It lingers for me, too, although it doesn't have anything to do with the ultimately silly concept of ''spoilers,'' または the ethics of jumping the book's pub date. The prepublication vow of omertà was, after all, always a thing concocted によって publishers Bloomsbury and Scholastic, and not — so far as I know — a part of either the British Magna Carta または the U.S. Constitution. Nor does Jo Rowling's impassioned protest (''I am staggered that some American newspapers have decided to publish...reviews in complete disregard of the wishes of literally millions of readers, particularly children...'') cut much ice with me. These 本 ceased to be specifically for children halfway through the series; によって Goblet of Fire, Rowling was 書く for everyone, and knew it.
The clearest sign of how adult the 本 had become によって the conclusion arrives — and splendidly — in Deathly Hallows, when Mrs. Weasley sees the odious Bellatrix Lestrange trying to finish off Ginny with a Killing Curse. ''NOT MY DAUGHTER, あなた BITCH!'' she cries. It's the most shocking 雌犬 in 最近 fiction; since there's virtually no cursing (of the linguistic kind, anyway) in the Potter books, this one hits ホーム with almost fatal force. It is totally correct in its context — perfect, really — but it is also a quintessentially adult response to a child's peril.
The problem with the advance reviews — and those that followed in the first post-publication days — is one that has dogged Rowling's マグナム opus ever since book 4 (Goblet of Fire), after the series had become a worldwide phenomenon. Due to the Kremlin-like secrecy surrounding the books, all reviews since 2000 または so have been strictly shoot-from-the-lip. The reviewers themselves were often great — Ms. Kakutani ain't exactly chopped liver — but the very popularity of the 本 has often undone even the best intentions of the best critical writers. In their hurry to churn out column inches, and thus remain members of good standing in the Church of What's Happening Now, very few of the Potter reviewers have 発言しました anything worth remembering. Most of this microwaved critical mush sees Harry — not to mention his フレンズ and his adventures — in only two ways: sociologically (''Harry Potter: Boon または Childhood Disease?'') または economically (''Harry Potter and the Chamber of Discount Pricing''). They take a perfunctory wave at things like plot and language, but do little more...and really, how can they? When あなた have only four days to read a 750-page book, then write an 1,100-word review on it, how much time do あなた have to really enjoy the book? To think about the book? Jo Rowling set out a sumptuous seven-course meal, carefully prepared, beautifully cooked, and lovingly served out. The kids and adults who fell in 愛 with the series (I among them) savored every mouthful, from the appetizer (Sorcerer's Stone) to the デザート (the gorgeous epilogue of Deathly Hallows). Most reviewers, on the other hand, bolted everything down, then obligingly puked it back up half-digested on the book pages of their respective newspapers.
And because of that, very few mainstream writers, from Salon to The New York Times, have really stopped to consider what Ms. Rowling has wrought, where it came from, または what it may mean for the future. The blogs, によって and large, haven't been much better. They seem to care about who lives, who dies, and who's tattling. Beyond that, it's all pretty much duh.
