(quoted from “An Illustrated Encyclopaedia of Traditional Symbols”, by J. C. Cooper, 1978, p. 39-40):
“primordial darkness; the Void; evil; the darkness of death; shame; despair; destruction; corruption; grief; sadness; humiliation; renunciation; gravity; constancy. Black also signifies Time, hard, pitiless and irrational and is associated with the dark aspect of the Great Mother, especially as Kali who is Kala. . . Black or blue-black is the colour of chaos.”

“Alchemic: The absence of color; the first stage of the Great Work; dissolution; fermentation; the sinister; descent into hell.”

“Christian: The Prince of Darkness; Hell; death; sorrow; mourning; humiliation; spiritual darkness; despair; corruption; evil arts. It is the colour used for masses for the dead and for Good Friday.”

Now, that you made me look back at the colors in the first book, it seems very much to foreshadow all that is coming for Harry–the darkness (evil) that he must battle, all the darkness of his emotions that he has to confront, both from his past, present and future–all in line with the Alchemical work that is beginning for him.

Even though the color of the 5th book (the nigredo stage) is blue, the blue that is described throughout the book is a blue-black sort of image, which also fits with the description of the color “black”.

From the same book, green is the most interesting color–I won’t quote all of it as it’s also one of the longest explanations, which is due, more than likely to its having near opposite meanings:

“GREEN Ambivalent as both life and death in the vernal green of life and the livid green of death. . . . Compounded of blue and yellow, heaven and earth combined, green forms the mystic colour; it also combines the cold blue light of the intellect with the emotional warmth of the yellow sun to produce wisdom of equality, hope, renewal of life and resurrection.”

Alchemic: The Green Lion or Green Dragon is the beginning of the Great Work; the young corn god; growth; hope.”

“Christian: Vernal green is immortality; hope; the growth of the Holy Spirit in man; life; triumph over death and Spring over Winter. It is also initiation; good works; and in medieval times it became the colour of the Trinity, Epiphany and St John the Evangelist. Pale green is equated with Satan, evil and death.”

So thinking about the color of the basin, all the times that we see green in the books–Slytherin robes, green ink, people wearing green. such as McGonagall in green robes and of course the Slytherins in green (including Fudge with his lime green bowler hat–which would be a lighter shade rather than a darker one–a clue that he is evil?), and especially Harry’s eye color–the symbolism for the color green takes on a lot of ambiguous meanings.

I’m going to have to think about colors in all the books some more, but right now, it’s time for a cup of tea, while I do my pondering. A lot of the symbolic meanings of color do seem to fit in rather well with what we see going on in the books. I really wish we could tell the colors better of Deathly Hallows–sometimes they look more red than orange and sometimes more yellow than orange. I’m still thinking about that one. Of course, they also could represent gold, which would have to do with the result of the Alchemical work.

Pat

But even the “lessened pronouncement” even if it is there, as you said, seems to be a shift. It could just be a teaser but it could also be indicative of a substantial change, such as something having happened to the scar by the point in book 7 of whatever scene we have represented there … like the removal of a horcrux. I personally tend to think the scar will always be there, but if it is a horcrux and is removed I would think this would cause it to be noticably fainter, more of a memorial than an active element. We have seen Rowling before use scars that never fully fade, like the line “I will not tell lies” etched on the back of Harry’s hand (this is a possible argument I see in favor of Delores Umbridge as one of the poisons in the initial DADA potions riddle from SS/PS, that she gave Harry a scar like Voldemort, more like forced himself to give himself a scar, which we see as stull visible enough for him brandish against Rufus Scrimgeour’s jingoism in “A Very Frosty Christmas” in HBP … I’m not saying I see it as conclusive that she is a poison but I could see it helping that argument). In this case even a fainter presence than on previous covers could be an indicator that the scar was a horcrux that has been removed by the point in the book of the cover incedent. But I think it is too unclear to tell for sure till the book is out. And I am also glad somebody else brought up the question because I had sort of wondered about it myself but that question had sort of drifted to the back with all the other stuff coming out, so I am glad you asked it and reminded me.

