Don't get me wrong. I'm going to mention three books that I liked. But, I have an issue with their book covers. And, it's a "Pet" peeve.
Why don't cover artists use the description of the animal in the book when they illustrate the cover? When animals are important enough in the book to be described in detail, I think the cover art should match the description of the animal. Here are three examples in which the cover art was just wrong. It was so wrong, that I noticed it when I read the book. Am I the only one bothered by the wrong art work to illustrate a pet?
Example two is from a book I loved, The Lost Recipe for Happiness by Barbara O'Neal. I booktalked this book after reading it. Let me tell you, those of us who like dogs just said that cover is wrong. Alvin is a "Two-year-old rescue mutt, a fluffy chow-Lab mix with a head like a Saint Bernard." And, he has a "silky red head," had arrived as "a fluffy ball of red fur." He now has a "red-gold mane." Red, people, red!
I don't even consider myself a visual person. But, for some reason, book covers with the wrong animal on it bug me. All three of these are attractive covers. But, I do have a "pet" peeve. I wish they had the pet right on those covers.