Uncategorized

J.K. Rowling on the NY Times.

J.K. Rowling’s response to the early review that the New York Times published two days before the official release date:

“I am staggered that 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, who wanted to reach Harry’s final destination by themselves, in their own time. 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.”

Yes, I read the review, I couldn’t help myself. And if you don’t want to know the one main point (yes, only one) that I got out of it, don’t read it.

So here’s the question:

Did the Times cross the line when they decided to publish an early review on a book that was not to be released until July 21 at midnight, as agreed by publishers, booksellers and the author? Was this the wrong move by an overzealous editor?

Or was this the right way to approach the situation, with all the secrecy that has surrounded Rowling’s final tale in a series that’s held a lot of the world captivated for the past ten years?

I understand where Rowling is coming from, because it’s her story to tell and it wasn’t done the way she liked it. It revealed a couple of key things to the story, things that I’m not sure I really wanted to know.

And because it was from a legitimate source and not from a random Web site claiming to have spoilers, I’m sure she’s all the more livid at their apparent disregard for her fans.

Personally, yeah, I could have done without the review. But at the same time, I think they’re making a bigger deal out of it than it is. And this is coming from someone’s who’s loved this series for seven years, has gone to midnight premieres, visited the fan Web sites and eagerly watched the movies (yeah, I’m a Harry Potter geek, get over it).

So I know what the Deathly Hallows are. So what? All the other references in that review were inferences I made long before I read it anyway.

The way I look at is, it’s like a movie trailer. You get a few bits and pieces, and you know it’s coming, but you don’t know why it’s coming or how it happens.

There’s still the anticipation. And now that I have a glimpse of what’s to come, I want more.

I don’t know if that was the Times’s intention, but it works for me.

Update: As clarification, I’m not condoning what the Times did. I don’t agree with it, and I think they should have waited. But it doesn’t bother me as much as it seems to bother a lot of other people.

And the Times wrote an op-ed piece in response to the fans’ outcry.

Standard

One thought on “J.K. Rowling on the NY Times.

  1. MikeMan says:

    I think it’s inappropriate to release a review before it comes out. They should’ve waited to release it Saturday morning. There’s a difference between breaking news and pre-emptive news. Press has priviliges of review and early copies and when they show off those powers and break those implied rules, it causes people and companies to lose trust.

    I also hate the idea of them ruining a perfectly sound marketing campaign. There are potential customers lost by them doing this and it’s too bad there is no way to prove it or I’d suggest suing them for damages.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s