The New York Times Has Crossed Harry Potter and ALL His Fans (No Spoilers Here)

What was the Times thinking by releasing their review of JK Rowling’s last book in the Harry Potter series: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows? Do they really think that they will convince people to buy the book with an early review?

I think their reasoning is much more sinister than that. This is all about sales and sticking it to “the man,” though in this case, “the man” is one of the richest women in the world. The NYT has a history of publicizing and pushing the socialist agenda of taking away from the rich to make an even playing field instead of helping everyone learn the skills to succeed on their own.

We all know young people don’t read newspapers and that news on the Internet is viral. All they had to do was publish their review in their online edition on the front page and, voila! Ad click-throughs on their site.

What those small-minded people in their executive offices with stuffy collars and $1,000 shoes don’t realize is that nothing they do will have an impact on sales for this book, particularly. Do you know anyone who waited 2 years for Star Wars Episode 3 that didn’t go see the movie after reading a critic’s review? I sure don’t. In fact, I don’t give a flying monkey’s butt about what some professional critic has to say about a franchise that I am a big fan of, be it positive or negative. Rotten Tomatoes could have given it a 23% and I would have been there at midnight anyway.

Dumber still, in my eye, are the people that WANT to ruin the ending of the last book in such a great series. Now, I know that those people exist, who look at the end of a book after reading the first 15 pages, but that defeats the enjoyment of the book. What fun is it to know the final score of a football game when you start to watch your recording and discover that the final score comes in the second quarter? There is absolutely no point in watching the rest of the game. Same thing goes for books. Period.

Stop it, people. Do you have a problem with the NYT publishing this review early?