Book Cellar employee and Harry Potter fanatic Kimberly Price, 21, hugs a shipment of boxes containing the final Harry Potter
book in the back room of the store at the Crossings Mall in Tannersville, PA. Photo for the
Pocono Record by Mark A. Genito.
Well, The New York Times and Baltimore Sun whacked hornets nests yesterday when they ran reviews of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows two days before the book's release. The way some readers and even Huffington Post blogger Rachel Sklar reacted, you would have thought the papers gave away the exact coordinates of a team of elite military troops closing in on Osama bin Laden.
"How on earth could you run a review of the last Harry Potter?" Sklar wrote of the Times review. "To do so, you had to break an industry-wide embargo
— and not just any embargo, an embargo that is almost tantamount to a
public trust at this point, given the worldwide hype about Harry Potter
and the excitement and intense emotion generated by — finally — the end
to this epic series."
Readers at the Baltimore paper's website weighed in with comments like, "
I don't see how a respectable newspaper would print a review of a book that has not been legally released," and "Printing the review early is just a cheap way to sell papers."
Personally, I am as impressed with The Times and the Sun as Miranda Priestly was when Andy Sachs delivered two copies of an unpublished Potter book in The Devil Wears Prada. To the best of anyone's knowledge, Scholastic and British counterpart Bloomsbury didn't send out any advance copies of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows for review, as the publishers do with most books. Even Entertainment Weekly columnist and best-selling author Stephen King lamented that he had not received an advance copy of the final edition of the Potter saga.
The Sun says it received its copy through a staffer's friend's housekeeper's second cousin's child's girlfriend's dog, or something like that, who received one of the accidental-early mail-order shipments that sent Scholastic into orbit. The Times claims it bought its copy at a bookstore in New York -- H.G. Wells' Booksellers? -- that mysteriously already had a copy. However they got it, bravo, you obtained one of the most fiercely guarded tomes in history and got a review out before anyone else. That's called a scoop.
Now, I do take issue with one aspect of Mary Carole McCauley's Sun review, in that her last two graphs divulge an important outcome of the story, and seem to confirm that the online photos of the epilogue that are running around the internet are real. Critics that spoil the ending of a book, film or other artwork drive me as crazy as they drive you. Granted, sometimes it can be hard to express an opinion about a work without relaying the end. Divulging what she does essentially makes McCauley's point in an insightful and enlightening review. But we, as critics, are paid to practice a craft and should strive to find ways to write around those problems, without ruining things for our readers.
For some people, the Times review, which is published in the Weekender section of today's Herald-Leader, may give away an unnecessarily large number of details, though it divulges no outcomes.
But neither review ruins it for me, or makes me any less excited to go out tonight to get my copy. If anything, they pique my interest. They are part of the ramp up -- along with learning the name of the book, seeing the cover art and catching the latest movie -- of excitement for the book (both reviews recommend it). If you don't want to know anything before you crack the cover, you simply don't read the review. That's one reason we writers appreciate people who read our stuff: you don't have to.
Now, as for the "embargo" Sklar speaks of -- and I am going to assume she was overwhelmed by Potter passion and that she really doesn't know as little about journalism as her post suggests: As critics, we deal with embargoes regularly. Most movies that we see in advance screenings are shown to us with the understanding that we will not publish a review until opening day. Other material like books and CDs often come with similar embargoes.
But in those cases, we are receiving an advance look or listen so that we can provide a timely review, and part of the deal is, don't drop the review until such-and-such date. But no such thing happened with Harry Potter. Sure, Scholastic asked, but they provided nothing. The Times and Sun obtained their copies of Potter independent of Scholastic, therefore, no agreement was breached. The journalists were simply enterprising in obtaining information -- I'd really like to know how the Sun got the early recipient to give up his or her copy. No laws were broken. These journalists did not don black masks and break into bookstores to get their copies.
It was a bit disturbing to see the "You should have followed Scholastic's orders," tone of some of these responses. Geeze, if journalists followed every hollow command of "don't print that," we would not have most of the important news stories in history.
I'm not equating getting the scoop on the final Potter with Watergate, but I am saying folks need to lay off
The Times and the Sun, who just did their jobs really well, and except for those two graphs in the Sun review, didn't ruin anything. No one in the legit media, as I could gather, was doing anything malicious, like the guys who printed up the "Dumbledore dies on page . . . " T-shirts when Half-Blood Prince came out.
And for the record, I do hope there are elite military troops closing in on Osama, but I don't want to know about that until the deal is done.
Potter reading:
~ OK, I didn't put hotlinks to the reviews above, but if you want to read them, knowing there may be some spoilers, here's The Times' and here's the Sun's. The Sun's review includes video of McCauley discussing the book and the review.
~ Jamie Gumbrecht wrote a great piece on death in children's literature for Thursday's paper.
~ Heather Chapman's Muggle Tongue blog is rolling along, and will shift into overdrive this weekend.