<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd">
<channel>
<title>BloggingStocks</title>
<link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com</link>
<description>BloggingStocks</description>

<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only.</copyright>
<generator>Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/</generator><item><title><![CDATA[New York Times bestseller list leaves Harry Potter out]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/07/23/new-york-times-leaves-harry-potter-out-cold/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/07/23/new-york-times-leaves-harry-potter-out-cold/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/07/23/new-york-times-leaves-harry-potter-out-cold/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/consumer-experience/" rel="tag">Consumer Experience</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/rants-and-raves/" rel="tag">Rants and Raves</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/marketing-and-advertising/" rel="tag">Marketing and Advertising</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/nyt/" rel="tag">New York Times'A' (NYT)</a></p>(<a href="http://finance.aol.com/quotes/scholastic-corporation/schl/nas?tabs=quotesandnews">Scholastic Press</a>, NYSE: <a href="http://finance.aol.com/quotes/scholastic-corporation/schl/nas?tabs=quotesandnews">SCHL</a>)'s Harry Potter won't rank on the <em>New York Times</em> (<a href="http://finance.aol.com/quotes/nyt/nys">The New York Times Company</a> (NYSE: <a href="http://finance.aol.com/quotes/nyt/nys">NYT</a>))' best sellers list. You might wonder how could that could possibly be true. It's simple. In a move which is said to have been a knee-jerk reaction to complaints by the sellers and publishers of more "serious" books, <em>The New York Times</em> banished "children's books" to a secondary list of their own, thus clearing the Harry Potter series from its ownership of three spots within the top fifteen positions on best sellers lists. That was supposedly to open those spots for occupancy by more deserving titles.<br /><br />How yawn inspiring is that? We all know just how well those Harry Potter books have sold. What the whole thing signals to me is that the book watchers of <em>The New York Times</em> were just too stupidly motivated to stop and think that the Potter-displacing category change would only further instill the obviousness of their palpable impertinence.<br /><br />The Harry Potter books don't need <em>The New York Times</em>, they never did and they never will. As a matter of fact, good literature never needed the <em>Times</em>. The <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/search/?q=Harry%20Potter">Harry Potter</a> books made <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/search/?q=J.K.Rowling%20">J.K.Rowling </a>the wealthiest author on the planet by virtue of Harry's own magic. Frankly, the <em>Times</em> and their top ten list had little to say about that.<br /><br /><strong>More <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/tag/harry%20potter/">Harry Potter</a> news<br /> <br /> </strong><strong>Tom Barlow: </strong><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/08/09/the-harry-potter-finance-quiz/" title="View The Harry Potter Finance Quiz on BloggingStocks" target="_blank">The Harry Potter Finance Quiz</a><br /> <strong>Tom Barlow: </strong><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/07/23/harry-potter-ending-a-water-cooler-cheat-sheet/" title="View Harry Potter ending: A water cooler cheat sheet on BloggingStocks" target="_blank">Harry Potter ending: A water cooler cheat sheet</a><br /> <strong>Zac Bissonnette: </strong><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/07/23/with-harry-potter-done-is-it-time-for-scholastic-to-sell-itself/" title="View With Harry Potter done, is it time for Scholastic to sell itself? on BloggingStocks" target="_blank">With Harry Potter done, is it time for Scholastic to sell itself?</a><br /> <strong>Tom Barlow: </strong><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/07/23/rowling-safeguards-potter-empire/" title="View Rowling safeguards Potter empire on BloggingStocks" target="_blank">Rowling safeguards Potter empire</a><br /> <strong>Zac Bissonnette: </strong><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/07/22/is-the-last-book-the-end-of-potter-mania/" title="View Is the last book the end of Potter mania? on BloggingStocks" target="_blank">Is the last book the end of Potter mania?</a><br /> <strong>Tom Barlow: </strong><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/07/19/harry-potter-and-the-pots-of-gold/" title="View Harry Potter and the Pots of Gold on BloggingStocks" target="_blank">Harry Potter and the Pots of Gold</a><br /> <strong>Barry Summerlin: </strong><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/07/18/harry-potter-doesnt-even-need-muggle-marketing/" title="View Harry Potter doesn't even need Muggle marketing on BloggingStocks" target="_blank">Harry Potter doesn't even need Muggle marketing</a><br /> <strong>Julie Tilsner: </strong><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/07/16/not-even-harry-can-save-bookstores-from-their-fate/" title="View Not even Harry can save bookstores from their fate on BloggingStocks" target="_blank">Not even Harry can save bookstores from their fate</a><br /> <strong>Peter Cohan: </strong><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/07/09/harry-potter-and-the-pot-of-gold/" title="View Harry Potter and the Pot of Gold on BloggingStocks" target="_blank">Harry Potter and the Pot of Gold</a><br /> <strong>Tom Barlow: </strong><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/07/06/harry-potter-and-the-deathly-hallows-will-rowling-kill-off-harr/" title="View Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Will Rowling kill off Harry? on BloggingStocks" target="_blank">Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Will Rowling kill off Harry?</a><strong><br /> </strong><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/07/23/new-york-times-leaves-harry-potter-out-cold/">New York Times bestseller list leaves Harry Potter out</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Mon, 23 Jul 2007 19:44:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-giltz/why-harry-potter_b_57099.html>Read</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/07/23/new-york-times-leaves-harry-potter-out-cold/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/946630/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/07/23/new-york-times-leaves-harry-potter-out-cold/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>Harry Potter</category><category>HarryPotter</category><category>The New York Times</category><category>TheNewYorkTimes</category><category>top ten list</category><category>TopTenList</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Gary Sattler]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 23 Jul 2007 19:44:00 EST</pubDate></item></channel></rss>
