tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30544984.post7720449441082017552..comments2024-03-08T03:24:19.823-05:00Comments on Where The Hell Am I?: Michiko Kakutani's Review of "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows"Reginahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09024832959937205245noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30544984.post-51773317214282257122007-07-22T21:17:00.000-04:002007-07-22T21:17:00.000-04:00Right...sorry about that. However, it's so long th...Right...sorry about that. However, it's so long that you can just scroll over it and skip what Kakutani wrote.<BR/><BR/>You see, I've been trying to figure out how to do partial posts on this blog. You know, have an intro and then people can click to see the rest. With Potter-mania taking hold, I've given up until I finish the series (a roundabout way to say I'm still in Book 6, as much as I love the series I won't sacrifice my social life to read it.)<BR/><BR/>I would agree that your first two points are definitely relevant, but I read Kakutani's review. I was excited that she reviewed it before the book came out because she's is the Queen Bee of the NYT book review section and I was happy to read that she thought it was a good read. And again, I hold she gave nothing of importance away because she doesn't reveal who dies.<BR/><BR/>We KNEW people were dying months ago because Rowling herself said she was going to kill people off. THAT'S what got the buzz going. So with all due respect to the creator of this great story, but if Rowling is irritated maybe she should be irritated with the source of the buzz around who does or doesn't die. The source of the buzz is Rowling, so if she's going to be angry at anyone she needs to be angry at herself.<BR/><BR/>I'm with the NYT on this. The book has been on sale for months and there is only so much power that could be wielded once the books were published and in transit. It's news worthy and that's what the NYT does. Avoid all Harry Potter press if you're concerned about it. That's what I would do. In my defense, it's pretty clear I've blogged about Kakutani's review and I have a nice big graphic at the start, so you can just skip the post.<BR/><BR/>We have differences of opinion which are of little consequence now that the book has been out for over two days where I am.<BR/><BR/>I agree with Kakutani and the NYT. I do think, however, they ought to have warned that there were spoilers, no matter how minor. However, you can't deny that this book release and that review WERE front page news.Reginahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09024832959937205245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30544984.post-78602144699853526772007-07-22T20:47:00.000-04:002007-07-22T20:47:00.000-04:00OMG! I've been surfing all day for stuff that was ...OMG! I've been surfing all day for stuff that was completely un-Potter related and here I almost come across the VERY REVIEW I've been trying to avoid.<BR/><BR/>The problem wasn't just the review it was that<BR/><BR/>a) they put it on the front page as news - instead of in the arts & leisure as a review<BR/><BR/>b) they didn't mark it clearly as having spoilers - some folks thought they were reading an article about the hype surrounding the release and read too far before they knew what was up<BR/><BR/>c) the NYT spoiled people around the globe as the story got picked up around the net. One lady got the information in a translated article in Brazil<BR/><BR/>I wrote a whole article about the NYT not apologizing and how they've screwed this up just like they did with Bush and the wiretapping.<BR/><BR/>Check it out.ThatDeborahGirlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02235918238595525061noreply@blogger.com