19 July 2007

Spoiler Outrage

A letter I recently fired off to letters@nytimes.com:

To whom it may concern:

I'm writing to express my disappointment with the New York Times' decision to publish an early review of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows based on spoilers leaked prior to the book's publication. Although going after the exclusive scoop may or may not be good journalism, it's certainly bad citizenship in the world community. Millions of fans are waiting patiently to read the book--with no desire to find out what happens early--and the information you've chosen to share could ruin the experience for many of them who trust your newspaper for accurate and sensitive delivery of the news.

I'm extremely saddened by your newspaper's unwillingness to help preserve the integrity of what Orson Scott Card called "the most significant event in English language literature in decades." But I guess that's what we can expect from the newspaper who decided to create a children's best seller list explicitly to stop the Harry Potter books from continually topping the 'normal' best seller list, which belongs to more serious fiction--like the Danielle Steele novel that replaced them for the number one slot.

Congratulations on your literary integrity.


Liz Muir
Harry Potter Fan, and member of Jo’s Army

Want to express your own outrage? Check out the instructions for The Leaky Cauldron's letter writing campaign. Be sure to include your contact information (name, address, and phone number) if you want your letter considered for publication. See also JK Rowling's response.

And all of the links in this post are spoiler free.


amissio said...

Well put!

I'm a Potter fan and I've been reading almost all of the news articles that I can about the upcoming book - I like to get even more excited about what I'm going to read at midnight day after next. So I started reading the Times article, thinking that it would be yet another rehash of the story so far, the excitement leading up to it, and general good times.

But no. They had to ruin it for us all. I read half of it before I realized that they were already providing spoilers (not too big, but my God! they're still spoilers) and now I'm trying to scrub them out of my brain.

Dan said...


They didn't break any rule. The book was available for sale at a local New York City store. Blame that store, not the New York Times reviewer. Once a book is available, it is fair game.