HP return to NY Times Adult Best Seller List?
 

The popularity of Potter once led to the NY Times creating a child best selling list so adult authors didn't have to compete with Rowling. Now Mary Ailes is campaigning to return the HP books to the adult best sellers list.

Mary Ailes wrote an essay entitled "Iceberg Ahoy! Why the Harry Potter Books Should be Restored to the New York Times Best-Seller List," for 'The Plot Thickens' - a great analytic HP book which we reviewed.

To voice your opinion online about the matter of moving the books back to the Adult Best Seller List, please visit Free Harry.

Source: HPANA

It was a travesty that it was ever removed, I'm definitely expressing my views!

neat! im going to do that too!

Great! Thanks I shall check it out..

So agree! Thanks Emma!

Well technically a children's book is what it started out as...isn't it? Americans are a different species of people (believe me lol) and even though Harry series has matured....technically Harry Potter is still a younger audience book...it just so happens that not just children/teenagers read the book. If you look at the first book...it wasn't as deep as the latter one's....I don't think it shoulda been on the adult list before, but I think it should be there now. *shrug* It'll make it's way there. And we're talking about the NY Times right? This is the same paper that had reporters making up stories right? lol (will never feed into the NY Times drama)

Ottery doesn't like the NY Times but then again he doesn't live there...
 

I don't know why we should care? Seriously, who's the NY Times if they're going to let themselves be so easily pressured...seriously it's to the booksellers [need I even mention publishers?] advantage to write "On the NYTimes Bestellers for a million weeks" not the newspapers...if they had refused what would have happened? We'll give our books to someone else first?

Fine, who here cares what the Boston-Globe says...or the Philadelphia whatever...yeah that's what I thought...besides it's on the bestsellers list everywhere else in the world...does one stupid NY newspaper really matter?

Not to me...not if they don't have the backbone to stand up for what's right...
:P to the NY Times :P to the authors that pushed the publishers...probably the same weinies all suddenly writing books for children :P to them all :P <<this is fun :P

^ Philadelphia Inquirer (diss NY Times not the Philly paper we love HP)

Sorry Philadelphia Ottery loves you seriously...did I even spell your name right? Lol
 

^^Sorry, I didn't remember the name of the Philly newspaper I live nowhere, and no one cares what the Nowhere Gazzette says...lol.

But seriously, the NY Times is trying to make itself this prestigious newspaper yet here they are cowtowing to the demands of an industry...as if their only business were reviewing books...NY times, impartial? Not hardly...easily swayed? Sadly yes.

Besides the whole world knows HP Rulz, I don't think JKR or the books need the validation of any one newspaper [and I meant no disrespect to your Philly paper, sorry]

*rolls eyes* Harry Potter, though intended to be a kid book, is definately not. It's an everyone book.

I dont really think there is a certain age it is ment for. Because anyone can read and enjoy them. but thats just me...

hmm.. intersting! ill check that site out

I'm going to express myself freely here...
I can't believe they took HP off that section, are people afraid HP will stay on top??? I think they are because as long as HP is around we can't deny that it is the best book ever created!!!
I hope it returns back to it's respectful place!!!

i agree with the author. n i think it;s about time there was action against labelling the hp series as "kids'" books! the themes are getting more n more mature, im sure the sixth book won't be like the first or the second. NYT should definitely change its list.

*hands Ottery a cheese steak* lol

I think they are basing it on books...like written by Anne Rice...or like a Terry McMillian book. They write books for adults. A story about a boy in the wizarding world, doing spells, and playing quidditch is considered a child's/younger audience book. The writing may have deeply matured since Sorcerer's Stone, but it's still a younger audience book, that adults love too. I think that's why it was taken off the adult seller's list. It doesn't really matter anyway...HP is gonna sell it's millions and will be on top whether it's on an adult or children's list. Nothing to get worked up about. We know J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter is #1. Think that's all that really matters.

*passes cheese steaks out for everyone*

thats good hp will always be on top
:glomp:

thats very interesting!thnx for the info!

i don't think it matters whether or not HP is on the child or adult list because being on either one won't decrease it's popularity..

Yeah, I read the essay. I wasn't aware that it was no longer on the best seller list for adults. I guess it can go both ways, but HP is so complex that it shouldn't be on the same list as something like ASOUE. I don't know, but I don't think half as many adults who read HP also read ASOUE. Hey or even 2nd grade childrens books. One thing is for adults to read the book, but another is for them to become involved in the book.

I definitely feel the same :poke:

That`s OK, but HP is a child book generally, or I`m mistaking?
Better say that it`s for any age, I think.....

it should be in the adult section. i mean parents buy the books for their kids.they read them to there kids (well some do) and get addicted. im an adult im 22 and i bought all the books within the past 3 years!!

i have gojtn on and said how miffed i am about it

I've just re-read Mary's Essay and I wanted to highlight some quotes which I found particularly interesting.

This is about the decision to create a childs list and move HP to there;

Corliss Richard

"Why 'Harry Potter' did a Harry Houdini" 1 Sept 2004
http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...,50554,00.html