I don’t understand reviews of the latest Harry Potter book. Why publish them now, as the book comes out?
Here’s the reason for my confusion. Either you’re going to read the book, in which case you won’t want to read a review first; you’ll want to read it yourself, because you can’t leap into book seven of a seven-book series; and if you’ve read the other six books, you know how you want the seventh to turn out, and that’s a personal thing which will be different for every person.
Or else you’re not going to read the book, in which case you’re likely not interested in the review.
But people - well, editors - feel that they have to have a review that’s the first and so on, because.. well, that’s what newspapers and media do, isn’t it?
In which case a review isn’t going to do anything for you, plus or minus. Once I’ve read the book, then OK, I might put my thoughts about it here for everyone to ignore. But a review, before anyone else has had the chance to read it? When everyone wants to read it? Makes no sense.
I mean, I’m still mulling over the ending of the final series of the Sopranos. Don’t get me started on that. It’s going to take ages for all the folk here in Britain to catch up on that one.
- These posts might be related (the database thinks..):
- Harry Potter and the niggling inconsistencies (11 August 2007; score: 81.29%)
- Eddie Izzard vs US Customs, Pete Townshend enblogged, and Harry Potter vs the bureaucrats (17 November 2005; score: 75.65%)
- So many Harry Potter questions, so little time. Or indeed answers. (10 July 2006; score: 54.7%)