/lit/ - Literature

>>5892384
How much of it has to do with hardback vs. paperback, different publishers, and collected series packages?

Besides that, it's gotta be reprinted constantly since they sell like hotcakes, it's not like new designs for new printings is some wild and crazy phenomenon.

That said, that bloomsbury edition, the third series down, is just embarrassing. Do people really need to seek out an "adult looking" version to buy it as adults? They look like John Grisham books. I guess if I saw a thirty year old reading Harry Potter in the airport I'd smirk a bit, though.

>>5892447
In English speaking countries, there's only two different publishers; Scholastic (US) and Bloomsbury (UK), which goes some way to explain why America never got an "adult" set of Harry Potter.

I think whoever drew the covers on the last row forgot that Harry was supposed to go through puberty at some point

I think I like the sixth row the best. Original britbong covers and the white ones are cool as well

>>5892481
>I think whoever drew the covers on the last row forgot that Harry was supposed to go through puberty at some point

This. He looks no different between Philosopher's Stone and Deathly Hallows in that last row.

Also, he looks very feminine, especially in Chamber of Secrets

>>5892447
To be honest they strike me as the kind of covers aimed at 16 - 18 year olds.

First row was popular when I was a kid and these were coming out. I never read them, but if I was going to I'd probably buy the fifth row editions.

>>5892384
I really love the fourth row, it reminds me of the chronicles of narnia books

That fifth row. Beautiful illustrations ruined by shitty text placement, font choice and gradient map.

>>5892384

Rows 1 - 3 are perfect, rows 4 - 5 are "publisher's nephew who is in college studying graphic design" and rows 6 and 7 are overly depictive horseshit that looks like the menu screen of a 2007 newgrounds flash game.

You fucking shit taste pleb faggots

>Why the constant reinvention of the series' image?

There is constantly a flow of new readers, i.e. children. I mean you see the same thing with Lord of the Rings don't you, there are new editions coming out all the time with different covers.

Also, Swedish Harry Potter has the best covers.

>>5892893
>I mean you see the same thing with Lord of the Rings don't you

Yes, but LOTR is over 50 years old. That's to be expected

This series is not even a decade old yet!

>>5892384
Browse /lit/ for a while to see that people care an aweful lot about the cover of a book. That's probably why there are a lot of covers. Appeal to different people.

>>5892890
Row 3 reminds me of shitty young-adult dystopian vampire romance .

I like the second one because that's what I grew up with but the second to last is also cool, I like the illustration of the thestrals and the patronus. Pretty. I think it is important for them to look like children's books still which is why I prefer the ones with the illustrations of Harry. The fourth ones could make nice posters.

>>5892384
so adults dont feel like retards for reading it in public
look at designs 3, 4, and 5
tres mature

>>5893150
That makes me sad. I don't think there should be anything wrong with enjoying something that is marketed toward kids as long as you aren't being perverse about it. We were all kids once, after all. There shouldn't be a need to disguise something a person really enjoys as something else.

At least we didn't get movie tie in covers

>>5892384
first row is original and best. as i was reading the series someone bought me one of the third row books (phoenix i think) but i thought it looked a bit cringeworthy. now i look at them again i quite like the azkaban cover tho.

wasn't there a picture that compared harry potter covers from around the world? i think there was a chinese or japanese one that was really dark and spooky like it was the cover of hp lovecraft or something

>>5893160
>marketed toward kids

It isn't marketed towards kids, it's literally for kids and, with those covers, marketed for adults.

if you created one of the biggest book and movie franchise of all time you would milk all the money out of that shit.
Dont lie.

Why is it that Harry Potter became the popular set of children's novels? Is it because the movies were successful?

Pic related, it's at the very least more entertaining than Harry Potter, I'd think. It's kinda cringeworthy though.

>>5893272
For kids, then. But I said marketed toward kids because they shouldn't be afraid to pick up the ones that look the same on the outside as they are on the inside.

>>5892384

Just enough to have one of every printing to confuse your friends and family.

>>5892384
3 to 5 seem to be attempts to give the books a more mature image appealing to adults, before they realized that adults explicitly want books for children.

