I picked up my own copy of The Deathly Hallows a couple of hours ago, but I’ve only just gotten around to reading any of it. True to form, there’s an adverb before the end of the first paragraph.

I don’t know if I’m going to be able to manage the sort of marathon reading that will be required to get through all 700-plus pages before the end of the weekend, much less today, but I’ll see what I can do. It’s actually less that I want to read the book (although I do) than that I want to be able to go back online without worrying I’ll run up against spoilers.

Regarding spoilers…I have to say, I agree with Caitlin R. Kiernan on this: there’s a point when avoiding them becomes ridiculous, and J.K. Rowling has gone past it:

Though I have been perplexed and annoyed at the mean-spiritedness of the people leaking spoilers online for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, I am equally perplexed and annoyed at Rowling’s anger at today’s review of the novel in The New York Times. The book is being released on Saturday. With most novels, there would have been reviews weeks ago. I mean, yeah, sure, I enjoy the books, and I’m doing all I can to avoid spoilers, and sure she’s the Best-Selling Author of All Time, but I don’t see how that changes the rules. But that’s probably just the Socialist in me talking. Anyway…

What Rowling said, in part, was:

“I am staggered that some American newspapers have decided to publish purported spoilers in the form of reviews in complete disregard of the wishes of literally millions of readers, particularly children…

But I mean, really, are there lots of children reading The New York Times book review section? And I think most people, if they want to remain spoiler-free, can simply avoid reading the review altogether until after they’ve read the book.

Now, the people who have been going out of their way to spoil the book for readers, they can go to hell. But legitimate book reviews nobody’s likely to just stumble upon? Puh-lease.