I’m Just Mad about Harry

Posted 19 July, 2007 in Book News, Book Reviewing |

I really didn’t want to give any more press to the new Harry Potter volume, since it’s received more than enough already, much of it the kind of fawning adulation that turns otherwise skeptical literary journalists into slavering acolytes of a marketing behemoth whose hubris apparently knows no bounds. (Now there’s a story worthy of treatment.)

But Michiko Kakutani’s New York Times review of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows has me turning cartwheels, and not in a good way.

First off, the Times managed to get its hands on a copy of the book, despite the draconian sales embargo placed on the title by publishers Bloomsbury (in the U.K.), Scholastic (in the U.S.), and Raincoast (in Canada). How did the Times get its hands on a copy of the book? Did it involve a clandestine meeting between Kakutani and some shadowy, raincoat-clad publisher’s representative in a dank parking lot somewhere? Apparently not. According to the review “a copy [of the book] was purchased at a New York City store yesterday.” This means one of two things. Either the clerk at the unidentified “New York City store” who made the sale was unaware of the purchaser’s identity and is thus wantonly flouting the embargo, or said clerk knew who the purchaser was, which means that the Times is getting preferential treatment.

Either way, what really irks me is the notion that the book was purchased yesterday. This means that Kakutani consumed the entire 759-page tome and managed to write a 1,152-word review of it in under twenty-four hours. In fact, given the deadlines at the Times and their printing schedules, it was probably closer to twelve hours from the time of purchase to the time of filing.

How is it possible to read an entire novel (and a lengthy novel, at that), then formulate a cogent, thoughtful reaction to it in under one calendar day? The kind of close reading, sober second thought, analysis, and comparison that careful criticism (or even careful book reviewing) requires preclude such a rushed timeline. It should have been physically impossible. But such is the furore over all things Harry, that Kakutani managed to put the laws of physics aside and churn out a review.

Forget the fact that Kakutani’s review is so effusive as to beggar description. (Although she does admit that the novel “has some lumpy passages of exposition and a couple of clunky detours,” these mild cavils are trumped by her comparing the work variously to Shakespeare, Dickens, Joseph Campbell, L. Frank Baum, and J.R.R. Tolkien. I haven’t read Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows — there’s an embargo, don’t you know? — but I’ve read enough of the earlier books to know that the only thing that Harry Potter shares in common with Henry V is the first initial of their given names.) In their desperate need to be first, to scoop all others by getting an early review of the book out, Kakutani and the Times have basically given the middle finger to literature.

So, too, has the Baltimore Sun, which also has an early review. Although less forthcoming than the Times about the provenance of their review copy, the Sun review is no less over-the-top, comparing Rowling to Plato and Descartes, praising her “consummate storytelling skills” (while failing to mention that most of these are cribbed from other sources), and calling the series “a classic bildungsroman.”

“Has there ever been a better symbol of depression than the Dementors …?” asks reviewer Mary Carole McCauley, who has obviously never heard of Robert Burton’s Anatomy of Melancholy. McCauley continues: “Readers could enjoy Rowling’s temporary, folksy fix for chasing away the blues (eat chocolate) while applauding the more permanent balm she offers: Concentrate with all your might on the events and people that have made you happy.” Which is simultaneously trite and an indication that Rowling is an avowed advocate of The Secret.

What was I saying about giving the middle finger to literature?

But, of course, it was never about literature, was it? It was, and remains, about money and marketing. It’s doubtful that Scholastic will pursue the New York Times or the Baltimore Sun with the litigious vigour that it is threatening to rain down upon distributor Levy Home Entertainment and seller DeepDiscount.com for allegedly releasing copies of the book early; that would be shooting themselves in the foot. (A statement from Scholastic reads in part: “We are taking immediate legal action against DeepDiscount.com and Levy Home Entertainment. The number of copies shipped is around one one-hundredth of one percent of the total U.S. copies to go on sale at 12:01 am on July 21st.”)

And the world keeps turning. And we’re one day closer to putting all of this madness behind us.

2 comments to “I’m Just Mad about Harry”

ragdoll, July 19th, 2007 at 4:02 pm:

• Bravo.

  I’m sick of hearing about it and I don’t even read Harry Potter.

  But it’s a hard realization when the NY Times has to resort to a form of sensationalized journalism to sell a paper.

amy, July 22nd, 2007 at 5:42 pm:

• Yeah, REALLY. And sorry, but doesn’t anyone think it’s sort of sick and sad that the book everyone’s losing their minds over is a children’s book? I mean, that’s nice for children and all, but can’t adults get excited about, like, real, adult books?

Your comment:

Name (required)

Mail (requried)

Website

Security code (Required)*
To prove that you're not a bot, enter this code