>>5893327
>Is it because the movies were successful?
lol no. Harry Potter was huge long before the first movie came out

Different people will tell you different things, but essentially it's the ultimate children's portal fantasy.

Like a cozier version of Narnia with less hardships

1st row:
Original British Covers, looksgoodtome.jpg. I mean, varies a lot in style, but that's cuz they came out so many years apart, right?

2nd row: American Covers, starts off strong, but what's with the monochrome themes starting with book 5?

3rd row: dat photo coloring 1/10

4th row: Not aesthetically gorgeous or anything, but does anyone remember the original Chronicles of Narnia covers? Kinda cool, actually.

5th row: Ugliest of the bunch. Burn them.

6th row: American redesign, actually pretty cool.

7th row: Harry is a little boy forever. No pubes for you, Harry. No pubes for you

Second row is best.

>>5893327
I can only answer for myself but this (>>5894942) anon is pretty much spot on. I lost myself in the books and it was my only real escape from reality. Growing up with harry was amazing too, that is, being 11 while reading first book, 12 while second etc.

>>5892890
>depictive horseshit that looks like the menu screen of a 2007 newgrounds flash game
is this a new epic maymay?

Belgium and Netherlands have these, i really like them. They are obviously childrens books but at the same time the covers aren't childish at all. I especially like the fourth and sixth one.

>>5895026

The way harry potter is written in golden letters is since the movies came out, before that it was in different letters.

>>5895026
these look like fucking dog shit

>>5895026
Yeah, but that layering. It looks so low-budget

>>5892384
Don't be intentionally dense, OP, you already know the answer.

Literature is a business, Harry Potter is a huge business and people do indeed judge books by their covers, so of course bestsellers will constantly be modified to fit the public's current tastes.

Ain't got shit on the hilarious German covers.

>>5895047
Oh god that is something. The way he's leaning in every picture...he looks like a character out of an Invader Zim cartoon

>>5895047
prequel "harry potter and the foetal alcohol syndrome" was not a great success

>>5895047

Why is she credited as Joanne K. Rowling when everywhere else she's just J.K. Rowling?

>>5895304
Because germany doesn't have a problem with women authors?

>>5895442

you prissy little victim faggot

>>5895304
Because everywhere else recognizes that she's a literary joke.

>Check out this YA titan, JK Rowling!
>JK as in
just kidding

>>5895444
>[Barry Cunningham] was less concerned about the book's length than about its author's name since the title sounded like a boys' book, and boys prefer books by male authors. Rowling therefore adopted the nom de plume J.K. Rowling just before publication.

>>5895464
>nom de plume
Perhaps the most pretentious phrasing ever conceived in English. Why use French phrases when words like pseudonym and phrases like pen name exist other than to appear intellectual?
The only time I ever use exotic phrases is when there's no suitable English translation.

>>5895047

serious question, did they just go to deviantart and pick random fan art?

>>5895047

>those first 3

>the fuck was that
>the fuck is this
>the fuck are you

>>5895026
These are the worst ones yet

>>5895047
>raises eyebrow

They'd actually be decent too if that dopey muthafucka wasn't walking right into the middle of the frame each time

>>5892384
Really that is pretty consistent and is only that consistent because it is world renown. It is not uncommon for book publishers to try to specialize the cover for each country/region based upon poll data about that countries aesthetic tastes, even on first release, because "lol marketing". The only reason you're paying attention now is because it is the only books you have actually read.

>>5892384
I've only ever seen the first row, when did the others start appearing?

>>5892893
too maximalist, the last three are fucking dope though

>>5896538
Second row is original US covers (98-07)
Third row is "Adult" covers (?? - 07)
Fourth row is the Signature edition (2010)
Fifth row is new Adult covers ('13)
Sixth row is new US covers ('13)
Seventh row is new 'Children's' covers ('14)

second row is best
it has the most unique look out of all of those
especially the first 4 I like because they give off a great sense of mystery and adventure
they started phoning it in a bit from 5 onward though

>>5892384
4th and 5th ones are pretty cool, the last two are ugly and the rest are ok.

>>5895047
Harry looks like a lesbian.

