In The Washington Post Neely Tucker tries to explain Why the embargo on Rowling's 'Casual Vacancy' didn't hold, as the latest Harry Potter-book was apparently embargoed but not entirely successfully.
(One possible reason for the embargo ?
Apparently not a single character from the previous Harry Potter books appears in it, which presumably would be rather disappointing to fans, if they heard about that beforehand.)
As Matthew Bell reported in The Independent a few days ago, in J K Rowling and the Publishers' Moan:
I assume embargoes are a sort of publisher-swagger -- an attempt by them to demonstrate that they still have power over all the little folk (reviewers, booksellers, and, at the very bottom of the ladder, readers). As with many things publishers do, I don't think it serves anyone's purpose -- least of all their own. But given how weakened they are you can see why they want to pull desperate crap like this. I'm just disappointed that so many outlets went along with it -- even The New York Times toed the line (I guess they couldn't find a copy at the local drugstore, as they usually manage to do).
(Of course embargoes are the least of my worries: I'm so out of the loop that I have a hard time getting most books I ask for from 'major' publishers (minor exceptions notwithstanding), and obviously no one even offered to offer me The Casual Vacancy (good call, guys).)
If, for some reason, you are interested in the Rowling book, you can get your copy at Amazon.com or Amazon.co.uk; it seems to be doing quite well (sales-wise).
As Matthew Bell reported in The Independent a few days ago, in J K Rowling and the Publishers' Moan:
My colleague, Katy Guest, our literary editor, was asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement before her reviewer could be "hand-delivered" a copy of the book. Embargoes are normal, but within the legalese, Guest found a clause stating that even the existence of the agreement could not be mentioned. A sort of publishing superinjunction.I would take issue with the idea that embargoes are in any way 'normal', but at least The Independent did the only thing they could and should: tossed the agreement, unsigned.
I assume embargoes are a sort of publisher-swagger -- an attempt by them to demonstrate that they still have power over all the little folk (reviewers, booksellers, and, at the very bottom of the ladder, readers). As with many things publishers do, I don't think it serves anyone's purpose -- least of all their own. But given how weakened they are you can see why they want to pull desperate crap like this. I'm just disappointed that so many outlets went along with it -- even The New York Times toed the line (I guess they couldn't find a copy at the local drugstore, as they usually manage to do).
(Of course embargoes are the least of my worries: I'm so out of the loop that I have a hard time getting most books I ask for from 'major' publishers (minor exceptions notwithstanding), and obviously no one even offered to offer me The Casual Vacancy (good call, guys).)
If, for some reason, you are interested in the Rowling book, you can get your copy at Amazon.com or Amazon.co.uk; it seems to be doing quite well (sales-wise).