Here is another I dea I had. The past 2 covers have caused different of us to think of different things that have been not the right ones in the end. Pat mentioned thinking when she started into the book that the cover might be #12 Grimmauld place and it turned out to be the circle room in the ministry. When I saw the cover to book 6 I immediately thought of the pensieve and then when it was being used so much throught I just assumed I was right and they just chose green as a sort of ominous Harry Potter type tone, until I got to the end and there was actually a basin that glowed green (which is another reason I tend to think the orange color could be more than accidental, as in more than an enchanted cieling and the sky just happens to be orange outside at the time, that it could have some source more directly linked with fire). The veil room could be a red herring for a location we have never met before … or it could be dead on. Either way, all this speculation is a lot of fun and I think brings out a lot of good comments and observations from the first 6 books and gets them in the hands of a community for some really good discussion of the books in general.

I think the trade paperbacks must be cropped too, which seems consistent with the two versions available for viewing on the Leaky Cauldron page, because I have only some of the elements you listed in the first 3 books and no inside flap art.

On the matter of the dementor in book 4, I forgot to put that in my comments, because the dementor presence in book 4 is actually a key part of my reading of the works. I agree with Red Hen’s theory that the dementors play more of a part in the “creation” (or rather “un-creation”) of Voldemart and that the MOM is much more culpable than we have heretofor thought (a very PoMo theme), particularly in their alliance with creatures that are Voldy’s “natual allies.” Part of my chiastic reading of the series thus far is that there is a mini-chiasm in the center, book 3, 4 and 5, characterized by Dementor presence on screen or at least “JUST off screen” … in book 3 they are introduced, in book 5 we see Harry doing what Arthrur Weasely, in his “Protection of Muggles Act,” thinks is the true responsibility of all wizards, protecting a muggle (Dudley) from a magical creature/power such as a dementor. In book 4 we have the ultimate act of inhumanity, the worse-than-death penalty: Cornelius Fudge brings a dementor to Hogwarts for his own “protection” and we actually have a full kiss performed on Barty Crouch Jr, right smack dab in the dead middle of the 7 book series.

Great Stuff on POV, one of the things that is so exciting to me and makes me love the works all the more is how they lend themselves to this braoder ranger of artistic expression being taken up into the works.

So, one final comment that came to me recently and had me pretty excited on this whole thing. I think the orange sky/ceiling on the book 7 cover means something, maybe not a central image set but certainly a secondary image set that I think can be shown as likely in the works thus far, especially in a chiastic reading (which I, of course, never tire of talking about, although I am sure some wish I would stop babbling LOL). Particularly it is the fact that it so resembles blazing fire. I was realizing the motif of colored fire recently when rambling on to a newly accepted Philosophy PhD student who will begin studies here at Fordham U in the fall, when he was on a visitation weekend recently and I was going on about my fascination with the lightning struck boy, particularly in regards to common images that had come up recently in my own studies in the book of Jeremiah for a class in the book. The professor who teaches that class has recently, within the past year or two, published an essay on Jeremiah and text and context in an essay collection book called “Troubling Jeremiah.” She took the title for her individual piece from a medeival Rabbinic description of the Torah as written with “Black Fire on White Fire” – the meaning dancing elusivley and enticingly like fire just behind the written text. I was describing to this guy how Rowling had used colored fire in book 1 with the potions riddle (I would have to look to make sure but I think it was purple fire ahead and white fire behind), and just today I was realizing that that was not the only place … in the goblet of fire you have blue fire, and now on the cover of book 7 you have an orange cloudiness that is very much the color of real fire. On a chiastica reading that is 1-4-7, the two extreme segments and the cruxt. Like I said I don’t think this is necessarily a primary image set, but rather a secondary one, but I would not be surprised if we find some fire element in a significant place in the culminating events of Deathly Hallows.

