On Thursday, I had a lovely visit with Sarah, an old friend who blew through town on a Triumphant East Coast Driving Tour (a.k.a. vacation). As one of the charter moderators here on BookBlog, she is, naturally, a bibliophile.
In a rare moment of refined ladylike behavior, we discussed the books over tea sandwiches and deviled eggs in the cafe at Bergdorf Goodman. Well, rare for me, I must confess. Sarah possesses more poise and culture sense than I could ever aspire to and didn't bat an eyelash when I wheeled and dealed for a free gift from the Estée Lauder makeup guy even though I had no intention of buying anything. She did and got a gift set from a promotion that wouldn't be starting until next week, and she laughed politely when the makeup guy told me to "shut up" then stapled her bag closed as a metaphor for zipping my lips. A real lady courteously accommodates even the coarsest of people and handles every uncomfortable situation with grace. Sarah is all that and a bag of chips, despite the wardrobe malfunction at an ex-boyfriend's wedding.
As one of the faithful, Sarah was a little upset knowing that she'd be on the road today: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
My friend Kate is also a Harry fan and picked up her pre-paid copy at an indie bookshop's Midnight Magic event. Under normal circumstances, she would have ordered from Amazon but doubts about whether they planned to upgrade shipping for delivery today drove her off. When I called to check on her progress, she was about halfway through by 11 a.m. and steering clear of all media until she finishes.
Sarah and Kate are reasonable people taking responsibility for their own fun. As everyone should. As Rachel Sklar did by avoiding Michiko Kakutani's early review in The New York Times. Yet it didn't stop Sklar from tearing the paper of record a new one at The Huffington Post, complete with a CIA-style blacked out graphic of the review.
How on earth could you run a review of the last Harry Potter? 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.
Give me a break with the "public trust" and "industry-wide embargo" nonsense. Seriously, most of the public doesn't care. Even more shrill is The Leaky Cauldron's call for letters and suggested text.
Many ask why we care — why fans aren't all so rabid to get the book that we'll sop up any illegal download or purchase. There's one simple answer: We respect the author. We thought that a newspaper like yours, where so many of your reporters become authors themselves, would understand and respect that. We're so saddened that we were wrong. We feel let down by you and your editorial board.Sincerely,
Your name here
Harry Potter Fan, and member of Jo's Army
Oh, come on. Why not just avoid the paper? Besides, The New York Times didn't sign a contract with Bloomsbury and Scholastic, like the booksellers did. The contract, by the way, also contained ridiculous conditions like keeping the books "in a secure area under lock and key" and even put the kibosh on taking photographs of them being delivered. They're books, not gold ingots.
And so what if some copies were mailed out early or if pages were posted on the Internet? Less furor erupted over the Valerie Plame incident. But Bloomsbury threatened to enforce the embargo, and Scholastic turned it into a promise when it filed lawsuits against Levy Home Entertainment and Infinity Resources. Without a book 8 to hold (or withold) over booksellers heads, the suits might be the natural course of action to take for breach of contract. After selling around 12 million copies, though, making a stink over 1200 seems kind of petty.
Better to let Harry go.
