unLOCKED #40: Bloomsbury rather uncommittal about spoilers
http://www.bloomsburymagazine.com/harrypotter/default.asp?sec=8&sec2=1
has i.a. the following:
We are aware of some speculation in the media that internet “spoilers” purporting to be extracts from the book have come from the few early copies sold. We confirm that this is not true as is clear from the press release of July 18th issued by Scholastic Inc, the US publisher of Harry Potter. The “spoilers” remain unauthenticated.
Well, one assumes that the Carpet Book/Big Item (which is the major (fake) spoiler) is not making use of a copy sold to early, but either of a library copy or a non-autentic fabrication.
JK Rowling said at 1pm today, ‘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.
Well, ahem: the NYT did not exactly give a great number major plot details, and apparently it reports about the content of a book they acquired legally and a lot of people are interested in. IMO: They just did their job. If DH is a good book and fun to read only if you don't know before about its contents: well: than it's no book worth reading at all: a summary/abstract would do. Reviews i.a. do provide people with information that makes it easier for them to decide whether to buy the book or not. Once again: IMO: the NYT just did their job. These "secrecy" aspects might be relevant to Bloomsbury's marketing. But it's not the NYT's job to help them with their marketing.
Some readers may prefer to read the book without any prior information (in which case, BTW, they also would have to disregard a good part of what JKR herself said concerning the content og DH ... ), other readers may have other preferences. It is not the job of any author to prescribe how the readers have to read a text by that author; suggestions may be possible; but here the wording is stronger; and the claim that JKR knows how "literally millions of readers" want to read that book is, well, ahem, perhaps lacking completely convincing evidence, to say the least.
Once I've read the book I will comment on it how and when and where I want to do so - irrespective of whether that might be acccording to the wishes of 2 readers, or 20, or 20 000 000, or not. At 00:01 GMT+1 on 2007-07-21 DH will be in the readers' hands, and no longer in JKRs hands. And if a reader of that books tells a non-reader about the book: well: that's not the author's business.
And claiming that those who have read the NYT review will have far less pleasure at reading the book than those who did not: well, I hope that's not true. If it should be so nevertheless: well, IMO, with quite some probability a good place to look for the reason would be the book itself; and IMO it would not be eaactly an extra a reason for a favourable opinion of that book.
I have to admit: I'm definitely irritated.
has i.a. the following:
We are aware of some speculation in the media that internet “spoilers” purporting to be extracts from the book have come from the few early copies sold. We confirm that this is not true as is clear from the press release of July 18th issued by Scholastic Inc, the US publisher of Harry Potter. The “spoilers” remain unauthenticated.
Well, one assumes that the Carpet Book/Big Item (which is the major (fake) spoiler) is not making use of a copy sold to early, but either of a library copy or a non-autentic fabrication.
JK Rowling said at 1pm today, ‘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.
Well, ahem: the NYT did not exactly give a great number major plot details, and apparently it reports about the content of a book they acquired legally and a lot of people are interested in. IMO: They just did their job. If DH is a good book and fun to read only if you don't know before about its contents: well: than it's no book worth reading at all: a summary/abstract would do. Reviews i.a. do provide people with information that makes it easier for them to decide whether to buy the book or not. Once again: IMO: the NYT just did their job. These "secrecy" aspects might be relevant to Bloomsbury's marketing. But it's not the NYT's job to help them with their marketing.
Some readers may prefer to read the book without any prior information (in which case, BTW, they also would have to disregard a good part of what JKR herself said concerning the content og DH ... ), other readers may have other preferences. It is not the job of any author to prescribe how the readers have to read a text by that author; suggestions may be possible; but here the wording is stronger; and the claim that JKR knows how "literally millions of readers" want to read that book is, well, ahem, perhaps lacking completely convincing evidence, to say the least.
Once I've read the book I will comment on it how and when and where I want to do so - irrespective of whether that might be acccording to the wishes of 2 readers, or 20, or 20 000 000, or not. At 00:01 GMT+1 on 2007-07-21 DH will be in the readers' hands, and no longer in JKRs hands. And if a reader of that books tells a non-reader about the book: well: that's not the author's business.
And claiming that those who have read the NYT review will have far less pleasure at reading the book than those who did not: well, I hope that's not true. If it should be so nevertheless: well, IMO, with quite some probability a good place to look for the reason would be the book itself; and IMO it would not be eaactly an extra a reason for a favourable opinion of that book.
I have to admit: I'm definitely irritated.