Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Release Date Announced

Croakyvoice writes "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows by J.K. Rowling, the seventh and final book in the best-selling series, has been scheduled for release at 12:01 a.m. on July 21, 2007, Scholastic announced today." A deluxe edition for collectors and enthusiasts is also planned with a simultaneous release.

Comments

Regardless of the release date

[Tebriel]

I'm sure someone will have posted spoilers to the internet months in advance, and if you care about Harry Potter, you'll have inadvertently stumbled upon them and cursed loudly.

Re:Regardless of the release date

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it really matter if people post spoilers?

When the last book came out and people posted about Dumbledore being dead it didn't detract much from the story, in fact, it was the most interesting part of all the books released because of the dialogue between Snape and Dumbledore. After six years we STILL don't know if Snape's good or bad. People couldn't even decide if Dumbledore was actually dead until JK decided to say he was.

The writing of that chapter was pure genius perhaps BECAUSE of the spoiler.

Re:Regardless of the release date

[porcupine8]

I've honestly never seen an honest-to-god HP spoiler. Where do you find them? There's always tons of speculation, but the only real info is whatever JKR releases on her site - which is rarely to never anything really useful. There were some supposed "spoilers" of Dumbledore's death, but there were just as many sites saying it was going to be Hagrid (or one of several other characters).

Gotta give her credit

[edwardpickman]

All jokes aside it's impressive accomplishment to go from a single mother on the dole to the most successful author of all time and she's still relatively young. The big question really has to be what next?

Re:Gotta give her credit

[koreth]

Or, perhaps, that it does, and the people who say that are often trying to convince themselves that it's okay their finances are a mess?

Re:Gotta give her credit

[dr_dank]

The Harry Potter series may not be Ulysses, but it did weave a tapestry of fantasy that not only appealed to a wide range of readers, but also grew with the kids that they were primarily aimed at. The protagonist went from having normal adolescent troubles being the most of his worries to being thrust into adulthood to face a showdown with a frightfully powerful antagonist and his followers. Green Eggs and Ham, this ain't.

All this aside, when has there been this much hoopla over a book in recent times? People will camp out in front of stores for the latest game consoles, hottest movies, etc, but its truely unique to see that kind of reception for a book. Instead of rotting their brains in front of the tv sets, kids are exercising their imaginations with these books and *gasp* even picking up other books along the way. Kids who may not have otherwise gotten into reading for pleasure have been introduced to it from reading Harry Potter.

If this is "catering to the lowest common denominator", then I say we need much more of it.

Re:Gotta give her credit

[NMerriam]

She's the literary Britney Spears.

In their own times, so were Charles Dickens and William Shakespeare. Don't even get me started on Dumas.

The only question is whether the story and craft appeals across generations, which Harry Potter seems to do very well so far.

Re:Gotta give her credit

[daviddennis]

i have enjoyed reading her books.

I have never, at any point, enjoyed the "music" created by Britney Spears.

The fact that people ranging from kids to Slashdotters to more or less typical adults have enjoyed the books seems like an excellent tribute to their quality. It's very hard writing something a general audience enjoys. In particular, very few science fiction/fantasy authors have done it.

I think fans of SF/fantasy should be congratulating her on her success instead of trying to cut her down.

The general public sometimes shows surprisingly decent taste. This is one of these times.

D

Re:Gotta give her credit

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite a presumption there, that the only reason people don't have pots of money is because "their finances are a mess". What about "because they choose to spend their time with people who matter" rather than sinking the hours of their life into doing whatever needs to be done to earn pots of money?

I'm speaking from personal experience. A project I worked on went on to earn over $500 million. The people involved pocketed between nine and seven figures each. The cost was five years of their life. I left early in the piece, didn't get the money but am the happiest I have ever been in my life (IMO opinion happier than the rich guys, but I don't really know what their lives are like.) Looking from the outside it would seem that the nine figure guys almost lost their marriages over it.

Another project went the other way. This time the company went out backwards. I had gold fever and didn't bail early enough the second time. I got away with a bad taste in my mouth and a legal battle with the company. Well and truly in the past now. The boss of the company, the truest believer, lost his marriage, his reputation and ended up fleeing the country (still running).

The problem isn't the money directly. It is the attempt that destroys you, whether it be successful or not. If you are successful you generally (there are exceptions) come out the other end a self centred bastard who only cares about "mine" and are deluded that people like you for reasons other than your money. Better to get on with what matters in life and if it happens to make you rich as a side effect then so be it, but don't go in with the aim of making money or it will destroy you.

