Book cover art inaccuracy

[fool-ish]

What on earth?! Are there not laws against that sort of thing? Wrong in so many ways!

[fool-ish]

Not an inaccuracy, but a random thought...the 'Fitz face' on the back cover of my copy of Royal Assassin isn't pleasing. It just doesn't compare with my image of him at all! Just thought I'd share.

['thul]

Characters rarely match the book cover. A society in one book where people used steel plate armor was depicted bare-chested wearing ridiculous gold-based armor.
Another book depicted someone riding a dragon. That much was correct. The incorrect was that the cover depicted him in a giant gold saddle (1), wielding an extremely long spear (2), and the dragon spitting fire (3). His clothes were probably also incorrect (4).

1: who would make a gold saddle?
2: dragon wings create a lot of updraft. Impossible to hold a long spear without endangering the dragon
3: have any idea what spitting fire would do to a throat?
4: common silliness.

anyways, getting faces to match for a cover is practically impossible, unless of course author has a page-long description of the character, and if author has that, one can bet the artist wont read that page.

[fool-ish]

Guaranteed the artist wouldn't read that page! I don't actually remember that there is a full description of Fitz's looks, only that he's a handsome sort of fellow and that picture doesn't depict that..not to me anyway. Others may disagree..

[Farseer]

^ I concur, which is why I tend to prefer the Jackie Morris covers as the images don't ever have to clash with how I picture the characters.

I'd have said that there was as detailed a description of Fitz throughout the books as there was of any character? Still, to defend John Howe, it would be impossible for anyone to accurately depict the Fitz of my imagination...

[fool-ish]

Agreed! My Fitz is a fine specimen of a man and even if could draw, I probably could never depict him as I see him.