This morning, I woke up to go to work as usual. But instead of making myself breakfast, I was writing this letter to the editor concerning by Michiko Kakutani's review of this summer's most anticipated book--Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. If you aee a fan who doesn't want to be, I encourage you not to read the review. I--unfortunately--read part of it before writing the following letter.
To Whom It May Concern:
I have been a devoted fan of the New York Times for throughout high school and college. Your paper has upheld a certain sense of integrity that is sometimes lacking in the rest of the media today. Your paper praises citizens who uphold moral standards. However, that is all part of the past.
I am writing to express my disappointment that your publication printed an early review of Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows. Not only does this act condone that certain New York bookstore’s contract-breaking actions, this act goes against the expressed wishes of JK Rowling and anyone that calls themselves a true Harry Potter fan.
Since our modern world is driven by the media, it is hard enough for a Harry Potter fan to avoid spoilers on the Internet. Now news stations around the country have discussed spoilers, so we can’t get our news from there either. Now I’ll have to get my news from The Washington Post or The Financial Times because the New York Times has lost any respect for its reader. Not only have you disappointed millions of children around the world with your actions, you have disappointed the millions of adults who look to the New York Times to be a bastion of good taste and standards. When the New York Times succumbs to such tabloid tactics, who won’t?
But why fans aren’t all so rabid to get the book that we’ll sop up any illegal download or purchase? There’s one simple answer: We respect the author. Over the past ten years, JK Rowling has created a character and a world adore. We can wait two more days to finish Harry’s journey as she wants us to finish our own.
We thought that a newspaper like yours—where so many of your reporters become authors themselves—would understand and respect that.
Sincerely,
Liz
Student, Harry Potter Fan, and member of Jo’s Army
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I just read the review and personally, I'd be pissed off because it reads more as a summary than an actual review; though, he doesn't really reveal that much. I think the book should still pack a bunch of surprises.
--Mike
Check out the ProgU News Feed:
http://www.progressiveu.org/news
spoilers aside. I was most deeply upset that the reviewer condoned illegal contract breaking activity. Writing a review against the authors wishes. I never thought the article gave away everything. but jo has responded and deemed the article "spoilerish."
Oh dear, the jargon of sci-fi/fantasy fans is remarkably hilarious.
--Mike
Check out the ProgU News Feed:
http://www.progressiveu.org/news
i read this over and i can't believe it. it's sad that the New York Times published a negative book review on the final book. i have to agree with you because i've read it and i thought it was another great trip around the wizarding world. i consider it more of a coming-of-age story for the main character. the reviewer must be misunderstanding the whole book and probably the entire series.
but what i'm wondering is, what did the review say about the book? i would like to know the basic summary of what it said. the Times is one of the greatest newspaper publications in the country with a circulation of over 2 million. and i happen to be one of those readers currently cuz i have access to free copies of the Times at college. i haven't seen the review and i would like to see it since i'm a harry potter fan too. if you could post a summary of it or paraphrase it without plaigiarising, that would be fine. thanks!