About that book 4 cover, though. I took the cover off my book and laid it flat, and it’s not a skrewt that we see on the front, but the back or tail of a dragon. On the back cover, when you follow it along, you find the dragon’s wings. The cover also includes the goblet of fire held in a hand coming through the hedge of the maze. So perhaps that’s really supposed to be the triwizard cup since it’s in a youth’s hand. On the inside flap, there is something larger that could be the goblet of fire, or it could be Dumbledore’s pensieve. We also have Harry, who on that cover, is looking straight at us, rather than us looking up at him.

Which leads me to the POV that I’d never paid much attention to. But you are right–on all the other covers, we are seeing Harry from below or slightly below. And I’d never paid attention to the color of Harry’s cape being red on the first four books, but there it is, plain as day. How ever did I miss that one! It’s easy to explain on the first cover, as those could be his Quidditch robes, but not on the others. Even on the 7th book, his robes are a reddish brown, and not cape-like at all.

But I digress–the POV. I don’t know if you’ve ever seen the movie, “Keeping Mum”. It has nothing to do with Harry Potter except that Maggie Smith is in it. But on the audio-commentary, the director talks about the POV he chose to use whenever Maggie Smith’s character was on screen. It always started slightly below her and slowly zoomed in. And then at the end of the movie, that POV is used for a different character to show the transference of Smith’s character’s traits to another. The point of using that “below” POV, according to him, was to draw attention to her character and to set her apart from all the other characters who are shown straight on.

So if you look at the HP covers, with that in mind, you get the same sort of feeling–Harry is the important one in the story and is being set apart. The only time we have someone else on his level is on book 2 and 3, when Ginny and Hermione, respectively, are flying with him. Book 7 is nearly straight on, but because Harry is looking and reaching up, it gives the feeling that we are a bit below him. Also, as the viewer is closer to Voldemort, it definitely shows that we are below the scene.

As for the artist’s conceptions, I’ve always liked Mary GrandPre’s work, especially on the last three, where, as you say, the artwork and the characters have grown up. There is more subtlety and more depth in them. It’s my understanding that she gets an advance copy of the book to read before she does the cover illustration, but that the UK artists, who have not all been the same, only get notes from JKR on what to include on the cover, without having read the books.

I know with Mary GrandPre’s work, I always look at the cover, wonder what all the things could mean, and then am amazed that I couldn’t figure out some of the more important parts of the plot from the art work. One thing that I noticed also, is that Snape has never appeared on any of the books–rather interesting, since most of us, no matter where we fall on his loyalty, put a lot of importance on his character. The closest he has come to being on any of the covers is his Advanced Potions book on the UK adult version for Half-Blood Prince.

One more thing I just thought of–the background characters on each book do have to do with something significant in each book. On the first book, it’s all about Harry and Quidditch on the front, with only the unicorn in the main background, and Fluffy off to one side with the castle. But Albus and an owl and a key are on the back, framed by those curtains. So there we have some main elements of the story–the new world for Harry, the threat and quest, and a Christ figure. The inside front flap has someone sneaking along at night carrying a candle, presumably Harry.

I can’t comment on the second book cover, as my daughter took it to a friend’s house and it came home naked–the book, not my daughter. And usually on-line they only show the front cover, but I remember that Harry is flying upwards with Ginny, hanging onto Fawkes–a Christ symbol again.

Prisoner of Azkaban, though, has some interesting things as well. Again, we see Harry flying and we are below. This time he’s with Ginny on Buckbeak, another Christ symbol. The Marauders are all on that cover, if you include the flaps–Prongs inside the back cover, Sirius running across the grounds, and Peter inside the front cover. The dementor lurks on the back and Crookshanks is under the Whomping Willow. The framing there is around Harry and Ginny as they are flying by the castle window, where we see a shadow of Sirius. And later, Sirius does always seem to be somewhat in the shadows, now that I think of it.

