Harry Potter and the cover artists

After posting a query

on Memefirst this morning about the different editions of the Harry Potter books,

I decided to create a little matrix of them all, to see how they compared. Here

it is; for the sake of saving bandwidth, I’ve used thumbnails for the first

four books, and slightly bigger pictures for the most recent one.

UK edition UK adult edition US edition

It’s clear to me that by far the best covers for these books are the last three

episodes of the UK children’s series. The first two are too childish: although

I do appreciate that they’re meant to appeal to younger readers, they don’t

feel like the timeless classics that they surely are. From the Prisoner of Azkaban

onwards, however, we’ve got beautiful covers: magical and appealing, just like

what’s inside.

The UK adult edition was, I think, basically a response to the weakness of

the first two children’s editions in the UK. You could definitely feel like

a bit of a willy reading those books in public, so Bloomsbury intelligently

brought the same books out with smart and sober covers for those of us over

the age of about 13. The first was better than the second, but by the time the

third book came out, the adult covers weren’t really needed any more, since

the children’s covers had grown up. Still, the series kept on going (once you’ve

started, it’s hard to stop) with a couple of rather peculiar dragons, which

weren’t up to the standard of the children’s books at all.

The latest version seems to have given up entirely: they’ve dropped the standard

design template for something which looks like a mass-market thriller: Robert

Ludlum, perhaps, or Frederick Forsyth. And again, the artist is much worse at

drawing phoenixes than the person who did the mainstream edition.

But the US editions, I think, are the worst of the lot. While the cover art

on books one and two in the UK was not very good, at least the rest of the design

was good. But the US publisher created a spiky Harry Potter logotype which they

decided had to be used on all of the books, and it got less and less appropriate

as the series progressed.

And while the UK editions only got better over time, the US editions got steadily

worse. The Goblet of Fire cover, especially, with its inanely-grinning Harry,

fails completely to convey the more grown-up nature of this book. With the Order

of the Phoenix, Scholastic seems to have realised that the series is actually

developing, and tried to reflect that by making the cover monochromatic!

Harry’s not smiling any more, but he seems to have fallen into a cheesy low-budget

haunted-house movie by mistake. And, of course, he’s still got his spiky logo,

looking more and more out of place.

I’d be very interested to know if there’s anyone who prefers the US covers

to the UK ones. I can see why Scholastic might want to use its own designers,

but does anybody think they actually did a better job? Vote now!

Free polls from Pollhost.com
Which Harry Potter covers are the best?

The UK children’s versions

The UK adult versions

The US versions


This entry was posted in Media. Bookmark the permalink.

118 Responses to Harry Potter and the cover artists

  1. Michelle says:

    It doesn’t surprise me that the US versions have big portraits of Harry on the cover – a branding thing, in the spirit of Martha Stewart marketing (although Nancy Drew mysteries always had her portraits on the cover as well). Maybe it’s a US marketing idea of creating an icon or something? Also – I just took another look, and it seems that Scholastic either changed illustrators by “The Goblet of Fire”, or the illustrator was told to go in a totally new direction – because now Harry looks exactly like the actor who plays Harry in the films… hmm…

    I love the UK children’s versions as well… they are creative, sophisticated and powerful. They make kids feel like they are picking up magical books. The first 2 US versions are good also. After classes in storybook illustration and cartooning, I understand the elements necessary to create a good cover, and those 2 versions are whimsical and cover all the bases. The main thing I don’t like about the US versions is the Harry Potter font.

    All this talk and now I need to run out and buy the book!

  2. Sam says:

    The US versions are definately the best. Mary Grand Pre is an outstanding artist!! (who has done all five of the US covers)

    Another interesting bit: Grand Pre is the only artist who is allowed to read the books BEFORE they are published. She is one of the few people who have that privilege. Also, JK has stated that Grand Pre’s depiction of Harry is very much like her original sketches of him.

    I love the 4th cover. It is remarkable, loaded, but remarkable. And why shouldn’t Harry be the focal point of the cover? It IS the Harry Potter series, isn’t it?

