Harry Potter Leaked Via Handheld Camera 427
owlgorithm writes "Salon reports that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows has been leaked four days before it hits bookstores. It turns out that someone with access to the American edition of the book has taken a photograph of every one of the pages and made them available via bittorrent. Publishers may well be quaking in their boots, but in some places the quality is barely legible. On many pages the pirateer's hands are in the pictures with other pages needing a bit of Photoshopping just to make out the words. It appears many of the sites have been removing the content, naturally enough."
So? (Score:4, Insightful)
and it won't cost them (Score:5, Insightful)
Great marketing (Score:3, Insightful)
I should pattent this method of advertising.
Just Fraking Great (Score:2, Insightful)
Unexpectedly ruined? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:and it won't cost them (Score:5, Insightful)
By now the book has been distributed widely in preparation for the release, coming into contact with large numbers of people many of which are Harry Potter fans who don't take corporate secrecy particularly seriously. This was likely to leak just as critics' movie screeners, and published-submitted videogames commonly leak.
There's no cause to believe the PR people did anything intentionally -- any marketer would have to be a total fool to attempt such a risky trick on a book guaranteed to sell millions anyway. If it backfired, his ass is fired.
Sad comment on society (Score:2, Insightful)
I will never understand... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a Sorting Hat replica I won from hollywood.com years ago, and yes, I will be wearing it to the midnight Harry Potter party, looking ridiculous, embarrassing my kids, and loving every minute of it. LoL. Enjoy life, you only go around once.
Re:and it won't cost them (Score:3, Insightful)
i highly doubt that someone will just download this and not bother with the book.
there may not be any value added with a movie or a game (there might even be negative value added with DRM or copy protection), but a book is substantially better than these pictures.
Re:Unexpectedly ruined? (Score:5, Insightful)
Christ. Pedants.
In other Harry Potter news... (Score:5, Insightful)
An Insightful Guardian columnist has finally come out and said what literate people have known all along. J.K. Rowling's writing is RUBBISH. [guardian.co.uk]
(If you find that revelation shocking, just don't ask about Dan Brown, ok?)
Predictably, a chorus of twit commenters felt driven to argue that the Potter Phenomenon's sheer Scale and Success makes it self-evidently Valuable to Society (much like B. Gates must be an Important and Clever Person because he's Really Rich.) Uh-uh. Crappy writing is not good for anyone, just like crappy food [supersizeme.com] (this may also come as a surprise to some [overlawyered.com]), and on this point I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Lezard:
All the Potter franchise does, like 99% of TV and Hollywood output, is entrench the hold of pointless and mediocre culture. The only thing unusual this time, is it's Made in Britain.
Re:and it won't cost them (Score:4, Insightful)
Like shooting John Lennon? (Score:1, Insightful)
I read the first four, and stopped there as it became evident that "JK Rowling" was in over her head. The first one was cute, the next few were passable, but she's really not that great of an author. Her last few books seem to reek of "I want to write serious literature", in the sort of undergraduate-english-major kind of way, while still covering all the mandatory bases to allow for the massive commercialization of the series that has made her one of the richest people in England (and one of the richest women alive).
I can console myself somewhat in that at least it's better than television. Still, I cry a bit inside whenever I see/hear Harry Potter being compared to Lord of the Rings or other true fantasy literature (and granted JRR Tolkien was still not the greatest writer ever, but he was a hell of a lot more original - I mean, he invented orcs, and many other core fantasy concepts). I feel like we're raising a generation that may read a bit, sure, but when they're grown up they're going to be going for the John Grisham and the Stephen King, not the Kurt Vonnegut, Douglas Adams, James Joyce, etc...
So to get back to the point, spoiling this book is nothing like killing John Lennon or anybody else. In fact, any book that relies this much on suspense about "who dies at the end?!?!" is already a bad book. Twist endings are not unheard of in good literature, but still it is the journey that is more important than the destination, and it seems that Harry Potter fans have forgotten this fact.
Re:In other Harry Potter news... (Score:1, Insightful)
Since there are no objective measures for determining the quality of writing, how does one prove that Harry Potter is rubbish? You can't, it is all a matter of opinion.
People quest for distinction and one to acquire distinction is to be person who mocks what is popular. That is what the Guardian writer and his fellow travelers are doing. The same happened when Dali went through a popular spell and it would occur Dostoevsky became all the rage.
Personally, I find Harry Potter boring, but I feel that way about most fiction. It is merely a matter of personal taste.
Re:The main problem... (Score:5, Insightful)
Having something "spoiled" is not simply a matter of having the suspense taken away. Yes, you can still enjoy the story if you know how certain things are going to be... but you don't enjoy it *as much* as if you're figuring out things as you go along. Ever watch a movie or read a book a second time? Ever notice things you didn't notice before... certain foreshadowings, links, etc.? It's a different experience when you know what happens than when you don't.
