It just happened to fall into my lap!
Why is Jo so gorgeous?
"We came across a copy of 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows' at a store in New York City and we bought it."
So says the New York Times about how they were able to review DH two days before it was published. Is it just me or does that just seem incredibly convienent?
And how do booksellers keep ignoring the explicit instructions NOT TO SELL THE DAMN BOOK BEFORE 12:01 AM TOMORROW? Every book launch, there's always some Mom and Pop store that somehow doesn't get the memo that they're not allowed to sell the books until a certain time on a certain day and sell them just a few days in advance, stirring up all kinds of trouble in fandom and raising blood pressures around the world. Thank God this is the last one.
But really, comparing the NY Times's actions to the Boston Tea Party is just riddikulus, Bloomsbury.
And I love how all the industry people who can't believe the backlash about the leaked copies automatically think it's about the money:
"I can't think of an example from our publishing list where sales were hurt," says Paul Bogaards, director of publicity at Alfred A. Knopf, which published Clinton's book. "None of the leaks are going to hurt sales of Potter."
I don't know how some people just don't get it.
Last post for the weekend. Will come back online after I've read it.
"We came across a copy of 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows' at a store in New York City and we bought it."
So says the New York Times about how they were able to review DH two days before it was published. Is it just me or does that just seem incredibly convienent?
And how do booksellers keep ignoring the explicit instructions NOT TO SELL THE DAMN BOOK BEFORE 12:01 AM TOMORROW? Every book launch, there's always some Mom and Pop store that somehow doesn't get the memo that they're not allowed to sell the books until a certain time on a certain day and sell them just a few days in advance, stirring up all kinds of trouble in fandom and raising blood pressures around the world. Thank God this is the last one.
But really, comparing the NY Times's actions to the Boston Tea Party is just riddikulus, Bloomsbury.
And I love how all the industry people who can't believe the backlash about the leaked copies automatically think it's about the money:
"I can't think of an example from our publishing list where sales were hurt," says Paul Bogaards, director of publicity at Alfred A. Knopf, which published Clinton's book. "None of the leaks are going to hurt sales of Potter."
I don't know how some people just don't get it.
Last post for the weekend. Will come back online after I've read it.