Palin: "Absurd" Not To Consider 2012 Run
Wall Street Throwing More Money at Republicans
Paterson Bombshell Rumor Watch: Resignation Imminent?
More Bald Eagles Spotted In Harlem!
Paterson "Bombshell" Just PG-13?
The clock is ticking and the new Harry Potter book will be released at 12:01am, less than twelve hours from now! The scene will surely be crazy and something that this city hasn't seen since...well, Wednesday when people lined up for a canvas grocery sack.
JK Rowling bids farewell to the boy who made her billions with this final novel, and she's feeling a bit buggered about the reviews that came out before the book hit the shelves. As reported, the NY Times ran a review on Thursday, as did the Baltimore Sun. Both papers said they obtained the book "through legal and ordinary means." No matter, Rowling and her revelers were still, understandably, riled up.
The author made a statement saying, "I am staggered that some American newspapers have decided to publish purported spoilers in the form of reviews in complete disregard of the wishes of literally millions of readers, particularly children. I am incredibly grateful to all those newspapers, booksellers and others who have chosen not to attempt to spoil Harry's last adventure for fans."
While we agree it was pretty petty of those papers to run the reviews (which they clearly did just to be "first"), is it really that difficult to avert your eyes if you don't want to know what happens? The Times book editor Rick Lyman defends Michiko Kakutani (pictured, as, um, Snape) and her review, saying it didn't give away significant details (however it does reveal plot details).
Bloomsbury and Scholastic (the books publishers in the UK and US) spent millions trying to protect the contents of the novel. A spokeswoman from the former said the Times review being run was "very sad" and that the paper could have waited another day. Very true - but then the Bloomsbury spokesperson gets all British and likens the event to the Boston Tea Party!
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
"I am staggered that some American newspapers have decided to publish purported spoilers in the form of reviews in complete disregard of the wishes of literally millions of readers, particularly children. "
i love how she pulled out the "won't someone think of the children??"
what kid reads the New York Times???
Plenty of young people read newspapers, including the NY Times- it's not exactly rocket science. I would imagine that the overlap between children who read 800-page-novels and children who read newspapers is not insignificant.
I'm pretty sure most of the world doesn't give a damn how far ahead of a given release date a children's book gets reviewed.
If I were the New York Times, I would have published full passages of key plot points just to piss her off.
the "JK Rowling is mad at the NY Times" story was yesterday's news. Not to mention, most authors would be flattered to recieve a NY Times review in the first place. She's a twit.
Jen, you forgot the sub-title
"JK Rowling is Buggered About NY Times Review - Sees fake controversy as way to increase sales."
I don't think JK Rowling needs to gin up more buzz to increase sales.
JK Rowling needs to get over herself. It's not the second coming of Christ or a cure for a cancer. It's a f*cking book...
My friend wrote an email to the Times voicing her anger at the review, and this was the response:
Dear ************:
>> Our feeling is that once a book is offered up for sale at any public,
>> retail outlet, and we purchase a copy legally and openly, we are free to
>> review it. And this is not the first time we have done this. As recently
>> as three months ago, we located in a bookstore an advance copy of former
>> CIA-director George Tenet's memoirs, and we ran that review immediately,
>> a day or two before the publisher's official release date. We did the
>> same thing with Bob Woodward's most recent book, and several times
>> before that. An embargo is not a "rule" that we or you or anyone can be
>> compelled to agree to by some publisher's fiat. Sometimes, we do make
>> agreements to adhere to a specific date to run a story or review, but
>> when we do so, it is a mutual agreement between us and the source, not
>> something that the source dictates to us.
>>
>> We came across a copy of "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" at a
>> store in New York City and we bought it and published our review in
>> Thursday's papers. We did not publish a review on Wednesday based on the
>> copy of the manuscript that had appeared online (a copy that now appears
>> to have been quite genuine). We waited until we had an actual copy of
>> the book in our hands, a copy that was put up for sale to the public.
