Login  |  Register          Free Newsletter Subscription
The Book Maven   


Link This | Email this | Blog This | Comments (5)


The Series That Must Not Be Named, or Flouted
July 20, 2007

Frequent readers know that I'm a bit of a sourpuss when it comes to The Series that Must Not Be Named, or Harry Potter, but please allow me to explain fully: it's not because I'm not a fan. I'll be reading along avidly from about 12:17 a.m. EST Saturday 7/21 (approximately the time we'll arrive home from our local bookstore's Pottermania -- hey, I've got kids, or I'd just wait until a decent post-coffee hour in the afternoon). 

I can't abide fads of any kind. As I indicated in my Harry Potter Versus Ramona Quimby post, there are lots of other characters and authors who deserve our attention. It frustrates me, as an avid reader, that so many worthy books go unnoticed during Potter release time.

 

But a quick IM conversation with my friend C. yesterday gave me a new perspective on the hype – and alerted me to a very odd thing indeed. Here’s how it went:

 

I read Michiko Kakutani’s NYT review of ‘Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows,’ alternately cackling and gasping at her chutzpah. [NB: Keep reading… you’ll see… ] I pinged C.

 

“What is Michiko Kakutani thinking?” I typed.

 

“Michiko is just being Michiko,” she responded. “But her point is well taken [NB: keep reading… you’ll see… ]. Scholastic needs to realize that things have changed since the first few books in the series came out. This cloak-and-dagger stuff is old.”

 

I agree, but evidently the Gray Lady does not. This a.m. I clicked over to Kakutani’s piece to create a link, and noticed a few things… missing. Like her conclusion to every paragraph. The concluding sentences that made her worth-taking point. Unless the NYT mistakenly allowed an impish programmer to add text to a staff writer's article, Michiko Kakutani's Harry Potter review has been scrubbed of every spoiler.

Now, I did not read yesterday's print edition. I read the NYT online. So I'll go to the nearest library this a.m. to check my findings. But it seems to me that Harry Potter's magical powers are strong indeed if he can vanquish the words of She Who Must Not Be Crossed in the book world.

We know She Who Controls the Potter Empire was not pleased by Kakutani's review. I did check the print edition, and the lines I saw in yesterday's online review were not there. Impish programmer, I wish I'd taken a screenshot. After the book is released, I'll reveal what I saw online yesterday.

Meanwhile, I just have to say knowing now that Kakutani did not have those lines in her review, I don't agree with J.K. Rowling's furore. I think the review is well-written, interesting, and balanced. If readers can't stomach a tiny bit of advance info, then they should avoid book reviews. You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, and you can't write a book review without discussing at least some of the plot.


Posted by Bethanne Patrick on July 20, 2007 | Comments (5)


July 20, 2007
In response to: The Series That Must Not Be Named, or Flouted
ALEX SMITH commented:

I think most readers will aviod the reviews if they don't want to hear plot details. However you can't stop others who have read the review from discussing it in other areas. And that ,I think, is where the problem lies. Many of us don't want any info prior to release. With a release this big the NYT review is bound to get picked up by every major and minor media outlet in the world. My local paper has no book review section so when I opened up the paper to page 2 yesterday, bang, there was Kakutani's review. I didn't read it but I was angry that my neighbors now posed a threat to my info embargo. Yes, you can't make an omlette without breaking any eggs, but can you at least wait until everyone is seated at the table before you start eating it?




July 20, 2007
In response to: The Series That Must Not Be Named, or Flouted
Mike commented:

I've been in bookselling or publishing since 1977. Back in day, new books had a "release date" and a "pub date", and many still do (not the extraordinary one-day laydowns). Why? So the slow, inefficient distribution channel could manage to have books on _the_shelves when a review ran. Galleys went to reviewers in advance, so they could read, digest, write, and their media outlets could run their review in a timely fashion -- i.e. when the books is available, when it's useful to the public, as a guide whether or not to buy the book. It's just silly for Kakutani and the Times to treat a review as breaking news (running it in the adult news section of the paper, too, not arts and entertainment). The NEWS was that Kakutani managed to break the retail embargo and buy a copy beforehand. The "review" was just pointless one-upmanship. Good to see that most of the media got the point and didn't follow the Times' lead, when they fairly easily could have.




July 20, 2007
In response to: The Series That Must Not Be Named, or Flouted
HP fan commented:

What Mike said. I for one would like to know how the NY Times just happened to find a retailer in NYC who sold them the book. The breach of the embargo is the real story, not the review itself.




July 20, 2007
In response to: The Series That Must Not Be Named, or Flouted
Alice W commented:

And once the book is released, isn't everyone in terrible ghastly danger of being spoiled by every single person who is a faster reader, wantonly discussing the book in public? Goodness, if you don't want to hear spoilers, don't read the reviews, and ask your impatient friends not to tell you, just as you'll have to do after the official release.




July 21, 2007
In response to: The Series That Must Not Be Named, or Flouted
amy@wozabooks.com commented:

Bethanne: I posted to your blog through Publisher's Weekly, apologize if comments go both places at once. Am posting here too. Please read my article about why I bought HP7 at my local bookstore that's posted on my blog at www.shakabaz.blogspot.com (and on my website at www.wozabooks.com -- scroll down on the home page). I think you will find this an interesting take on last night's events! Amy





POST A COMMENT
Display Name or Registered Users Login Here.
Please restrict submissions to less than 7,000 characters (including any HTML formatting).

Before submitting this form, please type the characters displayed above:

Advertisement
Advertisements



VIRTUAL EDITION


Virtual Edition



©2008 Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Use of this Web site is subject to its Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
Please visit these other Reed Business sites