I think it was just a poorly edited statement of fact, because, seriously, the NY fucking T didn't get an ARC for Harry fucking Potter? Seriously?
I dunno. Stephen King was saying (in his Entertainment Weekly column) that he didn't get and AR, and he's written the last several EW reviews for HP in the books section (and generally been a mega-cheerleader for the series).
I was under the impression that no one got an ARC for HP7. The articles I read about the lengths Scholastic went to to preserve the security kind of implied it, at least.
I don't think they had ARCs for Harry Potter, at least not since #3. I remember from HBP that the Times, Salon, and every other media source had to wait until they got the book at midnight of the release date to read and review it.
Some folks on LJ are reading this to mean that the NYT reviewer went out and purchased a copy of the book, illegally to do the review.
I think it was just a poorly edited statement of fact, because, seriously, the NY fucking T didn't get an ARC for Harry fucking Potter? Seriously?
No, it's apparently true. ETA: xposted.
Also according to Gawker you can pick them up at Duane Reade. Duane Reade: always the weak link.
IOQ, I forget something: when you have a letter with a legend above the address like "via e-mail", "via fedex", "via facsimile"-- what do you say for regular post? "via mail" sounds wrong.
Here's an email somone apparently got, stating that yes, someone from the Times walked into a bookstore and bought the book. [link]
Hmm. My handy dandy internal letter generator doesn't have a legend either. Maybe it's just for non-mailed letters.
Also, books are often available before the release date, and it's not usually a big deal -- witness my parents' local non-B&N book store already having sold their copies of Vampire People.
Is it actually illegal to buy a book ahead of the release date? I mean, I would think that most people do not know when most books are released!