Thursday, July 26, 2007

A best seller?

A post on the LM_Net list serv mentioned the follwoing article by Michael Giltz of the Huffington Post, Why Harry Potter Won't be a Bestseller. Due to the simple matter of children's books not being included in the NYT best seller list, Harry Potter will not be a NYT best seller.

"It happened in 2000. The Harry Potter books -- a once in a lifetime publishing phenomenon -- were dominating the bestseller lists, with three titles ensconced in the Top 15 at the same time. It just wasn't fair, moaned publishers of more "serious" fiction. It kept more deserving titles off the list, titles that people would never hear about, said bookstore owners. And so in a rash, indefensible decision, the New York Times decided to banish children's books solely to their own separate list." (Giltz, HP, 7/20/07)

Looks as if there may be a grass roots effort in the making.

Tags: , , ,


Karin Dalziel said...

Your posts in my RSS reader aren't full text anymore. Boo hoo. :(

Lynn said...

Oooops! I was messing around with the new feedburner feed re-routing/re-directing/feed-mashing thingamabob earlier today and changed the setting from "full" to "short."

It is back to "full" again.

My bad.