idea the legs were yours! Nice How come you didn’t do second cover?

61. Catherine Posted: Aug 9th, 2007 at 4:02 pm

    61 Her ass just frightens me. Before I even read your snark it caught my eye. It was hard to look away from… So wide and flat. Gwen was right, it does look like she took a dump in her pants. I think that’s the most glaring deformity on this cover. …at least to me.

62. Jackie Posted: Aug 9th, 2007 at 4:06 pm

    62 Loved the cover for Hell’s Belles. I had no idea the legs were yours! Nice How come you didn’t do second cover? Actually, that’s my Loving Husband on the cover. ((He told me to say that.))

63. Emily Veinglory Posted: Aug 9th, 2007 at 4:21 pm

    63 She could get together with him: http://www.smartbitchestrashyb.....plePie.jpg and start a new mutant race….

64. lisabea Posted: Aug 9th, 2007 at 4:39 pm

    64 Cyborg?

65. Eilonwy Posted: Aug 9th, 2007 at 10:23 pm

    65 I think everyone’s covered the anatomy problems, but what’s up with the waist of her pants? Whoever made them must have figured since they were made of plastic they weren’t going to fray, so didn’t bother doing anything but cutting the “fabric”– no hemming/folding/or waistband? Her chest seems concave– why is her chest concave? Shannon’s right, we should see some hint of her chest. The Amazon cover is slightly better, but that’s only because the way it’s cropped means you don’t have to wonder if she has a left arm or not. But it makes her hips look even more out of proportion to the rest of her. And whoever said she’s got a skin disease in the Amazon version is right– or some serious bruising, and this chick needs to get an ice pack on that, pronto. Her face is the creepiest part, though, all hanging out over her right shoulder when it ought to be somewhere else. Good grief.

66. Eilonwy Posted: Aug 9th, 2007 at 10:24 pm

    66 (Also? I just want to mention how happy it makes me to see covers here for snarkage again. ::happy sigh::)

67. Jaci Burton Posted: Aug 10th, 2007 at 12:08 pm

    67 i dunno about the girl on the cover, but the quote from that Jaci Burton chick rocks. ;-) signed…uhh…anonymous