  3. hoho says:

    US covers rock!

    UK covers suck!

  4. schu says:

    Is there any difference in content between the Adult UK versions and the US versions?

    Personally, other than the Goblet of Fire cover, I prefer most of the US covers, but it might only be because I’m used to them…

    Who does the artwork for the UK versions? I saw some of JK’s sketches in Newsweek and I think her stuff looks superior to the stuff in the US books…

    Sorry for all the questions…

  5. jerwin says:

    The “Adult Editions” contain exactly the same text as the “children’s” edition, printed perhaps, in a different typeface, with different margins. The American editions are also partially translated in to US-English: biscuit becomes cookie, jumper becomes sweater. Most importantly, the “Philosopher’s stone”, becomes “The Sorceror’s Stone” divorcing Rowling’s work from the rich history of Flanel, alchemy, and transmutation.

    It’s not quite obvious from the picture above, but the HPOP cover is a soft drawing– very much different from the cover Ludlum type thriller. Still, I think I prefer the covers of the previous novels.

  6. Bia says:

    Harry Potter is British so giving it an American flavour is quite ridiculous! I prefer the UK edition. The font doesn’t distract from the story as it does in the American edition. But all said and done, when you’re desperate to read a Harry Potter, you really don’t care about editions… Just my two cents worth!

  7. Jamie says:

    I think it a bit silly to have two UK covers for adults and children if they’re the exactly the same text. Is this to make the adult readers feel less guilty that they’re reading material meant for children? I think I would feel silly if I were carrying around the “adult version”, masking my shame for indulging in literature that’s allegedly below myself. HP is a great story, period.

    As for the US and UK covers, I love the last three UK covers (especially HPOP). They seem so classic like the stories themselves. However, I prefer the style of the US covers overall. I love the rich feeling that the chalk pastels give off.

  8. jerwin says:

    A list of the differences between the UK and US editions in The rewrites are less extensive than those of the

    As for the covers, well, evidently, Bloomsbury wishes to sell to the adult market, and feels that revamping the covers might improve sales–though, the original editions do outsell the others by a considerable margin.

    I think that the US covers are absolutely ghastly. They’re far too busy, the characters are misshapen, and the titles are all but unreadable.

  9. M says:

    The US covers are descriptive. I like to look at the cover before reading the book. It gives suttle clues to the story. JK Rowling approves all the artwork for the American editions.

  10. Dean says:

    I think the US versions are by far the better covers. While I like the UK adult versions are OK enough, too bad they didn’t keep with the same design elements for the latest book. I don’t care at all for the UK childrens covers – the designs are all over the place.

  11. rebecca says:

    I’ve never seen anything wrong with the US versions. I mean they’re not the most beautiful covers in the world but the palette is nice and the elements are consistent and well-integrated. The UK children’s versions seem static and predictable. The adult versions are snappy but I wonder if they do justice to the content: I’ve only read the first one but it seems far more whimsical than a monochromatic locomotive-engine can convey. That image makes me think of Anna Karenina.

  12. Donaldson says:

    There is actually a US edition missing from your comparison, the mass-market paperback. Check:




    The mass-markets are a late attempt to capture more adult readers in the US, and the covers are just awful. At least the larger children’s releases have a sense of whimsy about them. These just look cheap.

  13. Ben Harris says:

    US covers rock??? They are so terrible! They all look like Freckle Juice.

  14. KJ says:

    I think the UK versions of the covers aren’t nearly as appealing as the US versions. The colors on the US covers are so brilliant. I love the font, and find it absolutely appropriate for the story. The titles of the books become a part of the drawing, not something written on top of it. They are intriguing, like the books.

    As for the spiky-haired comments, Rowling says multiple times in the book that Harry tries to get his hair to lay flat, to no avail. The US covers are just portraying the character that Rowling describes.

    I think having separate covers for adults is ridiculous. Get over it.

