Harper Collins, 2000
This cover is still strongly influenced by the 90s, and that text effect is the worst part. The second-worst part is that it looks like a Goosebumps book.
Not good. Looks like self-published photoshop job, or if an artist was paid to produce something with the parameters "astrology puppy," but not paid very much. The puppy's right ear has gone missing. At least they paid for a fancy font?
Random House, 1990
If it weren't for the child in the foreground (Kathleen?) I would rank this higher, but I'm a little perturbed by her cherubic profile.
Harper Collins, 2010
I'm mad at this, and I don't know why. Maybe because it looks so gosh-darn generic
. It looks like a children's book about a puppy named Mittens.
Goodreads doesn't know the source of this image, and it is quite low-res, but I include it for its incredible non-specificity. This cover could have been used to illustrate 30% of children's SF in a given year, and possibly was.
Random House, 1990
Really, Random House? Did you have this artwork lying around from 1970?
Similar subject to the following, rather different effect! Children who picked up this book hoping it was about silly flying dog may have been somewhat upset or disappointed.
Greenwillow Books, 1988
Pretty good, pretty 1980s. Did this artist do James Blish's Cities
as well? The dog's facial expression is pretty spooky, which I don't know how I feel about. Probably better than the cuteness the dogs acquire in the mid 2000s.
Although this cover tells you almost nothing about what's inside, I like it, and if you updated the title font, I think it wouldn't look too dated today.
Sorry there's nothing larger, but I quite like this one, one of the earliest. The art isn't too dated, and gives a good idea what you'll find inside.
Greenwillow Books, 2001
Strong work, looks like the artist read the book, rather than put the keywords into a stock-image search. (I liked this enough I tried to find the artist's name, but couldn't.)This post also on dreamwidth ( comments)