>>
>> As for charges that we gave away the ending, that is simply not
>> true. We took great care not to do so, nor to give away significant
>> details about who lives and who dies, confining our review -- which,
>> incidentally, had extremely high praise for both this final book and the
>> entire series -- to broader-brush assessments of the tone and the
>> writing. I don't believe that a reasonable person, after reading the
>> book, could go back to this review and believe that we gave away
>> anything of significance.
>>
>>Rick Lyman
>>Books & Theater Editor
8 is right. Rowling needs to get over it. What newspaper wouldn't try to be the first paper to review such a popular book? The childhood of millions will be ruined by this one review!! If you didn't want any spoilers, you wouldn't read the review.
I'm a fan of the book series and I read Michiko Kakutani review and saw no problem with it. She saw the book in a store bought it read it and did her job! What difference does it make, if the review was published in the Sunday edition 90% of the people still did not read it.
Hahaha people are sending angry e-mails to the Times about this? Is there not a better way to spend your time?
"While we agree it was pretty petty of those papers to run the reviews"
Newspapers review books. How is this petty? Don't be stupid.
Is there not a better way to spend your time?
There are- curing cancer, saving kittens in trees, adopting orphans, and making nasty remarks on online bulletion boards about topics you claim not to care about.
Oh wait....
As a fan of the series, I will be reading the book regardless of whether it gets good or bad reviews. I suspect most fans will, after six books. So since I do not "need" the reviews, I just... won't... read them so as not to be spoiled.
Well, off to apply for a job at NASA!
Thanks for the mental image of JK Rowling being buggered by Michiko Kakutani.
I think you mean bugged not buggered.
14 There's not much else to do at my terribly boring job.
JKR has spoken from on high: "Though shalt not read this book until the time appointed by me and my publishers so nyah."
I got the previous book at an unassuming newsagent who didn't really care that there was an fiat against going against JKR commandment.
Guess what, JKR? Not everyone in the entire world cares about Harry Potter!
I do, though. And I want spoilers. ^_~
p.s. Uh, yeah - what #16 said. "Buggery" is what the boys do to each other in the Harry Potter fanfics.
Yes, #16 and #18.
To be "buggered" means to be sodomized. JK Rowling may have been upset, but you're reporting an entirely different story with that headline.
Just stay away from slang you don't understand.
Thanks,
A British person.
Jen Chung should have wrote this article. She would have linked to the NY Post article where they say "The NY Times Hates Children".
the new york times is so lame anyway. it's a newspaper for "play-it-safe" status quo fake liberals.
Is that a real picture of Bitchiko's face? What a find!
Oh, and BELLATRIX KILLS RON
I read the review yesterday. It didn't really tell me anything important. Of course, I'm not a Potter reader, so maybe I just didn't know what to look for. I'm assuming neither Harry, Hermione nor Ron died as had been rumored in recent months.
People like Rowling and those complaining about a newspaper running a book review need to get a grip on reality.
#9's friend needs to seek mental help.
Last I checked movie reviewers and other reviewers often get early looks at films, books, whatever, and write reviews that reveal plot points. And you know what? The lives of children across the world continue despite this! We don't live in a gray, tormented world of sad children who have had plot points exposed to them.
I think the (near?) billionaire Rowling and her delusional fans think the world revolves around her and her whims.
Wow is she ugly.
It is rather annoying, the ending of the last book got ruined for me because of my boyfriend, but that WAS almost a year after the book came out and it would have just as much gotten spoiled by two guys in tee shirts telling you how the half blood prince ended. This is a day before it comes out, one of my friends from the njrk (new jersey renissance kingdom) now forever has the parts spoiled by the article ruined for her. She was however considerate enough to only tell me things I almost saw myself, like about Ron and Hemrinie, and then Harry not dieing. Face it, he is not, not only would J.K Rowling never do it, the death of Harry would only bring about a world of darkness, chaos, and death. Writters only kill characters if it serves a purpose. The only way Harry would die is if he dies and brings Voldemort down with him. All in all, I'm glad I don't read the news, last thing I want is this book ruined for me too. But i am sorry for everyone who got the book ruined for them.