  15. Brenda says:

    In Canada, we get the UK covers, of which I’m very glad. The US covers are (I think) hideous. Order of the Phoenix is slightly less disgusting than the other ones. But seriously, the colours are too bright, the images are cartoony and misshapen, and the logo is horrendous. It all looks air-brushed and tacky. Ew!

  16. Amber says:

    I think that the US logo is supposed to symbolize Harry’s lightning bolt scar. That’s what ties him to Voldemort and makes him so unique.

  17. nick says:

    yes the uk covers r the best, we get tham in canada and i must say they r so much betetr than the us ones. the us ones look like an abstract painting that slightly resmbles harry potter(the glasses and hair). yes the uk covers r the best, and yes the us covers r very very ugly

  18. ange says:

    i think the us covers look more like art work the uk covers look kind of like a little kid drew them. i like the us covers the best, theyre not ugly!

  19. Leandrabel says:

    I like the UK covers, because of their semi-realism, but I love the US covers more. There is nothing wrong with them. With the UK covers you get a very sterile use of color not too much room for the imagination. This is unlike the US covers which are full of color, life, and clues about what is going to happen inside the book. All these criticisms about the US covers and Harry’s hair, the lighting type letters, too much use of color and space are absolutely ridiculous. These things are what make the US covers unique and interesting and are what sets them apart. Even JK said that her favorite covers are the ones from the US and Denmark in an interview. Now who can argue with that?

  20. sarah says:

    SCREW U!!

    UK ONES ROK?!!


  21. Alexandria says:

    I like both sets and will collect them for the art work.

    The UK versions for the first two are childish as in pre-k school and the US version for HPOP is much more dark and sinister compared to the first four which made me feel bad, buying them.

    But the UK Special Editions are the best of all if you dont mind paying double the price for the book.

    The UK Adult versions remind me of a serial romance novel utill the last one where it reminds you of a historical documentation of hitler-ruled Germany.

    But that is just my opinion, some feel my way others feel thier own way it up to you and your likes and dislikes.

  22. DRW says:

    I happen to like the “lightning” Harry Potter font on US covers. I think they made the right decision and it doesn’t look childish or outdated at all. What you fail to realize is that people recognize patterns (and pictures) better than just words in a normal font. Before I even knew who Harry Potter was, I remember seeing the books. Reflecting back, I couldn’t remember the picture on the front cover (or even the author’s name) but I do remember seeing the lighting bolt on the letter “P” in Potter.

  23. Jessica says:

    Um… I like the US versions(although Im not too fond of the US Goblet of Fire) and the UK adult first 3.. the whole black and white thing really works for the cover..i think it gives it an edge. I dont particularly like the last two adult versions though…srry. As for the UK children’s version..well they just dont appeal to me much… Sorry again. Thats just how i feel. I do however feel both the US and UK cover adult or children give hints to the story that lies within.

  24. Natalie says:

    bloody hell! who cares about the blasted covers!? I’d be a lot more happy if the covers didn’t have the stupid cartoon on it. My Favorite cover is the Adult US cover for the SS. It’s more mature and has no crappy drawings or “scary” scenes. I hate looking at a drawing of harry potter. I picture Daniel Radcliffe, because he’s a handsome little cutie!

  25. Marcus David says:

    I can’t understand why a person will take a year to write a novel when he can easily buy one for a few dollars.

  26. Kevin says:

    I think the US publishers are watering down the Harry Potter books, both in terms of the cover and written material. The book covers of the US versions are dull and tacky and the original words in the book, i.e. biscuit, jumper, etc. are being translated to an American audience, even though the author, setting, and characters are all British. Perhaps it would be in the best interests of Americans to culturally expand and reduce their dependence of needing to be spoon-fed all the time.

  27. What is the dif between Adult version and childrens version?

  28. bafc23 says:

    Jeezus felix, you really opened a can of worms with this one huh?

    I personally use the covers to seed my homegrown and mop up spilt Oban and Guinness. I burn the books to stay warm whilst quaffing stout, smoking eurorolls and blogging my brains out.