I accidentally got the books out of order in Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy; read 2/3rds of the way through Blue Mars before I read Green Mars. Then, realizing the mistake, stopped Blue and read Green. It wasn't nearly as much fun, knowing how the war would turn out and who would die and who would get captured and have a personality transplant and whatnot. (It's not nearly as interesting as it sounds; I wish I had those dozens of hours I spent slogging through the series back.) Reading the remainder of Blue Mars was much more diverting (the first 2/3rds was sort of confusing, for obvious reasons).
In fact, my husband and I have started avoiding trailers for much-anticipated movies, because even that spoils our enjoyment some. There are some movies or books that are better if you "know what to expect," but most of my favorite media experiences have been when I went in cold, knowing nothing about what to expect or what would happen.
Re:Just Fraking Great (Score:3, Insightful)
BTW, the Lone Gunmen are dead.
Don't be a pretentious ass (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm re-reading the Potter books for the first time, and yes, Rowlings weaknesses as a writer do shine through.
So what?
It's still a fun series. Not every movie needs to be Casablanca; the occasional plot light, special effects heavy movie can be fun sometimes. Not every song needs to be the Ode to Joy, sometimes it's fun to just sing along to some mindless, repetitive pop. We should eat our veggies, but the occasional candy is just fine for our health and a pleasant treat. Not every novel needs to be Brave New World, sometimes I want to enjoy some light fantasy about a kid exploring a magical world.
As for the claim that Potter is somehow bad for kids, that is utter nonsense. The reality is that most American kids really don't like reading. Hell, most American adults don't like reading. Forcing them to read "good" books (for just about any definition of "good") will just make them resentful and believe that books are something unpleasant to be avoided. I believe that's why so many Americans don't read; their emotional response to books linked mandatory book lists full of books that don't interest them. I can assure you that absent the Potter series those kids aren't going to magically start reading the Alice books. Books that the kids enjoy, even bad ones, encourage kids to read, convince them that books and other long form reading can be good. They may not enjoy any given "enduring classic" (for whatever definition you like), but any kid whose made it through Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix isn't going to be terribly daunted when facing 1984. Indeed, during my childhood I was strongly encouraged to read, but given wide freedom in what I read. I chose to read trashy fantasy. When I grew up and was assigned, say Madame Bovary in translation*, I blew through it while my classmates were bitching about how long and hard it was. After reading the first few Shannara novels in grade school, it was nothing. Reading begets reading. People who become serious readers tend to devour anything they can get their hands on. Maybe the bulk of their reading diet is romance novels, technothrillers, or fantasy, but they do occasionally read branch out and read other things. The people who fear books never do.
You and the Guardian writer are not enlightening all us ignorant savages that Rowling is a bad writer. No, you're just being a pretentious ass. It's not enough for you to enjoy the books you enjoy, you need to reach out and actively piss on the books other people enjoy. You're not changing anyone's mind. You're just enjoying being superior by your own tortured definition of superior. That makes you an ass.
* (Unless your goal is to make kids resent books as a source of long, boring, completely pointless crap, don't assign them Madame Bovary. I promise you that high school students will not appreciate it on any level.)
Re:And who saw that ending coming? (Score:5, Insightful)
On the one hand, it's something like 20 years old.
On the other hand, the Star Wars movies have become pop classics, and cultural icons. Thus, it is safe to assume that many people of each generation will want to watch them, and so we should try not to spoil it.
But wait...what order will they watch them? If they start with TPM, then they are going to already know about Vader when they get to the "I am your father" scene. It is no spoiler.
However, many of them will be lucky enough to have someone tell them the right way to watch the movies. (Start with ANH, and go forward until "I am your father", then gosub to TPM, AotC, and RotS to get the story behind Vader, then return and finish the series). It would be a spoiler for these people.
I think the Harry Potter books and/or films might end up in a similar position.
The rule should probably be that for any story (whether book, movie, comic, erotic flip book, whatever), you don't give away story details that might be spoilers unless you are sure you have an audience that already knows, or won't care.
Re:And who saw that ending coming? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're the kind of person who finds it impossible to enjoy any movie if you know how it ends, I would suggest either seeing every movie on opening night or learning to live with disappointment.
Re:Nobody cares... (Score:2, Insightful)
Unless we want our children to stagnate, yes, we do. Since there's plenty of books for children that do hold literary qualities, and with childhood being as short as it is, there's no need for exposing children to books beneath their level.
I'd rather have mine broaden their minds with Roald Dahl, Terry Pratchett and Philip Pullman than having them end up at the level of J. K. Rowlings and Nora Roberts.
