Aug 14
Click for full imageYou know what people are into these days… dressing up like strange animal creatures. So put a couple of people talking to some weird bunny person.. just like the convention we were at last week! Except less of the, you know, horrible single 45 year old men looking for sex. Take away from that with a huge space ship in the sky with the author’s name printed in horrible fonts.
(Rating: 8.16 out of 10)
Loading ...
August 14th, 2009 at 9:55 am
What the hell is going on with the see through 2X or something behind the guys name?
I’m scared.
August 14th, 2009 at 10:25 am
Only two distinct fonts on the front cover? Poor show, Baen, poor show!
August 14th, 2009 at 11:32 am
wow thats special…
the bunny thing is well creepy, and i love the Hercules pose that the dude is pulling. “god i hope someone is capturing this moment in MS paint”
August 30th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
The sad thing here is that neither of these books are bad…in fact Methuselahs Children is a sort of prequel for the classic “Time Enough for Love”…
August 30th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
Yea I am sure the books themselves are actually not bad at all. Just doing a quick search for Time Enough for Love showed some epic results! Especially the audio book!
Is it one of those sci-fi classics I should have read by now?
August 31st, 2009 at 11:30 am
Holy…. please if anyone owns that audio book, post a picture of it for us. Its so 70′s.
I’ve not read it either, could have been put off it by the cover. Thats the thing, i love sci-fi and fantasy… but sometime the covers are just too much, there’s definately a limit to what i’ll happily read in public.
In the above book its definately the bunny creature, how do you go about explaining that to anyone who asks?
October 26th, 2011 at 7:16 am
I read Methuselah’s Children, and it definitely had some sort of Ewok-ish things in it…Maybe the artist went with “bunny” to avoid possible lawsuits if he went more teddy-bear?
October 26th, 2011 at 12:19 pm
At least here the designer had the typographical sense to realise that ‘Robert A.’ captures the reality better than the all too frequent female equivalent “ROBERT A”.