Four Possible Distinct Places on Cover (Was The Graveyard and the Amphitheat

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 166945

> > Carol, apologizing for the repetitiveness of this post, but 
> I'm trying to clarify my arguments, which appear to have been 
> misunderstood
> 
Goddlefrood responded:
> 
> Not at all, your argument was easily apprehendable. My response
> was, I felt, equally clear, but just in case, here's my summary:
> 
> (i) The ruins that seem to be at the front of the folded out cover
of the American version suggest to me the Potter's House. <snip>
> My suggestion us not unreasoable and an easy conclusion to draw from
it is made.

Carol again:
As I said, the rubble could be anything. If it's the Potters' house,
then it surely has no connection with what's happening in the
background. Even if that amphitheater structure in the background were
a graveyard (and no graveyard ever looked like that) it wouldn't be
right next to the Potters' house. However, it can't be a graveyard, as
you'll see in my response to point 11,
> 
> (ii) The shapes at the foot of the structure wrapped around the
> entire cover suggests to me tombstones and from that I draw a
> conclusion that Hogwarts graveyard may be represented thereby.
> Not at Godric's Hollow at all.

Carol:
Here's the problem. I wondered where you were getting the graveyard
idea. What you're taking for gravestones are definitely people (living
or dead, we aren't told. Here's an excerpt from an online article in
which the publisher and the cover designer (not GrandPre herself)
describe the cover:

'"The front cover of 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows' features a
dramatic sky of oranges and golds. It depicts 17-year-old Harry with
arm outstretched, reaching upward," publisher Scholastic said in a
statement.

'"The structures around Harry show evident destruction and *in the
shadows behind him, we see outlines of other people*," said the cover
designer, Scholastic Creative Director David Saylor."

And here's an interesting tidbit regarding the wrap-around cover, not
relevant to your point about Godric's Hollow and a graveyard, but
interesting in itself:

'"For the first time the cover is a wrap-around. On the back cover
spidery hands are outstretched towards Harry.

'"Only when the book is opened does one see a powerful image of
He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named, his glowing red eyes peering out from his
hood," he said.  

So it's the book designer who thinks that Voldemort's "spidery hands"
look like they belong to a Dementor crossed with a Grinch. Maybe he
(as opposed to GrandPre) thinks that the amphitheaterlike Death Room
resembles a Roman arena. 

At any rate, those are people, not gravestones, which seems to rule
out a graveyard. If the rubble represents the cottage at Godric's
Hollow, I'd say that it's thematic rather than part of the setting.
IOW, I don't think there's a Roman arena or whatever that building is
on the site of the Potter's demolished house.

> (iii) The structure is suggestive of an arena of some kind, but 
> I would agree that perhpas it is most suggestive of poetic
> licence on the part of Ms. GrandPre.

Carol:
Or the book designer. Or both.
> 
> (iv) What looks to me like drapes or curtains could be symbolic
> of the veil at the DoM, they could equally be the dedoxified
> curtains for Grimmauld Place ;) <snip>

Carol:
Well, maybe not the curtains at 12 GP, but I can see them as a sort of
framing device: "It's curtains for Lord Voldemort, folks!" But they're
tattered, as is the "curtain or veil" in the Ministry. My immediate
sense is that these people don't read carefully. Voldemort's hands and
face should be a sickly white, for example.

Goddlefrood: 
> The main thesis is yet to be addressed, perhaps I should expand 
> further :-?

Carol:
By all means, if the designer's statement that the shadows are people
hasn't ruined your graveyard argument. I remain convinced that the
scene is not and cannot be Godric's Hollow.

Carol, who woke up thinking that today was April Fool's Day and that
the next day was Easter and now finds that she was looking at the
calendar wrong!