If Rowling managed to earn pots of money while remaining a balanced human being then kudos to her. If she is the exception it could be because the pots of money were an unintended side effect (at least for the first book)? Here's something to broaden your horizons.

Re:Gotta give her credit

[Reality Master 101]

All jokes aside, I know what she should do. I think she should write a book of short stories. With her imagination, she probably has a zillion of them. And the book would be of sufficiently different type that it would be hard to compare to Harry Potter. It also improves the odds of there being *something* that most people would like, so it wouldn't be the inevitable reaction of, "this book is okay, but it's not as good as Harry Potter."

Re:Gotta give her credit

[PCM2]

In their own times, so were Charles Dickens and William Shakespeare. Don't even get me started on Dumas.

Meh, it sounds witty but I don't see the evidence. The mere fact that all these works have lasted the ages is evidence that they are not the schlock you're painting them to be. There were other writers working in each of these gentlemen's eras whom you've never heard of.

Example: A contemporary of Shakespeare, Miguel de Cervantes, published the first half of his novel, Don Quixote, in 1605. He wouldn't publish the second half until ten years later. But the first half was such a critical and popular success that it inspired another writer to publish a spurious sequel before Cervantes was able to get out his own conclusion. So I guess, by the standard of mass popularity, you could say Cervantes, like Shakespeare, was "the Britney Spears of his age." And yet I guarantee you that you can find a copy of Cervantes' legitimate second half of Don Quixote in your local library -- possibly several different translations -- but you will not find a copy of the fake sequel. One is timeless literature. The other is forgotten schlock.

Just because something is popular doesn't make it schlock. What makes it schlock, after the roar of the crowd has faded, is whether it's actually any good.

And, that said, I'm not a great fan of the Harry Potter books but I don't know if I'd categorize them as schlock, either. Great literature? No. But they have every indication of standing the test of time and remaining some of our most-loved juvenile fiction.

(Rabid fans, take note: Juvenile fiction.)

Re:Gotta give her credit

[miyako]

I suggest you read books 5 and 6, and to a lesser extent 4. What you point out is pretty heavily used in the first three books, and a bit in book 4 as well. By the end of book 4 and during 5 and 6 however, things definitely begin to change. Harry still wins for the most part, but it becomes less about serendipity and hidden powers, and more about paying the price for good. There is a scene early on in book 6 where harry confronts malfoy, and ends up petrified on the floor with a broken nose from malfoy stomping his face in. Not to mention the deaths of Sirius and Dumbledore.

Re:Gotta give her credit

[GospelHead821]

I agree with your assessment that the Harry Potter books are juvenile fiction, but they are also a refreshing deviation from the spineless stories that have passed for juvenile fiction for years. They are, furthermore, entertaining enough to be enjoyable light reading for adults. Although they may be targeted at adolescents, they appeal to a larger audience, which is a noteworthy attribute. In my opinion, the Harry Potter books are a model of quality juvenile fiction. They are literary enough and bold enough that they are likely to inspire readers to continue reading even after they've grown out of juvenile fiction. Previously, I was of the opinion that most juvenile fiction set kids up for disappointment when they found failure, death, and other unhappy endings in more adult fiction.

Ma-Fi???

[Wilson_6500]

We already have a genre for "Magic Fiction."

Fantasy.

Re:Live Blogging from B&N

[Firehed]

Oh that's just so wrong. I bet he'd go for Starbuck though. Actually, probably Boomer, seeing that he had a thing for Asians :)

Re:Difference Between Childrens' and Adults' Versi

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah. It's just the covers that differ. Something about adults not wanting to be seen reading a kid's book, or some such.

Me, I'll take whatever's going cheaper, and around here, that's the "children's" version.

Re:missed opportunity

[SEMW]

...7th July has certain historical connotations for British people...

Re:Sci Fi

[1u3hr]

And WTF is the idea of linking to a random gaming forum for this "news"?

The publisher's press release is here. Why does Slashdot indulge people who cut and paste from a primary source to their lousy site/blog/forum/Piquepaille to get clicks? Aside from the clicks, it often gets distorted and cut to the submitter's agenda, or just cluelessness.