The only thing to add to Goblet of Fire, is that the framing is done by the maze. And the cover shows the other champions behind him, rather than his friends. Sirius, as you said, is peaking over the hedge, and there is something that looks like it could be the giant squid entangled in the maze on the back cover flap, and then something else that could be a skrewt or one of the water creatures–not a merperson, though. I don’t remember dementors in GOF–were there any? But it looks like there is one on the cover, near the stands with the spectators at the tasks–unless that’s to represent the lurking Lord Voldemort.

I love the Order of the Phoenix cover. When I first started reading the book, I thought it must be at twelve, Grimmauld Place. Then by book’s end, I realized it was at the Ministry, with the eerie blue light and the candles. The framing this time is more like the smoke from many candles as it swirls on both end flaps. And of course, on the back, the Order is represented by Tonks, Lupin and Moody, with Sirius is the background. We see Harry from slightly below, but he is looking up, which again, puts us below whatever is going on.

Half-Blood Prince, definitely has us below Harry and Dumbledore, and on the back, we are above Ron, Hermione, and Ginny, and looking up at the Dark Mark with them. There isn’t much more on this cover, except Hogwarts in the background and possibly Neville, then some very undefined students.

I agree that I like the progression of the art work to match the maturation of the characters and the story. The first ones were very geared towards appealing to children, and while the latter ones are still not “adult” covers, they do have a quality that shows that these aren’t just little children’s books any longer. (I have to say though, that I always felt they were not just for children–JKR has managed to tell a story that has so many layers, that a younger child can enjoy them, but teens and adults of all ages find so much more in them–obviously, all one has to do is look at the types of discussions that we all have about the books.)

Back to Deathly Hallows–sorry to wander so off topic, but it’s all Brett’s fault for starting the comparisions–LOL. This cover in particular seems to have such simplicity in the art work, yet so much complexity. I’m so excited by what is shown and implied, and yet not at all explained. I look at this cover every day on my lap top, as it’s my wallpaper as well. I can hardly stand the wait as I watch the countdown clock on my desktop.

Pat

and also didn’t completely get my thought out on book 4 cover … the skrewt teeth and gumbs are from the book scene itself because a skrewt is one of the animals in the maze

and my eyewas caught be somebody mentioning the patronus in a cover, and I couldn’t tell if they were saying it was in the American cover or the UK kids or what (btw, the american is one of the coolest pictures I have seen in a while, I saved it and put it up as my wall paper on my desktop computer) … I tried to scan back through but there is a lot there and all I found was some possible mention of the reflection in Harry’s glasses on the UK kids cover, but if there was something in the US cover, and whoever said that reads this and has the time, could you toss back up the patronus locale in the US cover … I have loved the comments here, great stuff and pointed some stuff I hadn’t noticed, like the bag around the neck … great stuff

I was just going to add to some of what Red Hen and others said, and I have only glanced over the comments here but I am sure mine will be far less brilliant and more characterized by lacunae etc.

The covers of the US books actually do all seem to be scenes from the books, although I agree there is more collage type stuff in 1 and 4. Actually 1 is the one that might not be a “discrete text scene” in that Harry is flying and catching a snitch but he is not in robes and it may be more just the whole “Harry finds out he really likes to fly and play Quidditch” and you also have fluffy tucked away in a corner of the castle in the background etc. The GOF US cover also has more collage elements such as Snuffles’ head peering over a hedge and the egg representing the first and second tasks etc, but the scene does seem to be at least in the majority the maze scene, with 4 champions and one element I’ll mention in a moment that seems like it might sort of relate here (I’m sure it has been noted by many already but I don’t know if it has come up in connection to the present artwork or not so I’ll throw it up). Books 2 and 3 US covers are, respectively, Harry being carried out of the chamber by Fawkeswith Harry holding tail feathers and Harry and Hermione riding Bukcbeack to save Sirius. An interesting thing is that in all of the first three his robes look like a super hero cape (including book 1, so I guess he actually is wearing robes in book 1 … interestingly though the cape is always red), and in 5 they look more like the typical “cloaked figure” etc. I don’t think as much can be determined from all of that except that it does seem typical to have a scene from the books and usually a climactic ultimate scene or at least pent-ultimate scene, like the maze as the climax of the tournament (on that one notice also the legs sticking up of the spider after Harry and Cedric nailed it together).