    I guess that reasons that I’m down for the UK covers too, despite having NO desire to EVER read this Potter malarkey.

  29. Nancy says:

    Can someone help me please? I have what are supposed to be deluxe, cloth covered editions of these books, with replica author’s signatures and imbedded photos on the cover. Would this deluxe version have a different ISBN from others with a different cover, or would the ISBN remain the same, regardless of the cover? Please reply to me at Melrosemiss@aol.com. Thank you, Nancy

  30. Al says:

    X.x people actually LIKE the covers of the U.S. editions *shakes head* I’ve seen middle schoolers who draw a better Harry. And you’re right about the font. I prefer the UK adult versions. They just work with how I feel about the characters better . . . it’s kinda hard to explain. Plus, they’re pretty XD

  31. Debi says:

    There are many beautiful book covers in many countrys,you can see them all at:


    My favorites are the Us, Uk and Italian versions the Spanish & German versions are very nice too I prefer the Spanish to the german as the German has a ‘sharp’ look to it. The finland versions are too much fun to look at> I dont care for the adult versions, theres no fun in that, I enjoy the small title illustrations in the US version, although I feel a little cheated, the book should have been left in it original writting with Philosophers Stone and with biscut insted of cookie. We Americans arent ignorant of other cultures and I would have enjoyed it better if It was left more to the UK writtings. If the publishers belived we would have had trouble translating, then they could have included a small word glossary to the end of the book. I think many of the artis were very creative and I belive that all the cover artist should have been allowed to have read the book first before creating their artwork. As an artist I know that its nice to know your subject well to be able to portray them well.

  32. Jessa says:

    I am an American and I personally like the US covers. Maybe I am just being defensive and maybe I am just used to the US editions but I think the US versions are by far the best. I happen to like the Harry Potter logo. It shows that the book may be new but it is the same Harry. The UK children version’s title just seems to be stuck up at the top like a little kid would do. I don’t like the style of the UK version either. It seems to pick one part from the book and emphasise on that. The US version gives little hints about what is going to happen in the book. As for the adult editions, what is up with the balck and white? It makes it seem like these books are from the 1920’s.

  33. Brendan says:

    I personally like the UK covers the best. (Even though I am American) I like the 1st 2 U.S. covers, but 3 and 4 suck. All but the 5th aldult cover suck. And the U.K. versions I like 3-5…

  34. Jill says:

    This is my first time seeing the UK cover art. I specifically was looking for the UK children’s versions because I wanted to compare them to the US versions.

    I can see where people are coming from regarding the “busy” quality of the US covers, but I do feel that the UK ones are a little boring.

    The Serif font used on the UK children’s version is extremely boring, especially because it is a children’s book. Even though the “Harry Potter” portion of the title is clearly legible, the rest of the title isn’t very legible at all, judging from the above pictures. And one thing I’ve learned from my graphic designer brother is that red lettering on a blue background (and vice versa) is a sure way to make the words unreadable (UK children’s COS). I do however, like the cover art for books 4 and 5. They both have a lot more appeal than its predecessors due to the better detail and coloring.

    I do prefer the US versions though. I like the fact that they are “busy.” I never gave much thought to the cover art before. But after I had read the books, I went back and looked at the cover art. That was when I really appreciated the details in the cover illustrations. I am very impressed with the US illustrator.

  35. Jonathan says:

    I live in the U.S. and am a much bigger fan of the UK kids covers. I was in Ireland when I bought books one and two, and didn’t realize they were different until I was back in the states. It has been a disappointment buying books 3-5 with the U.S. covers, especially after just now seeing the UK children’s ones on this site. Any good British book-buying web sites?? Go Harry Potter.

  36. Sean says:

    Well…there’s certainly a controversy! I don’t like the US covers all that much, because they’re just a little weird, and too busy, as someone put it. The first two adult UK covers are definitely better than the first two children’s covers. However, it seems like there was some sort of change in the artist or something for the last three books, because the children’s covers are better than the adult ones, for those books.

