Harry Potter

Because isn't everyone talking about it, these days?

Technically, I'm not breaking my vow to only talk about writing on my blog, because Harry Potter is quite possibly the biggest publishing phenomenon of our time. Writers need to talk about Harry Potter. It should be a rule.

That said, I am, as a long-time Harry fan and unpublished writer, disgusted by the New York Times' decision to break the embargo and publish an early review of Deathly Hallows. Publishing this review is disrespectful, not just to Rowling and to the publishers of Hallows, but to the worldwide fans who have waited so many years to enjoy the final chapters of this series.

I have a choice. I choose not to read the review. Unfortunately, over the course of the next two days, I will also have to avoid the news, as all news stations will pick up and distribute major spoilers and gleefully sneak them in as tickers between the latest news in Iraq and today's Paris Hilton report. The internet, too, is tricky; I can no longer trust that the major (and minor) news outlets won't flash information that I don't want to see. That I will avoid all newsgroups and Harry Potter fan sites is just a given.

Okay. I can probably avoid all media. After all, it's only two days, and I've got writing to do.

But I can't avoid people. And it's ultimately the people for whom The New York Times won't take responsibility. The Times will argue that people have a choice about whether or not they read the review. But they can't prevent those people who do choose to read from very innocently (or perhaps intentionally) discussing the last Harry Potter book at the grocery store line, in the coffee shops, or even while waiting to pick up their children from school. And those are the people who worry me the most. They know I'm a fan; they might not think twice about scooping me. They would view it as a favor or a conversation starter. Even my husband takes a cruel delight in taunting me with details that I don't want to know.

The people in charge of disseminating information have a great deal of power, and an even greater responsibility to the public they serve. But The Times didn't consider their readers, or the value of publishing an early review; they simply wished to "be the first" to review the last Harry Potter book. I won't even comment at length on the underhanded measures The Times took to obtain a bootleg copy of the book in the first place. When respected news outlets resort to cheating in order to beat other media to the punch, I question the ethics and honesty of the information they present.

Sure, today the Times may sell a lot of newspapers. I bet they won't tomorrow.