I kinda like the French covers.

>>5892384

Each are meant to attract demographics.

>>5898574
My madeleine de Proust.
Especially the first 3 ones.

M O N E Y

do you really not understand this universal concept? or are you just annoyed. bc a couple of those newer ones are just as good/better than the originals. or are you annoyed at the sheer amount nonetheless

OFFICIAL HARRY POTTER COVER RANKING:

BEST TIER:
4,6

COOL IT WITH YOUR TYPOGRAPHY HARD-ON TIER:
5

THAT HIPPOGRIFF IS UNDULY EXCITED ABOUT THE QUALITY OF THE COVER IN WHICH IT APPEARS TIER:
2

ANIME-INFLUENCED FOREVER 10-YEAR-OLD PROTAGONIST TIER:
7

JUST SHIT TIER:
1

STOCK PHOTOS USED FOR GENERIC EROTICA COVERS TIER:
3

>>5898574
how moronic of me would it be to order these when I don't read French? I really like the cover

>>5901271
This list is terrible

>>5892384
That first row of British covers is no longer produced which is unbelievable, they're objectively the best and have been replaced by garbage. Except for the 50s style ones the rest are terrible.

>>5892890
>He likes the Ameripleb covers

>>5903651
>That first row of British covers is no longer produced

So they're now collector's items?

>>5895047
>yeah my mum still calls me Harriet but it's sooo embarrassing, I don't conform to the patriachal gender binary.

Reminder that Rowling heavily ripped off Gormenghast a work by a more talented British author and propagated this shit tier young adult craze of books turning into films.

>>5895047
The thing about these is that in 4, 5, 6 and 7 harry appears elsewhere on the cover, suggesting that he is just being followed by a sarcastic lesbian.

>>5901282
It's your money stud.

>>5903704
Well they're amazingly expensive second-hand for a paper back that sold in the millions, you'd make money if you had bought them at their discounted release prices.

>>5903724
Remember the shitstorm that happened when Deathly Hallows came out and the big department stores were selling them as a loss leader?

>>5892384

>Row 1
These covers are a pretty good start, but the artwork varies a little too much between versions. Maybe they got different artists to do the drawings, or maybe it's just the one artist maturing and refining themselves as they work across volumes. The good thing about these is that they capture the maturation of the characters across each volume.

>Row 2
Maybe it's because I'm American, or maybe it's because these are the editions I own and grew up with, but these ones are my favorites. They also show the characters' maturation, and I love the color unity in some of the later volumes. Also, these versions gave us the iconic Harry Potter font, so that just makes them more official to me.

>Row 3
No, no, no, no, NO. Simply dreadful. Entirely too derivative, looks way too much like typical grocery store paperbacks. And the colors are so dreary and muted. Probably the worst editions in this image.

>Row 4
I like the semi-minimalistic approach (insomuch as the art doesn't go all the way to the cover's edge), but the title font they use instead of the iconic HP font looks too much like a box of chocolates instead of a series of fantasy books. Overall, pretty forgettable.

>Row 5
I know what I said about color unity in Row 2, but this time I think the background colors could've been toned down to let that excellent art be more visible. Also, I know that the colors of the text probably makes sense according to some color theory science, but it's still kind of jarring to me, it feels like it clashes a bit. Still very good, though.

>Row 6
Probably the best of the newer editions. They stuck with the iconic HP font, and the images follow in the spirit of Rows 1 and 2, capturing the scenes in the story and showing the maturation of the characters as time goes on.

>Row 7
Pretty good, except for the lack of the iconic HP font (that new one is alright, but it just doesn't compare). Also, it doesn't look like Harry matures on the later covers. Seriously, he still looks like a little kid when fighting Voldemort on Book 7's cover.

>>5895047

Absolutely disgusting. The art in these is such a mess, especially Harry himself. Why is he looking directly at the reader on most of these covers? And why does he look like such a smarmy little jackass?

>>5898574
These had potential but the white sub-titles ruin everything.

>>5895047

Also, I don't know why Harry in Book 3 is giving us the Blue Steel when he's being chased by a dog.

Anyone have these ones?

Personal favorites