… here’s a real Pink Carnation artifact: the Lost Cover of Pink I.
Doesn’t that have a nice ring to it? Having a lost anything imparts such a lovely air of antiquity and myth-making, like the lost city of Atlantis or the lost subway stations hidden among the tunnels beneath the city of New York.
And I’m not even making it up. Pink I really does have its own lost pictoral history, a cover that flourished for two brief months before being consigned to the scrap heap. Et voila:
Different, isn’t it? It tells its own little historical story. When the advance copies were being printed up, way back in 2003, chick lit was all the rage and every book cover boasted a trendy bag. By the time the advance copies had shipped, the fickle favor of style had shifted and chick lit, like an aging royal mistress, was no longer chic. To be honest, although I do like the bag of the girl on the original cover (and the lovely leather book), I was delighted when my publisher made a snap decision to switch to this cover:
What do you think?
-
Actually, I rather like the original, but (granted this could be some serious bias to the cover that made the cut LOL) the second makes more sense since most of the chapters are the historical part. If it was more in the 21st century, then yep, it would make sense. But I do agree, it’s mighty nice. 
Lois
by Lois
on May 20th, 2008 at 11:54 am
-
I’m with Lois. I really dig the original cover, but the one that actually made it is more appropriate, imho!
by Jessica
on May 20th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
-
I’m with both of you on this one. As a composition, I love the original chick lit cover. There’s something very harmonious and aesthetically pleasing about it. But it gave me nervous first time author nightmares about angry readers berating me for selling them historical fiction under cover of chick lit.
by Lauren
on May 20th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
-
The covers are so extremely different, yet I like the original here almost as much as the published one (which is perfect for the book and therefore I’m glad it’s the one that stuck). I love that the books themselves have two completely different genres that work together so fluidly, and I guess that’s why I’d be happy with either type of cover. Both are very charming, just like their contents
by Angie
on May 20th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
-
Eh, I’m not so sure I don’t like the original better.
But I wish Eloise wasn’t wearing pink. Red hair and all that.
-
I love the current (non-original) cover! It’s what got me interested. Molds history with a dash of modern. Whoever created them– many kudos!
Unfortunately, I’m one of “those” who must have a complete matching cover set for favorite series… and dang, my Black Tulip was definitely the hardcover cover, and I needed to get the paperback to match the others. (I totally prefer the paperback covers!)
Chelsea
-
What about both? She could have had a book in her hand and the book’s cover could have been the old. Not too much detail there, but still.
by Vara
on May 23rd, 2008 at 9:50 am
-
BTW — I am really excited that, on the old cover, they gave the girl red hair, since you make it obvious that our Eloise is a redhead! As a redhead myself, I’m pretty excited to see the color maintained; it’s not always the case! (cough, The Da Vinci code, cough)
by Jessica
on May 23rd, 2008 at 1:06 pm
-
I love the cover you ultimately used. The original was a bit too … well, chick-litish for me. Not that I don’t adore chick lit, but I think the current ocver does your series more justice. A little chick lit, a little mystery, a little regency.
And hey — When does Eloise figure out that Colin is a spy?
Thanks for all the fun reads.
by Kathleen
on June 6th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
