July 22, 2007
|NYT: Harry Potter Not A Best Seller||Media|
I read the first Harry Potter and stopped there. But I know plenty of bookish adults who are avid fans of the series. Some have read each book multiple times.
But apparently the grinches at the New York Times, pressured by publishers whose own books were blown out of the water by J. K. Rowling's, decided to categorize the Potter books as children's books to keep them off the influential NYT Bestseller list. In fact, they're not even on the main children's list; they're relegated to the Series Books subsection of the Children's List.
So the publishing phenomenon of all time is officially not a NYT Bestseller. Not earth-shaking, obviously, but not very sporting, either. Kind of dumb, really.