No NYT #1 for HP7

[jmc_bks]

I'm not going to write about any HP7 content, I promise.  No spoilers here.  Just posting to share a link -- apparently Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, no matter how well it sells, cannot be #1 on the NYT list.  (H/T to Walt, who posted the link over at SBTB.)

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I so agree that it's stupid to keep it off of the bestsellers list because "it's a childrens book." That's just dumb.

I am waiting for most everyone to read it to review although I am surfing blogland to see if anyone is talking about it. So far I've found 3 discussions. LOL.


Mailyn

[(Anonymous)]

Jackie Kessler blogged her review (with spoilers):

http://www.jackiekessler.com/blog/2007/07/23/death-doom-and-destruction-in-harry-potter/

doug

[jmc-bks.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the link!

[(Anonymous)]

I suspect Rowling is crying all the way to the bank about this!

doug

[jmc-bks.livejournal.com]

I don't imagine that it matters to Rowling, inasmuch as most (sane) authors (with bills to pay) would take the sales over the recognition. My frustration mirrors that of Michael Glitz: what is the point of a bestseller list if the publisher of the list decides which books belong on it? It seems like gerrymandering, to me, to pick and choose which genres are appropriate for the list, rather than looking quite literally at which books have sold the best in the given period.

[dogzzz2002.livejournal.com]

Ah, stupidity is back in vogue. Good to know.

CindyS