Alright, you know how it works by now. This week's head-to-head may not look too similar, other than the fact that it's two young chicks with old-chick hair* (ha!), but allow me to tell you why I chose them. I read these books around the same time; both feature ladies who have gone prematurely -- not even gray; prematurely white, which helps disguise them. Both are retellings of fairy tales. Both covers have a soft-focus effect. I couldn't help but be struck by the similarities when I read them. There is a clear winner for me, in both cover and story, but I don't want to poison the well, so the answer to that will be in next week's post so you can vote first. Well...
who did it better?
Singer published 2005
Deerskin published 1993
*My women's lit teacher would be rolling over in her grave, if she were dead. Instead, she's probably just rolling her eyes. 'Chick' was strictly verboten.
Last Week on F.F.O.: Impossible faced down itself, with the Red-Dress-in-a-Wheat-Field cover taking the win by a hair. Or a whole head of them, rather. People loved the hair in the face thing. [Sidenote: there's more hair-in-face coming on FFO. Interesting trend, that] I personally love both covers, and if it turns out to be a good book, I might own both. That being said, I own the winning cover. Though I left it up to fate (it was the first version I came across in a store), I really couldn't decide for myself, but I am pleased how things turned out. It is so beautiful in person, and I adore the juxtaposition of a beautifully dressed girl in a country wheat field. Oh, and the hair in the face. That's a winner.
[ps. Does anyone read what the boxers are saying? It's different for every book, and usually they are fighting over their favorites, but this week, I think they think I'm weird.]
Have you seen any cover-twins? Comment with the titles!
Singer, no doubt about it. I love the trees in the background. 8D
ReplyDeleteI'm going with Singer....it's still got the artsy aspect, but with a little more definition.
ReplyDeleteSinger. But then again they probably have better photoshop graphics in 2005 than they did in 1993.
ReplyDeleteI think I like the first one better :)
ReplyDelete