Most books and movies which get reviewed are not cultural phenomena in which the act of reviewing can directly impact the experience of reading or viewing the work. So-called "spoilers" can happen with any published work, but most of the time very few people care, and there isn't a cottage industry of snots out trying to thrust the spoilers on people in unsuspected moments.

When my first novel was published, there was a review about a month ahead of release that revealed a major plot reversal. And guess who cared? No one. Hell, I didn't even care, because I was so damn grateful to have gotten a review at all. I'd imagine that's true for many books. And with even successful authors, how often do you have to worry about getting an email with the grand finale in the subject line?

It's not the end of the world, but I'd suggest that given the nature of an event like this one, reviewers who receive ARCs could be cognizant of the larger phenomenon and acknowledge that when they share book details pre-release they contribute to the problem of pre-mature revelation.

It's not the end of the world. I enjoyed Empire Strikes Back despite knowing the dramatic secret. I enjoyed Order of the Phoenix, knowing Sirius was doomed, and same with Half-Blood Prince. Maybe it's absurd that people care, but it's a pleasure to experience something fresh for the first time, and it's an experience that can never be repeated.

I'll get my copy tonight or tomorrow, and I'll read it. Odds are, I'll stumble across whatever the big deal will be beforehand, because that's the way things work. It's too bad, but oh well. Still, Salon could have waited a week, and as a result been one less outlet contributing to opening the box before its time.

Them real journamalists have really been shining at the NYT in recent years, haven't they?

So?

And I say this from the perspective of someone who has posted a lot of letters on Salon, some of them pretty volatile, but. . . does it matter? I've long thought letters sections online were mostly pointless, but it's becoming increasingly obvious that pointless doesn't begin to describe it.

If what Salon wants is page views, particularly page views by people who aren't subscribers and hence have to look at ads, then I guess a letters section is probably of value since -- like reality TV and auto accidents -- it's hard not to look. But otherwise, it's just a buncha empty noise. With rare exceptions, you find:

a) incomprehensible goobledygook

b) self-congratulatory posturing by unrepentent narcissists

c) off-topic soapboxing

And not much else.

And to all of this, who's really paying attention? Sure, there are lots of unique visitors, but most of them are probably taking one or two comments made by a stranger out of context and using them as an excuse to pontificate on the contents of their own navels. Or being creepy cyber stalkers like that guy with the Heather Hav fixation or the dimwits stumbling over themselves to troll Tom Tomorrow every Sunday night.

The fact that 12% of this garbage (and I include my own efforts under that heading) is by someone who clicked the Anonymous button strikes me as incidental. Does anyone really truly care? Even the crown princes of Salon's narcissists, Mikes Pace and the Triple-Pi Guy, must secretly know that all they're really doing is flashing us their pseudo-intellectual naughty bits.

Maybe folks are titillated by exposing themselves thusly, but I've come to the conclusion that it's a giant waste of bits and bytes.

...he's talking about "raiding" Hogger.

Seriously?

But what about Not Jenna. Can she, too, find a pod people spawning partner?

...one minute after the first time I got behind the wheel of a car. And I'd been riding a tricycle my whole life!

I found myself wondering why anyone typed so many words about this. Did you use a bot, or did you really think this was worth three screen loads worth of text?