    The dragon on the adult cover for Goblet of Fire looks like the monster from Monty Python and the Holy Grail! It just doesn’t work for the book. So, there’s my thoughts on it.

  37. Thomas says:

    I have a preference for the UK editions, as I believe they do the job a book covers are supposed to do and thats the catch your eye, not tell you whats in the book. Never mind the subtle hints that are shown in the US versions, if you want subtle hints for the story read the book don’t look at the cover. The adult editions are boring, the dragon on the Goblet of Fire adult version looks like its face has been put through a mangle, not at all the majestic creatures I envision dragons to be. The UK cover art for the first two is childish but as I was more or less a child when i read them that didn’t bother me. The cover art for books 3-5 gives away one part of the story, just one. Leaving the other odd thousand bits to be found by ‘you’ the reader. The art itself look like alot of effort has been put into the drawing to make it look good. The dragon looks impressive as does the Hippogriff. The human characters depicted could almost be real. I like the fact that the UK editions are not influenced by the films. As the US editions seem to be, believe it or not ladies and gentlemen but the book did come before the film. I think at this point i should point out that I may be biased as I’m english.

    Just one more thing the artwork for the Goblet of fire is completely out of place considering that the artist supposedly read the book first, therefore we can assume she would know the storyline from beginning to end. Lets take into account the woes of Harry starting with the loss of his parents, the death of a friend in front of his eyes, the betrayel of wormtail (again) the return of the most feared wizard of mankind, due to his own blood (somewhere he’s gotta be nagging himself saying it’s his fault). The return of his parents only to lose them again, the loss of cho the girl he likes to depression over her dead boyfriend, the fact that he cannot go with sirius his godfather and to top it off having to live with the dursleys. I’ve probably missed out quite a few but the point is…would you be smiling the biggest, goofiest, grin ever if all that happened to you?

  38. Kat Hallin says:

    Personal, I think all three of them could need changes. The UK version has changed their cover artist about 4 times and it still lookes the same. In the first one Harry lookes like a old man and in the second one his waay over wieght and so is Ron. The third one is better I soppose but Harry’s face is to big for his leg. The forth one is just a big disappointment… Harry’s great on this one but the dragon looks like a lizard… The fifth one is even a greater disappointment. The cover suits the book but the back side is much better then the front! Of course… There’s one good thing about the UK’s and that’s the fact that the covers don’t give away that much , atleast compaired with the US version.

    The adult ones are just a big joke… It’s rather silly that they do adult books when it’s the same contens! Ofcourse, the next two books may be different since we all know that the content will be darker and more “adult” reading in those. The covers are even more of a joke since the art work is WAAAY much better on the “child” version. And that dragon??? It looks like it’s been run over by a tank. Just a huge disappointment.

    The American covers are nice. The’re a little bit to fiction like for my taste but I guess that some other people might enjoy them more. They give away to much though… The first one practically tells the whole story! Fine it shows a unicorn and fine it shows a owl and dumbledore but hell!! You can’t put Fluffy on the cover!! The thing about the covers is that you think about them through the entire book. And that’s why it’s just unacceptable that they put her there!!

    I’ve seen the covers of more than 100 different Harry Potter covers (from different countries ofcourse) and There is only one that speaks to me. And that’s the Swedish covers. Their absolutely wonderful. Tapia has done a great job with all of those.. (Though Harry looks a little young on the forth one..) Go TAPIA!! And Sweden of course ๐Ÿ˜‰ Love Kat

  39. Katty says:

    I live in the us and i am 11 years old. At first i liked the us covers because i thought you got the same cover every where. But when i found this web page i saw that i was wrong. The Uk covers are much more interesting than the us ones. The us dosnt reflect the story its to colorful. The uk ones though are detailed and show what is going to happen more. Like for instance on the 1st us edition it just shows harry flying in a random space while the uk one shows harry at the station. I think the worst two covers are the us oder of the phoinex and the goblet of fire.