Re:Nobody cares... (Score:3, Insightful)
Whatever qualities Terry Pratchett has, they are not as a writer of children's books. And I would rather have my kids reading J.K. Rowling than C.S. Lewis anyday. Rowling certainly has weaknesses as a writer; Lewis has all those weaknesses plus more -- moral, as well as literary. (No argument with Dahl and Pullman, mind you; but there aren't that many other children's writers who are more worth reading than Rowling. I'd rather read Harry Potter to the kids than the Wombles, say.)
Re:And who saw that ending coming? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the right way is obviously not to watch TPM, AtoC and RotS at all. And live happily ever after.
Re:In other Harry Potter news... (Score:5, Insightful)
1) people who enjoy tales of all sorts, and just have a good time escaping into an engaging story.
2) people who read books so that they can either be seen reading them, or can wave the experience about as some sort of intellectualist validation.
Reading - and the pleasure therefrom - is an intensely personal experience. While I can even agree with the critic's comments regarding Ms. Rowling's predictable, repetitive plotting, farcically two-dimensional characters, and generally unchallenging language, I take great exception to his second-level conclusion: that any respectably intelligent person must not enjoy the book. I agree, JK Rowlings' writing IS rubbish; that doesn't mean it cannot be enjoyable. Not every meal needs to be nutritionally constructive either.
And, it must also be said, for him to dismiss categorically the value of getting children INTO reading - getting them to understand that the words on the pages can convey a story as rousing, fascinating, or frightening as any movie or video game - is simply ignorant. I rather suspect that Mr. Lezard has no children nor really any interaction with same, except perhaps as frightening little beasts underfoot that must be tolerated when the family comes over for holidays.
Re:In other Harry Potter news... (Score:3, Insightful)
From what I recall of the Guardian, the primary purpose of their entertainment and lifestyle columnists is to derisively sneer at everything not esoteric or unattainable. If more than six people in London like something, it is inherently crap.
I approached the Harry Potter books with a great deal of cynicism and distrust, and actually found that they're GOOD TO READ! They're not complex stories, the writing isn't Nabokov or even Gaiman, but they're better than most.
Consider this: The average 'best-seller' is manufactured tripe. Stephen King is a surprisingly good writer (read some of his short fiction), but he's never let that get in the way of writing simple horror dreck for mass consumption and blockbuster sales. Then there's the fine works of Danielle Steel, Jilly Cooper, and other bestselling authors. In comparison, Rowling wrote some good stories that are fun and involving to read. They're not flawless certainly, but they're above average.
"...for a highly-educated woman like Rowling to knock out the same kind of material is, shall we say, somewhat disappointing."
So it's not acceptable for adults to write to children? That's a fascinating opinion! Remember, these books weren't initially targeted at adults--they were WRITTEN FOR KIDS! Adults started reading them because they're better than most other heavily-marketed books out there.
Methinks that the columnist needs to read some prose from actual nine-year-olds.
Re:And will this decrease sales? (Score:2, Insightful)
Somehow I doubt that the new Harry Potter book needs much advertising. It's a bit of a paradox because the only reason it's getting attention is because it needs no advertising -- if this were some book that few had heard of, the media wouldn't care that it was leaked.
Idiotic. The problem with an early release (although it would be awesome if some budding writer wrote some fan fiction pseudo-Harry Potter, after which they'll reveal themselves and enjoy the masses that read their work that wouldn't have otherwise) isn't that fans can't stop themselves, but that sociopath asshats have some innate need to try to spoil things for other people, so I'm sure the trolls are downloading it purely for source material.
For that reason there needs to be so much noise of false spoilers that it no longer has the impact it once did.
Harry Potter is seduced to the dark side by Lord Voldemort. To prove his loyalty he is sent to kill Hermione, but just as he's about to strike the mortal blow he pushes back the evil and is freed from Voldemort's grasp.
(BTW: I don't read Harry Potter, but I appreciate that some people are really into it)
Re:In other Harry Potter news... (Score:2, Insightful)
After hearing that I thought of all that he is missing if he only eats fine dining.
Same goes for literature if you only read classics then you are missing out on a lot. Imagine not ever eating at your favorite pizza joint or getting those great burgers. That is what you missing if you only read "great" literature.
*BTW this particular book he was proud of since "you can find all of the ingredients [for the recipes] in your supermarket."
Re:In other Harry Potter news... (Score:4, Insightful)
So you find her world cliche (I do too). While I'd agree that her writing level is extremely low (even granted she's writing mainly for children) I'd hardly call her technically illiterate. Clearly she can read, and has a modicum of writing ability - how many books have you written that have sold over a million copies?
Read my post again, and perhaps a 3rd time. There IS nothing wrong with saying a book is good or bad. The fallacy is the prescriptive conclusion: "you should/shouldn't like this ipso facto because I did/didn't".
It's really my fault: maybe I should have phrased my post to a lower reading level, and placed it in a cliche setting - then maybe it would have been clearer.