Unforgivable

[Note: This post has been updated (3) as of 5:47 AM Eastern on 21 Jul. See below.]

Michiko Kakutani, chief book reviewer for The New York Times, somehow got her hot little hands on a prerelease copy of Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows ("purchased at a New York City store yesterday," she informs us), the seventh and final installment of the Harry Potter series, and ... reviewed it in the pages of today's New York Times book section. She avoided including spoilers directly, but hinted at enough to spoil it nevertheless for Potter fans everywhere, not to mention blunt the magic (N.P.I.) of perhaps the most singular event in fiction publishing history: the simultaneous reading on 21 July (the book's release date) of this avidly- and long-awaited final installment and dénouement of this beloved series by millions upon millions of Potter fans worldwide.

A crass and callous, not to mention unforgivably thoughtless, act.

Ms. Kakutani has much to answer for as does The Times.

---

Update (9:36 AM Eastern on 19 Jul): Lindesay Irvine of the Guardian Unlimited posts his thoughts on Ms. Kakutani's piece here.

Update 2 (12:12 PM Eastern on 19 Jul): Author J.K. Rowling comments on the publication of Ms. Kakutani's piece:

I am staggered that American newspapers have decided to publish purported spoilers in the form of reviews in complete disregard of the wishes of literally millions of readers, particularly children, who wanted to reach Harry’s final destination by themselves, in their own time. I am incredibly grateful to all those newspapers, booksellers and others who have chosen not to attempt to spoil Harry’s last adventure for fans.

Read more here.

Update 3 (5:47 AM Eastern on 21 Jul): Clark Hoyt, Public Editor (ombudsman) of The New York Times, responds to the furious storm of dismay and outrage consequent Ms. Kakutani's pre-release review, and a more choice bit of sophistry it would be difficult to find. Sample:

Rick Lyman, the books and theatre editor, said, "Our feeling is that once a book is offered up for sale at any public, retail outlet, and we purchase a copy legally and openly, we are free to review it."

[...]

I think it’s important to remember that there was never a contract or an agreement between The Times and Rowling or her publisher. The publisher set the release date unilaterally as part of the brilliant marketing campaign that has propelled the entire Harry Potter phenomenon. Neither The Times nor any other newspaper had an obligation to help enforce the release date.

If anything, Kakutani’s favorable review and the controversy around its timing has just created more buzz and anticipation – if more is possible – on the eve of the launch of what is sure to be this year’s best seller.