Last night, hundreds of eager Harry Potter fans and their parents lined the streets in anticipation of a first look at the series' grand finale, but the scene was much different a few days ago, when The New York Times featured an advance review that revealed several important details about the story, including..."
"Holy God, turn it off, turn it off!!"
This was the scene Saturday morning in my Washington, D.C., hotel room, where I was nursing a hangover and hiding out from the deluge of Harry Potter news. Being a Potter aficionado, I admit that perhaps my D.C. food- and wine-tasting vacation was ill-timed, but I firmly believe that life comes (albeit just barely) before books.
Because I was unwilling to spend my single weekend out of town curled up in a squishy chair with a book, I might have been one of the only Potter fans on earth not frantically striving to finish before radio stations, TV shows and even T-shirts begin broadcasting the fate of the boy wizard.
To those people I say: "Look around you, for it has already begun."
By now, even those who don't know how the saga ends know how the last book got an early start. In the melee surrounding the release of "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," a number of copies were distributed early. Good for the guy who got them, right? Perhaps until The New York Times got hold of one and banged out a first review before it was even on sale to the general public.
Within days, multiple Internet sites featured reviews and purported (contradictory) copies of the book, prompting a full-scale media frenzy. For days before the official release date, Harry Potter lovers who wanted to preserve the suspense were forced to avoid newspapers, MSN.com, and even CNN and local news. By now, Slate.com-my usual online sanctuary-sports a staggering three articles on the novel. The day of the release, it was all I could manage to avoid learning the fate of the wizarding world while catching up on the details of Bush's colonoscopy.
Although this hoopla is unlikely to spoil more than the end of a popular children's story, the relentless harping of the press on single, broadly popular topics has in the past contributed to much graver offenses. The recent Paris Hilton debacle, the death of Princess Di, and the now-infamous Duke lacrosse case all come to mind. In the search for news that will entertain the widest audience, multiple publications are apt to seize upon a select set of stories, and then proceed to beat them into submission with article after article. With our American need to grab, eat and take, everyone tries to get a piece before the flame subsides and we have to think of something else to write and talk about.
As a member of the media, I enthusiastically support the reporting of news, but I believe there is a desperate need for diversity. The insinuation that the American public only cares about a single event at any given time is downright terrifying. Not to mention that the overload of information about the chosen topic is often dizzying in its lack of consensus. Like sushi rice, the more you add, the less you taste, until eventually you're left with a bland, gelatinous mess.
Fortunately for us, the power of the media resides in our reading, watching and listening to it. We should know that what we choose-or choose not-to see can sometimes make an impact long after the half hour of viewing time ends.
I know I'll be avoiding the mayhem until I make up my own mind about Harry Potter, and I can only hope that will be the case when I am confronted with more serious issues. My question to you, newly autonomous Duke students, is what do you want to see?
Jacqui Detwiler is a graduate student in neuroscience.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.