As Athena said, some of the choices, especially before the books became as big as they are now, may be from other factors than some general principle that Rowling likes and advocates with regards to the texts, but it would seem that by this point they would at least be respecting her opinion on the matter. The other thing in this regard is that the style of the US covers as seemed to me to mirror the tone of the texts themselves in “growing” alongside the lead characters. I would have been very shocked to read Morfin refering to Merope as a “little slut” in book 1, but not in book 6 and I think Rowling has consciously geared the level of tone to the age of the protaonists and their peers at school. The US cover art seems to follow the same pattern. The early ones are geared towards a younger audience, Harry is always smiling, red like a super heros cap rather than the dark robes/cloak of book 5 (book 5 also had collage elements if you look at the back, at least if I remember rightly, I don’t remember Moddy being at the Ministry fight etc, but maybe he was)

Now, as far as the curtains on book 7 and the cover of book 4 (I still hold to some form of chiastic structuring as the meta-structure of the series on some level, but on the covers it seems to me like there are too many elements in play to try to push anything concrete as far as a specific element like this as a definitive clue but I do think it possible there is something in it, the eveidence just would not bear me pushing too hard on it and it is thus more just an intuition thing), I did not notice this until just tonite looking at the cover of book 4. On the cover of book 4 there is a “framing” element similar to the curtains on book 7: some nasty looking gumbs with some gnarly looking sharp teeth in them … in other words, I am pretty sure you are looking at Harry from inside the mouth of an attacking blast ended skrewt. I am sure I am not the first to notice this element on the GOF cover and I am sure it is so old hat to many that it did not come up (myself always being “fashionably late” as I am), but I just thought that might give a clue to the positioning of the perspective in book 7 US cover, since they are done by the same artist, who seems to have, at least in these two covers, a thing for Point of View as an element, some type of framing element that indicates something in the POV, and yields an element on the cover that you don’t catch at first sight. Obvioulsy nobody actually got eaten by a skrewt in book 4 so you are not a particular character, but I would say on book 7 the perspective very well might be from the other side of the veil. I’m not sure if you would be meant to be a particular character there either, though, but maybe – just not conclusive to me. The lower POV could definitely be a POV of an elf but in book 6 US cover you had the same POV (and in book 5 also but less exageratedly) but there was no house elf there (unless it is refering to Sirius using Kreacher? but then how would the artist know a future plot revelation point like that. Or maybe you are one of the inferi? I don’t say that sarcastically at all … it is possible but it would take a high level of philosophical and religious commitment and abstraction from the world of the work as distinctly Christian on the part of the artist. Not impossible, but not really at the same level of simply using a Christ pose on book 7 cover because you realize from the tradition that that is what the author is doing whose work you are illustrating … this would be a level of saying somthing about the audience themselves in regards to Christian thought, that our perspective is from that of the skrewt in book 4 [more on how a skrewt can symbolize a human in a moment] or of a walking corpse if we do not have the grace of Christ, or as partaking in life always with one foot behind the veil etc. … which is, as I said, possible but a higher level of abstraction and, at best, not anywhere near as evidently so as the Christ pose on book 7)

