Comments on: Harry Potter Cover Revealed, Looks Cartoonish

By: Eli James

Eli James — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 08:50:45 +0000

Okaay. I shall reserve my comment on that. *squirms uncomfortably*

By: daniel is SEXY

daniel is SEXY — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:19:11 +0000

DANIEL RADCLIFF HAS A NICE BODY!!!

HES SOOOO SEXY SMOKIN HOT
DID U SEE THAT FINE DICK OF HIS?

By: danielissmokin

danielissmokin — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:18:26 +0000

hey you fuck off

By: Daniel Radcliff is sooo SEXY

Daniel Radcliff is sooo SEXY — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:17:42 +0000

OK…Scholastic Editions of Harry Potter suck. I just had to spit that out. AND the regular versions of the cover are wonderful and unique in their own way. Just because you people don’t like the art doesnt’ mean you can ruin the pleasure of the book. If you dare critisize the poor art and end of telling everyone, there is no need for you to buy the book and waste your own time let alone everyone elses.
Humph!
Good Day to you!

By: Eli James

Eli James — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:07:05 +0000

Ahh. That’s … like saying I read Faulkner because it makes the rest of you look stupid.

Hehe. Now that’s what I call psychology. :-)

By: Sam

Sam — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:37:20 +0000

Oh you know why I like the children’s version more.

But, don’t judge a book by it’s cover (art).

It’s somewhat the same theory as how celebrities carry ugly chihuahuas around to make their face look better. This is done with cover art!

By: Eli James

Eli James — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 12:10:31 +0000

They do not. Call me a loyal Bloomsbury customer, but I am adamant that the Scholastic books look worse.

After all, who can resist that pearly picture of deer?

By: Marvin

Marvin — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:57:03 +0000

I don’t think Harry Potter books overall are nice to look at – certainly not with this portrayal of Hermione – urm, I mean Harry and Ron. They all look like they’ve come out of a Mad magazine feature.

PS: And that is why Scholastic editions of Harry Potter rock!