  40. Stevie Kay says:

    I really like the covers for the UK adult versions, except for the last two. I like the fact that they look more like photos (are some of them, I can’t tell becasue I don’t have a real copy) Some how it makes the whole book seem more real for the time your reading. It’s kind of nice to know that not everything is all flashy everywhere. I really think that corperate america (sadly I’m from the US) really underestimates people who read books. I definately agree that the covers are looking more martha/logo/your face on everything, and thats not really a good thing at all.

    Your missing some covers though, I’ve seen US adult covers in paperback that are much less colorful, but they still have the spikey harry potter title. They’re not good, but it’s another compareable catagory.

  41. kate q says:

    I prefer the US jackets.

    The whole cover is a strong, cohesive, eye-catching illustration, like a poster. The colors are appealing (well, except the pink one). The logo is an integral design element, and it tells you instantly what you’re seeing.

    Harry himself is stylized and distinctive–whether you find him attractive or not, you recognize him.

    The main fault is that the titles are hard to read. Still, the overall design is so recognizable that this isn’t as important as it might have been: the whole image serves to identify the book.

    The paper stock and embossing make it obvious that this is a treat, something special.

    (Yes, I think they should have left the text alone. I’d rather read the UK books, but look at the US ones. Argh.)

    The adult covers, whatever they look like, just shouldn’t exist. ๐Ÿ˜›

    The UK versions look like budget editions.

    The title treatments are dull. The fonts and graphic design look quick and cheap.

    The illustrations might be nice, but they are generic: they could be for any children’s fantasy books. (Also, they don’t stand out from a distance, or at this reduced size.)

    The newest one is the best; it’s more cohesive (with the top and bottom bars being a consistent color); but there’s still nothing to differentiate it from a shelf full of other kids’ books.

    They don’t even look all that related to each other.

    True, the original design was chosen (presumably) before anyone knew HP would be a phenomenon. That’s fine, but it doesn’t make the covers any better.

  42. Savanna says:

    Okay, guys. I don’t see why there is such a big deal over cover art. The writing is what matters. But, I do think that the US versions are way better. Mary Grand Pre does a wonderful job and they are beautiful. They make you want to read it even more. I know peaople say not to judge a book by it’s cover, but whether or not I want to read a book is sometimes affected by what the cover looks like.

    To me it does not make SENSE to have 2 versions of the book in the UK just so ADULTS won’t feel guilty or childish reading them! If someone is going to read Harry Potter they SHOULDN’T be ashamed of it!

    Sorry, though. I guess I am being a bit defensive because I’m American and I’m used to the covers. But WHAT is going on with all the America-bashing over here! Just because we don’t know what the difference in UK is between a BISCUIT and a COOKIE! GEEZ, PEOPLE! We are NOT the ignorant culturally-unaware people think that we are!

    Learn a bit more about the people of a country before you judge!

    ps- The US OotP cover art is the BEST of ALL of them! It is beautiful!

  43. Ria says:

    Bit of a pointless discussion really, as long as you enjoy the book the covers should make no difference as you will still buy the book right?

    If I were stranded out in America when book 6 comes out I wouldn’t wait to go home to get it just because I think the UK cover is prettier, I’d grab the first one I saw regardless of what it looked like.

    Is there any point in stereotyping people? There are plenty of culturally aware Americans out there as I’m sure there are plenty of culturally ignorant English people out there, that’s just the way the world works. No country is better or worse than the other. Just enjoy the books and stop bickering about cover art; the content is the most important thing. ^_-

  44. Kayla Wilson says:

    Personally, I prefer the US jackets overall. The UK adult versions, in my opinion, are just pointless–they don’t convey any of the depth and splendor contained within the books, and misrepresent them for the sake of some older person’s weak self-esteem (in reality, how many people would go around taunting somebody just because their book cover “looks too young for them”?). The US versions only give HINTS as to what will happen in the book. That’s all. For everyone that I know, the “cover hints” make them want to read the book more so that they can find out the significance of each character or object on the cover.

