Harry Potter Sacrilige
So, I just found out that Scholastic is coming out with new covers for all the Harry Potter books. I am completely outraged by this! I mean, who does Scholastic think they are, the publisher? I'm really not sure how I'm supposed to react to this. My first reaction was to drive over to Barnes and Noble and buy all the Harry Potter books with the old covers that they had in stock and then hide them under my bed in a fireproof lock-box.
However, it was brought to my attention that this would be both very expensive and a little extreme.
I don't know how anyone else feels about this, but I do, in fact, judge books by their covers. If I don't like the cover art, I will not buy the book, even if it's a text I really like, which is why I have a slight mistrust of buying books on Amazon, because the book they send you doesn't always match the picture. They could send you a copy of Macbeth with a picture of a grilled cheese sandwich on the cover, you just never know. (Side note, if anyone does find a copy of Macbeth with a grilled cheese sandwich on the cover, let me know because that would actually be pretty cool).
Anyway, the Harry Potter books are a special situation, even for me, because they are just so nostalgic. To give you some perspective, I read by first Harry Potter book at age 5. I then proceeded to read and reread the books until large chunks of pages were falling out of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. (Note to self, glue that book back together, it's getting a bit difficult to read). You just don't mess with the cover art of a book like Harry Potter. It's like the Great Gatsby; you wouldn't get rid of the weird, disembodied eyes on the cover and put Leonardo DiCaprio's face there instead, would you? Oh, right, Warner Brothers already did that!
No book is safe.
Anyway, after my initial reaction of horror, I decided to look at the new covers and it kills me to say that the new cover actually makes a lot more sense. Like, let's take a look at the new cover of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (which should be Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, but life isn't fair).
Based on the original cover, if I didn't know what this book was about, I would say that it is about a young boy who has to fly away to escape a unicorn and a three headed dog which are chasing him through a weird, stylized arch thing which has absolutely no bearing on the story. Also, I don't see why Harry would be practicing Quiditich at night time. Just sayin', guys. So, the new cover makes a lot more textual sense because the original designers of the covers did this thing where they mixed all the plot elements they possibly could into one image. But part of the fun of that was figuring it out!
Also, it let you know what was going to be important in the book. Like, looking at the cover of the Sorcerer's Stone, I know to pay attention to any unicorns or three headed dogs I see running around (thanks for the hint Scholastic, but I probably would have taken note of that anyway).
But if you look at the new cover of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, you would think that the main event of that book was Harry going to the Burrow. This cover is particularly heart breaking to me because I liked the original cover of that book so much. It was so clever to have Fawkes in the picture and the letters written in blood, so dynamic and engaging. Of course, when you first see it, it's like "why is Harry pulling on that poor bird's tail and why does he look so happy about it?". Then, of course, you have to read the books to reassure yourself that Harry Potter does not wantonly abuse birds.
Then we come to the third book. I will freely admit that Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is my favorite of the Harry Potter books (for three reasons: one, there's very little Voldemort, which makes it happier; two, Sirius is introduced and he's one of my favorite characters; three, the title contains the word Azkaban, which is fun to say). I was also really attached to that cover. In my opinion, the scene where Harry and Hermione rescue Sirius is one of the most magical and hopeful in the books and I really loved the way the artist represented that.
However, I was pleasantly surprised to find that I liked the new cover almost as much as that of the original. The Patronus scene is another one of those magical scenes in the books where you think one thing is going to happen and then something else way different and way better happens instead. Regardless of all the horcrux destroying and Voldemort killing that goes on in the later books, I always maintain that it was Harry's greatest moment of self discovery when he realized that he was the one who created that Patronus, not his father.
But that does not mean that I am pleased with Scholastic's new covers. The way I see it, the original covers are part of Harry Potter canon and can not be changed. Another thing that really bothers me about the new covers is that the lettering is all in the same color. One of the many exciting things about a new Harry Potter book coming out was always, for me, guessing what color the lettering was going to be. It breaks my heart that future generations will only know the lettering to be one color. It also breaks my heart that these same future generations are going to have to contend with this cover of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.
Seriously! That dragon looks like something from the Alien and Predator movies! We are not amused!