Re:missed opportunity

[maxume]

Great. All we need is 363 more terrorist attacks and nobody will be able to do anything anymore for fear of not being sensitive enough.

Re:Sci Fi

[jmorris42]

> And WTF is the idea of linking to a random gaming forum for this "news"?

Can I get an AMEN?

It needs to be a rule that only primary sources get linked. That means a blog can't be linked unless the primary content of interest to the /. crowd is the actual creative output of the blogger and not some asshole's opinion about a link to a primary source. Commentary from random assholes is what SLASHDOT is for. Lets not get all circular with slashdot posting a link to a forum talking about a blog post that said something interesting about a piece on a newspaper's website about a piece of proposed legislation on some congressman's website. The potential for a huge circlejerk here is massive.

Besides, when the article links to a site with comment posting discussion should be taking place on that site, not slash. So Hey, Taco! Why the hell do you want to drive those valuable comments (pageviews) to another site? Huh?

Re:Spoilers

[grnbrg]

Harry kills Voldemort on page 608!

What, again?

Maybe he'll stay dead this time....

grnbrg.

Re:Sci Fi^H^H^H^H^H FANTASY!!!

[rblancarte]

AMEN.

This is my biggest problem w/ people posting their own works. Because while maybe they have some good stuff to contribute, I know they are really just looking for people to get clicks on their page.

And overall, I think the official release on site or any of the numerous sites that cover this would have done better.

And why no props for JK Rowling herself?

RonB

Re:Cue spoiler t-shirts.

[miyako]

Actually, it's the last book because since the beginning of the series, she planned on making 1 book for each of the seven years at Hogwarts.
I don't think that it's fair to criticize the fans of the series. There are certainly people who are fans of the series who are young, or who are older and not well read, but there are also many people who are well read and can appreciate the stories.
As for the comments regarding the plotlines being predictable, the series does make use of a number of themes that are common to the fantasy genre, and certainly in retrospect it is easy to see how the plot has followed those common themes. I think this applies especially to the large thematic arches of the series. There are, however, surprising and interesting subplots that can be enjoyed.
The thing is though, even these subplots are not exceptionally intricate, and I do not think that the series is meant to be read like a standard mystery or thriller, where you spend the book trying to figure out who done it, where, how and why. The series isn't really about telling a new story and trying to figure that story out. I think that the real strength of the series is it's implementation of common fantasy themes. To use the cliche`, it's about the journey, not the destination. Reading the Harry Potter series is about seeing how these traditional events unfold in a certain time and place. The author understand that, and focuses on those elements of the story- creating a vibrant living world with three-dimensional characters and exploring how these recurring themes effect them and the world they live in.
It is perfectly fair to not like the series, but don't completely dismiss it or the people who enjoy it.

Re:Cue spoiler t-shirts.

[David Horn]

With the greatest possible respect, you Sir, are a moron. The vast majority of people find Harry Potter an enjoyable read - primarily because they're not approaching it expecting War and Peace and looking to criticise. Bear in mind that it's got millions of kids reading, and for that alone the Harry Potter series is priceless and JK Rowling deserves to be applauded.

Re:Cue spoiler t-shirts.

[cHALiTO]

It's not shitty any more than any other easy-read, fantasy novel. They're not all Tolkiens or Ecos, you know. And that doesn't make a book BAD (or good either).
Sales don't mean shit. HP sells like mad, and though it's certainly not shakespeare, it's quite enjoyable as a light, fun fantasy series. On the other hand, the Da Vinci Code also sells like hotcakes, and it's one of the biggest and smelliest piles of shit I've read in a long time.

Re:'scifi'?

[spun]

I would say that anything where technology is used as a drop-in replacement for magic is fantasy. Science-fantasy, maybe. For instance, if people use blasters instead of wands of fireball, what's really the difference? Spaceships are just metal dragons. The force is just magic.

The effect of technology on humanity (or some human-like entity) is a major theme in real science-fiction. The science and technology don't even have to relate to our universe, but they do have to be internally consistent. Science isn't just thrown in as a special effect, it and it's impact on the characters and society must make sense. This is what makes science-fiction great, it helps us imagine the consequences of scientific development ahead of time.

Re:'scifi'?

[Kemanorel]

Having submitted this same story, it is in the Sci-Fi sub-catagory simply because there is no Fantasy sub-catagory. It's a case of best fit in limited resources.

When all you have is a nail, the whole world looks like a hammer.