    I do agree that the US cover for Goblet of Fire isn’t in keeping with the tone of the book. While Harry is as happy as can be on the cover, the book is filled with sorrow, fear, etc. But that’s the only big flaw–if you changed Harry’s portrayal to something more serious, the cover would be perfectly acceptable to me.

    As for the UK children’s editions, the last three were definite improvements on the first two. Yet I don’t like how, with the exception of OotP, they (GoF in particular) choose one specific event and give away much more about that event than the hints do in the US editions (except the US PoA, which pretty much does the same thingas the UK children’s edition).

    I like the vibrant colors in the US editions–they make the book seem more lively, and the way the characters are drawn simply show even more that this is a fantasy world that you can escape into, not just a regular novel that just happens to have magic in it.

    The reason for the use of jagged letters in the title is obvious–it relates to Harry’s scar. Also, I have never met a single person who says that the jagged lettering makes the title hard to read. In fact, just as other people have said, it makes the cover more unique and instantly recognizable in contrast with the typical, mundane fonts used in the UK editions. The UK title fonts make the children’s edition blend in with every other book on the market, and the adult editions are even worse, distracting from the fantastical, whymsical feeling of the books and placing their design among that of mystery novels.

    If it comes down to it, just buy the hardcover books and remove the jacket if you don’t like it. End of story.

  45. peas says:

    I’m from the UK so I guess I’m going to be biased in this, but I do prefer the UK Children covers. This could be because i am used to them. The US version to me seems to have no taste, the colour scheme is all wrong. I think the font on the childrens version is classy and British, which is where Harry Potter is set. The US version is a bit too commercialised for my liking.

    The adult version of the UK version is just plain boring. Harry Potter is exciting and full of magic. These covers don’t do it justice. The best of the 5 is the fifth book, but I’m still not keen.

  46. Susan says:

    I think to make a true judgement on this you have to see the different versions in real life. I’m from England and a lot of the criticisms of the UK children’s covers were a little surprising to me, like the comment about them looking like ‘budget editions’. This was the exact thought I had about the US versions when I first see them, to me the British versions are sharp, sophisticated and almost luxurious, whereas the US versions appear to be a little haphazard, confused and sketchy. Of course, it has a lot to do with what we are used to and what, to each individual, has the Harry Potter ‘feel’. I love the bold and distinctive look of the UK versions and that is what Harry Potter is to me.

    Kayla – not that it really matters, but the UK hardback versions have the same design on the actual cover of the book, it is not a plain cover underneath the jacket.

    I think it’s a shame that they changed the text in the US versions, it is unrealistic for British people to be using words like ‘sweater’ or ‘trashcan’and as the books are set in England I think it prevents people from getting the true feel of the book.

    I have a question, how soon after the books were first published in the UK were they published in the US?

  47. sofia says:

    I think I’ve seen them all.

    And as I’m from Sweden, I have the swedish books (and the originals), but I really think Sweden have the best covers.

    It was a long time ago that I actually read the swedish version, but sometimes I just take them out and look at them. There is just so many details and my heart just fills up with pride, ’cause we really have the best covers. And to get “the feeling” you have to HAVE the book.

    I’m so sure of this, so next time you stumble across the swedish covers, look a little extra.

    Love Sofia

  48. Mario says:

    I strongly disagree with the person who said that the UK books covers are better than the US covers. Mary Grandpre’ did a much better job at depicting Harry than the other UK artist did and the font for the US used for “Harry Potter” is much more magical and specified than that of the UK cover. I’m sure most agree with me on this.

  49. Randy Oafยป says:

    Harry Potter English! Sheesh! I had a yarn with J.K. and she told me she could only think about America the whole time she was scribbling the Potter novels. Indeed, she told me the next novel may even be set in Dallas or Fort David. I think it is an attempt to pay tribute to the spiritual home of the Potter books. I mean, we all know, the South has produced some of the most influential wizards in peons, and it is high time we paid homage to the hard work and broom technique handed down to us.

    J.K. and I certainly intend to.

Comments are closed.