Log in

Previous Entry

Inconsistent UK Adult Cover for DH

There's something inconsistent about the UK adult cover of the Deathly Hallows when compared to the covers of the earlier books in the series. Let me go through them one by one:

1) Philosopher's Stone - the stone is there on the cover in all it's glory
2) Chamber of Secrets - and you have the entrance to the chamber right there
3) Prisoner of Azkaban - there's your prison (and I think they should have stuck with this image compared to the one in the OOTP movie which just sticks out of the ocean with no foundation/island to stand on)
4) Goblet of Fire - there's the goblet of fire
5) Order of the Phoenix - and you can see Fawkes right there, flying out of Dumbledore's office
6) Half-Blood Prince - you have the potions book which was doodled on by Severus P. Snape

But when we come to the last book, we have a picture of one of Voldemort's Horcruxes, the locket of Salazar Slytherin. But Book 7 is not entitled "Harry Potter and the Locket of Slytherin". Nor is it entitled "Harry Potter and the 6 Other Horcruxes". It's "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows". And there lies the inconsistency.

For the past 6 books, all of the adult covers pertained to or had some relation to the title; whereas for the 7th one you have no connection between them at all. It could've made sense if the Elder Wand was on the cover (and rightly so, seeing that it was quite pivotal throughout the series). Or if it was Gaunt's ring (which also made a debut in the last book). Dunno how they would've made the Invisibility Cloak appear though. Hehe.

Anyway, that's just me obsessing about trivial things. Your thoughts?


( 7 comments — Leave a comment )
Aug. 16th, 2007 05:51 pm (UTC)
Is it possible that previously the adult covers have come out AFTER the kid covers? or that the artists for the covers have known more about the plots of the books while designing the covers for them? Cos lord knows that the plot for DH was very closely guarded and tehy would have avoided telling as many people as possible what exactly the Deathly Hallows were and so they wouldn't be able to put them on the cover...

just speculation, of course...
Aug. 16th, 2007 06:09 pm (UTC)

Hmm, yeah it could be the case that the plot was closely guarded.

Although I did read somewhere that for the fifth book, JKR gave specific instructions on how the UK covers should look, down to the last detail. So she could've done that as well for this one, just for the sake of being consistent.

But then again she has been inconsistent (like when she decided not to continue with the plot line of having someone perform magic later in life -- the kid who was supposed to enter Hogwarts without performing any kind of magic previously)
Aug. 16th, 2007 06:28 pm (UTC)
Interesting point. You may have thought it would have been either the ring or a wand. Gaunt's ring would have made perfect sense and would not have given away really anything (in my opinion.)

I am curious to see what others think. Thanks for pointing it out!
Aug. 17th, 2007 01:50 am (UTC)
this is quite intresting actually. i've never actually stopped to think about it. the locket is a horcrux not a hallow! it would of been nice if they put like the resserection stone on the cover.

well, i can kind of see why they put the locket on the cover instead of one of the three hallows, because it would look quite odd if you had a picture of a wand on the last book. the resserection stone is just a regular looking rock so that would look even more odd. and i think it would be quite difficult to put the invisiblity cloak on the cover of a book! :}
Aug. 17th, 2007 03:17 am (UTC)
They should have had a pic of like an aging parchment with the symbol of the Hallows on it; the triangle with the circle and the line in it. Kinda like the chapter picture of the US version for chapter 21. Would've made more sense because we definitely wouldn't know what that was.
Aug. 17th, 2007 07:00 am (UTC)
What was fucking cool is that the ring was both a Hallow AND a horcrux and so really, they should have put THAT on the cover.
Aug. 17th, 2007 12:22 pm (UTC)
Definitely, thats what I was thinking as I read this. Then it would've connected both strands and we wouldn't be here complaining about inconsistancy!
( 7 comments — Leave a comment )