(Add this countdown to your webpage!)
Potter leaves NYT Best-Seller List for First Time in a Decade
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone originally appeared on the New York Times Bestseller list back in December of 1998. The impact of Potter's popularity led the NYT to creating two new lists so other titles could make the list other than Jo's stories.Now, almost ten years later, the May 11th edition of The Sunday New York Times will be free of any Potter novel. Check out the NYT's Book Blog for more.
Once JK Rowling's Potter Encyclopedia is released, we're sure Potter will make a comeback. Thanks to Pruneau for the tip!
Posted by Andrew on May 1st |
111 Comments
Visitor Comments
i thought it was sad when i first saw it. But then i thought, well whatever cuz everyones already got the books. And I agree--when the encyclopedia comes out HP will dominate the top 8 places on NYT's bestsellers list 1. HP Encyclopedia 2. DH 3. HBP 4. OotP 5. GoF 6. PoA 7. CoS 8. SS
On may 23 show you support for Jo and Harry cause its Harry Potter day wear cloaks, robes, uniforms, hats, shirts, etc. Help spred the word tell everyone
On may 23 show you support for Jo and Harry cause its Harry Potter day wear cloaks, robes, uniforms, hats, shirts, etc. Help spred the word tell everyone
This is a sade moment! I can't believe there is no Potter book on the NY Times list. Makes me want to go out and purchase new copies of each of the books to keep her on the list. At least Deathly Hallows is #39 on Amazon.com!
That's horrifying...LOOK AT ME, I'm HORRIFIED! :-o :-o
Honestly, this is so depressing. It makes me shudder to think that the magic may not be being kept alive.
Yes, it is sad, but what we as the devoted Harry Potter can do is tell everyone that we know who hasn't read the Harry Potter series to go buy some copies. Then we must buy more copies, and others must buy more copies AND HARRY POTTER WILL ONCE AGAIN PROSPER THE NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLERS LIST!!!!!
I am very upset. :(
I miss the suspense of witing 4 another book
This is sad, but it probably just means that everyone sane has already bought all of the Harry Potter books. I mean, who hasn't bought it who is going to? It doesn't mean they aren't read as much as before.
To everyone who noticed that stupid guy Peter's first comment on that article in the NYT, check out all the other comments before you get mad. His stupid comment is followed by about a hundred comments by HP fans telling him he is ridiculous. Represent! :)
Back to Top