The only other thing I would note is the blast ended skrewt itself in connecttion to Hagrid and the Rubedo stage. I have always thought that the magical animals are an important auxiliary image. Based in your work John, it is particularly the half breeds. a Hippogryff is half horse half Gryffin, and a Griffyn is half lion half eagle etc. the blast ended skrewt is also a hybrid actually bred by Hagrid, if I remember correctly. On the more “human” level what I will call the “half-breed hermeneutic” moves into a half giant, half human wizard like Hagrid, and more particularly a half-breed for whom both parts are human and the two human elements mixed are muggle and magical. Here the two-part structure comes directly to the issue of the human person, our biological part and our non-biological part (I still side with a bi-partite anthropology of body-spirit if I have to side with one of the “partite” language models, but I don’t think either of those models, bi-partite or tri-partite, or the “partite” language altogether, does justice to the reality of the human person [it is like Horcruxes and the soul: you CAN split it up, it is doable ... but not a good thing] … but then people could accuse that I have been reading too much Heiddegger and now see Plato as the boogie man over all, including his tripartite division, but I would have to look and verify if that is a trip division w/in the person as a whole [anthropology] or only w/in the soul [psych-ology], I know in medeival times they talked about 3 types of souls: vegetative, sensate/animal and intellectual [and I think Rowling, in her own way, actually includes nuances of this in some of the work, in a sort of "you should have at least some respect for all living and growing things" like Mandrakes, which I do not take to be, as some fundamentalist anti-Harry types tried to tell me once, an acceptance of abortion, but rather just saying "yes, it is just a plant/animal and it is entirely all right to kill it to meet your needs, but you should still have respect for all living and growing things in general and not go willy nilly burning down forest simply to prove you're not a pantheist tree-hugger"] and I know that bipartite anthropology taken absolutely would yield the same dualism that Appolinarius got nailed for at first Constantinople in 381, I believe … which is why I like Rowling so much, her images in some places fit Bip anthropology and in some places fit Trip Anthro, which is pretty much very true to the mysterious richness of the reality of the human person … can’t really be pinned down or defined in such “quantitative” language)

Anway, the key Half breed that includes the two sides of humanity, muggle and magic … Severus Snape of course. Harry’s mother was muggle-born as was Hermione, which is also a crossing, but Snape is the one where it is really central: full blood muggle and full blood witch in a central imagery of marriage.

Oh yeah, almost forgot I wanted to throw this in (the mention of the marriage that begot Snape reminded me) – whoever used the language of “apocalyptic” with regards to the veil … right on, and conncected to the marriage imagery (I have taken heat for it before but I’ll say it again … how do you read an unbreakable vow without hearing “till death do us part?” I’m not saying Narcissa is a polygamist, just that the marriage imagery as life and death/vow is there as part of the imagery background Rowling is drawing on) … the term “apocalypse” originally means “unveiling” and originates in the culmination of the Jewish wedding ceremony when the bride and groom retire and the groom removes the veil on his bride’s face (also used by Dante – the revelation of Grace and love of God to Dante atop mount Purgatory is done by Beatrice lifting her veil in successive stages, firth the smile is revealed and that is a particular level of revelation, and then the eyes and that level leads him up into the heavens in the Paradiso … here it is not a wedding betwen Dante and Beatrice specifically, but her unveiling of her face is a symbol of the wedding of humanity with God that is called salvation and rectifies all the adultery charges leveled by prophets like Hosea and Jeremiah in the Old Testament) … it has been noted by some too that in the ancient world you find veils in 2 place primarily, on women and in temples. I think all this imagery tends to run in a cluster for a reason, and think it’s cool you can sort of see some of it coming through even in the cover art.

Yeah, tell me about it … Accio 7/21/07 … try studying Hebrew and 20th century German philosophy when all you can think about is how many days left till the release

The thing with JKR is that I remember reading that she was so pleased to have Scholastic willing to publish her first book that she didn’t argue about the title but later regretted it. I imagine that we all will regret that title change at some point, as it seems to be very obvious now that the alchemy connection was intended and important. I wonder if they (Scholastic) will ever go back and correct that error and re-publish the first book under it’s correct title.

That’s amazing that Anne Rice has that written in her contract–is she that good? I’ve heard her talk about her books, but I’ve never read one.

And back to JKR–she does now seem to have a lot of control, though it sounds like she does go through the editing process, which I agree, would be beneficial to most authors. Sometimes when you write something and keep reading it over it is clear to you, but when someone else reads it, they’ll find the indiscrepencies because they don’t know everything the author is thinking.