/lit/ - Literature

Where the fuck does everyone find that awesome cover? I can only find copies with this shit on the front.

Took a look at a few pages. I wasn't a big fan of the writing. What's the appeal?

whats it about?

>>744338
Bunch of fallen gods mope around in a city

>>744221
Liked it a lot. Thoroughly enjoyed learning about all the different types of powers, and the fights were very original and very cool. Also, the whole coin jumping thing was kickass.

Just wish my library had the sequels =(

>>744221

The ending of the series is terrible. Just, mind-numbingly awful.

>>744326

Dun know, but OP's cover looks fucking amazing.

This one's still better than the RL woman though:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Final-Empire-Mistborn-Book-One/dp/0575089911/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&
amp;qid=1275555540&sr=8-2

Liked the first one, second one was okay, didn't finish the third one.
Did I miss out on something?

>>744326
I managed to snag a hardback copy of the third book for close to 3$, and it has gorgeous cover art. I tacked that up on my wall and bought the paperback to read. I am so disappointed in the change of direction for the Mistborn books. I can understand why it was done. It was probably cheaper to mass produce the book with shitty generic fantasy cover art but it's so unfortunate that it has to be that way.

First one is really good. Series went downhill from there, didn't really enjoy the next two.

What I think happened, and I base this on absolutely nothing, is that the covers were changed to emphasize the presence of a female lead. The hardback covers are gorgeous but it's hard to really tell what you'll get by them, whereas with a competent/tough/badass chick on the cover you can be reasonably sure.

tl,dr; marketing

>>745308
I thought it was just a money thing. As in, it was cheaper to use generic fantasy cover art instead of this amazing stuff for the paperbacks. Although, I do have the first book in paperback, and it has the good cover art, so I don't know. You may be right.

>>745308
This may not be a tough chick cover but you can't deny it is beautiful and eye catching.

I think these fantasy publisher art departments just have really low expectations of their readership's aesthetic tastes or something. Those Jon Foster covers own.

>>745315
>>745332
Quoting the art director of Tor:

"In this case, we loved the hardcover art but we were worried that it would be hard to make out at the smaller paperback size. Since we felt we got the right tone across the first time, we decided to go back to Jon and see if he'd be up for revisiting it. (It also helped that I knew he really loved the book.)

You are right that it is unusual to go back to the same artist for new cover. More typically, if we are changing the cover for mass market, we are doing so to get a completely different feel on the book. Sometimes it's because we failed to get the hardcover the right audience, other times it's just the nature of paperback publishing versus hardcover publishing.

Most paperbacks are _not_ bought in bookstores, they are bought on impulse in drug stores, airports, supermarkets, etc. Because of that, the feeling is that you have to "STOP THE SHOPPING CART!" Things need to pop more, more foil and emboss, etc. Hardcovers are often bought in bookstores were people take their time and browse more...plus you have a lot more room to do more subtle things with."

Though in this instance she's talking pic related cover. I'm still not sure where the new US paperback covers came from, and I don't think I'll research further.