NYT continues to poke stick in eye of HP fans ...
Here is the Time's "Open Editorial" on the backlash they are getting from the review they released on Harry Potter.
Before I dissect it and react - I want to first point out that I read the review. It gave A LOT away. Why? Because we knew nothing - nothing - for sure until that review came out. Everything was shrouded with - "well it could be in there, or it could be this." Anything could have been in this novel. And with the common sense still about me to refuse to spoil even a thing for those left untainted ... I won't say. But on Sunday night you will get an eye full. And Meryl - when you read the review after the fact ... you will be mad. They gave too much away. They may not have come out and said it in so many words ... it was definitely hidden in the subtext. Harry Potter fans that know the series backwards and forwards know what certain things mean. NYT trashed all that and didn't care.
From the article:
What does this matter? If the thousands of emails you're recieving tell you that that review ruined it for them -- than their word should be valued as much as this bizarre co-worker who truly must not be a real fan. Why should this person's stupid-head opinion of "it didn't ruin it" count for more than the public who is enraged?
Another idiotic quote. Clearly he can't read very fast. I've already surmised that a first read through will take me approximately 6 to 7 hours. This is of non-stop reading. But -- even with halted reading making considerations for interruptions and meals - I'd have this book finished Saturday by dinner time. Evidently McElroy isn't a very good reader. I'm surprised he admits it.
My brother - the fan that entered my family into this series at the age 0f 11 (Harry's age!) - finished the 4th book when it came out in less than 1 day. He was 15?
I think McElroy isn't giving the book or it's reader's their credit.
The article goes on to say the lady walked into a bookshop and bought it off a shelf -- blah blah blah. I'm not buying it. I want to know the name of the bookstore and I'm sure Scholastic does too. If it were true, that this book was sitting on open shelves some where ... just willy nilly ... than there would be way more spoilers than we've seen. Someone would have created a website just for this reason and posted something. With billions of Harry Potter fans worldwide ... one of them would have gotten their hands on this book. Instead ... it seems that only Harry Potter cynics - those that haven't read the books and think they are all "hype" (as this articles author clearly does) - have gotten a hold of the book. From the original faker, the guy who said Harry Potter led children to the devil, to the NYT writing a glowing review of a book not yet released just to say they did.
"We reviewed the HP book before anyone else."
Yes ... and you further demonstrated your lack of committment to professional, ethical journalism.
Before I dissect it and react - I want to first point out that I read the review. It gave A LOT away. Why? Because we knew nothing - nothing - for sure until that review came out. Everything was shrouded with - "well it could be in there, or it could be this." Anything could have been in this novel. And with the common sense still about me to refuse to spoil even a thing for those left untainted ... I won't say. But on Sunday night you will get an eye full. And Meryl - when you read the review after the fact ... you will be mad. They gave too much away. They may not have come out and said it in so many words ... it was definitely hidden in the subtext. Harry Potter fans that know the series backwards and forwards know what certain things mean. NYT trashed all that and didn't care.
From the article:
I confess that I’m not a Potterhead. My assistant, Michael McElroy, is. At the risk of causing him great distress, but in the service of journalism, I asked him to read Kakutani’s review and tell me if it ruined the book for him.
He said it did not and, in fact, made him want to read it even more.
What does this matter? If the thousands of emails you're recieving tell you that that review ruined it for them -- than their word should be valued as much as this bizarre co-worker who truly must not be a real fan. Why should this person's stupid-head opinion of "it didn't ruin it" count for more than the public who is enraged?
McElroy made an even more telling point: If The Times had waited until Saturday, or even Sunday, to review the book, most readers would not have been able to finish its 759 pages by then.
Another idiotic quote. Clearly he can't read very fast. I've already surmised that a first read through will take me approximately 6 to 7 hours. This is of non-stop reading. But -- even with halted reading making considerations for interruptions and meals - I'd have this book finished Saturday by dinner time. Evidently McElroy isn't a very good reader. I'm surprised he admits it.
My brother - the fan that entered my family into this series at the age 0f 11 (Harry's age!) - finished the 4th book when it came out in less than 1 day. He was 15?
I think McElroy isn't giving the book or it's reader's their credit.
The article goes on to say the lady walked into a bookshop and bought it off a shelf -- blah blah blah. I'm not buying it. I want to know the name of the bookstore and I'm sure Scholastic does too. If it were true, that this book was sitting on open shelves some where ... just willy nilly ... than there would be way more spoilers than we've seen. Someone would have created a website just for this reason and posted something. With billions of Harry Potter fans worldwide ... one of them would have gotten their hands on this book. Instead ... it seems that only Harry Potter cynics - those that haven't read the books and think they are all "hype" (as this articles author clearly does) - have gotten a hold of the book. From the original faker, the guy who said Harry Potter led children to the devil, to the NYT writing a glowing review of a book not yet released just to say they did.
"We reviewed the HP book before anyone else."
Yes ... and you further demonstrated your lack of committment to professional, ethical journalism.
Comments