But what upsets me most of all is that it is new covers are even necessary for these books. To give it some context; Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone was released in 1997 in the UK and 1998 in the US. They've both been out for more than ten years. You start to feel old when you have to tell kids who are just starting to read the books, 'back in my day, there used to be a random, unicorn on the cover'.
I'm not saying that the original covers were perfect or anything, but they were visually interesting and made you think about things. So what if the pictures didn't always make total sense with the text; they were classic.
Even though I'm not totally sure why Harry had to be wearing a cape on every cover, apparently he consistently makes some really strange and questionable fashion choices. I guess the 90s really are over.
Just sayin'
However, it was brought to my attention that this would be both very expensive and a little extreme.
I don't know how anyone else feels about this, but I do, in fact, judge books by their covers. If I don't like the cover art, I will not buy the book, even if it's a text I really like, which is why I have a slight mistrust of buying books on Amazon, because the book they send you doesn't always match the picture. They could send you a copy of Macbeth with a picture of a grilled cheese sandwich on the cover, you just never know. (Side note, if anyone does find a copy of Macbeth with a grilled cheese sandwich on the cover, let me know because that would actually be pretty cool).
Anyway, the Harry Potter books are a special situation, even for me, because they are just so nostalgic. To give you some perspective, I read by first Harry Potter book at age 5. I then proceeded to read and reread the books until large chunks of pages were falling out of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. (Note to self, glue that book back together, it's getting a bit difficult to read). You just don't mess with the cover art of a book like Harry Potter. It's like the Great Gatsby; you wouldn't get rid of the weird, disembodied eyes on the cover and put Leonardo DiCaprio's face there instead, would you? Oh, right, Warner Brothers already did that!
No book is safe.
Based on the original cover, if I didn't know what this book was about, I would say that it is about a young boy who has to fly away to escape a unicorn and a three headed dog which are chasing him through a weird, stylized arch thing which has absolutely no bearing on the story. Also, I don't see why Harry would be practicing Quiditich at night time. Just sayin', guys. So, the new cover makes a lot more textual sense because the original designers of the covers did this thing where they mixed all the plot elements they possibly could into one image. But part of the fun of that was figuring it out!
Also, it let you know what was going to be important in the book. Like, looking at the cover of the Sorcerer's Stone, I know to pay attention to any unicorns or three headed dogs I see running around (thanks for the hint Scholastic, but I probably would have taken note of that anyway).
Then we come to the third book. I will freely admit that Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is my favorite of the Harry Potter books (for three reasons: one, there's very little Voldemort, which makes it happier; two, Sirius is introduced and he's one of my favorite characters; three, the title contains the word Azkaban, which is fun to say). I was also really attached to that cover. In my opinion, the scene where Harry and Hermione rescue Sirius is one of the most magical and hopeful in the books and I really loved the way the artist represented that.
However, I was pleasantly surprised to find that I liked the new cover almost as much as that of the original. The Patronus scene is another one of those magical scenes in the books where you think one thing is going to happen and then something else way different and way better happens instead. Regardless of all the horcrux destroying and Voldemort killing that goes on in the later books, I always maintain that it was Harry's greatest moment of self discovery when he realized that he was the one who created that Patronus, not his father.
But that does not mean that I am pleased with Scholastic's new covers. The way I see it, the original covers are part of Harry Potter canon and can not be changed. Another thing that really bothers me about the new covers is that the lettering is all in the same color. One of the many exciting things about a new Harry Potter book coming out was always, for me, guessing what color the lettering was going to be. It breaks my heart that future generations will only know the lettering to be one color. It also breaks my heart that these same future generations are going to have to contend with this cover of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.
Seriously! That dragon looks like something from the Alien and Predator movies! We are not amused!
But what upsets me most of all is that it is new covers are even necessary for these books. To give it some context; Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone was released in 1997 in the UK and 1998 in the US. They've both been out for more than ten years. You start to feel old when you have to tell kids who are just starting to read the books, 'back in my day, there used to be a random, unicorn on the cover'.
I'm not saying that the original covers were perfect or anything, but they were visually interesting and made you think about things. So what if the pictures didn't always make total sense with the text; they were classic.
Even though I'm not totally sure why Harry had to be wearing a cape on every cover, apparently he consistently makes some really strange and questionable fashion choices. I guess the 90s really are over.
Just sayin'
Comments
Post a Comment