bets, harry potter wont make new york times best seller

[Twistid 5,000+ posts]

$50 says harry potter and deathly hallows wont make new york times best seller, wont even make it on the list ....

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/naughty.gif.94359f346c0f1259df8038d60b41863e.gif (already have a few friends in the bet)

Click to read more...

 

[PollyCranopolis 10+ year member]

Final "Harry Potter" Sells 8.3 Million Copies In The US In 24 Hours (96/sec)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/07/22/final-harry-potter-sell_n_57307.html

Think you might already be beat

 

[Twistid 5,000+ posts]

whoops forgot to add and the deathly hallows... the new one that just sold like 16 million in the first day or whatever, wont make the list... at all

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

Is that the newest one?

If so, I bet that it will make the best seller's list.

 

[iagrdshaka 5,000+ posts]

no fancy book learnin' for me

 

[jdawg 5,000+ posts]

you are gay

 

[Twistid 5,000+ posts]

noooo, i cant take your money, even though your an *******, but friends on the other hand...

just a heads up

http://www.hawes.com/2007/2007-07-22.pdf

Huh? The book that will probably set a single day and one week sales record, the book hundreds of thousands will line up for at midnight won't be the Number One book on The New York Times Bestseller list? That's right because Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is a children's book and those books don't count.

It happened in 2000. The Harry Potter books -- a once in a lifetime publishing phenomenon -- were dominating the bestseller lists, with three titles ensconced in the Top 15 at the same time. It just wasn't fair, moaned publishers of more "serious" fiction. It kept more deserving titles off the list, titles that people would never hear about, said bookstore owners. And so in a rash, indefensible decision, the New York Times decided to banish children's books solely to their own separate list.

it will make children's top books, but wont make the actual "best seller fiction, non fiction list" just the "childrens list"

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

I suppose that's a technicality, but I would argue that the Children's best seller list is indeed a best seller's list.

Your OP did not specifiy that "Non-Fiction" list

 

[jdawg 5,000+ posts]

you are still gay

 

[senbonzakera 10+ year member]

I suppose that's a technicality, but I would argue that the Children's best seller list is indeed a best seller's list.
Your OP did not specifiy that "Non-Fiction" list

X2 .

 

[PollyCranopolis 10+ year member]

No other book, not even any of the six previous Potters, has been so desired, so quickly. "Deathly Hallows" averaged more than 300,000 copies in sales per hour more than 5,000 a minute. The $34.99 book, even allowing for discounts, generated far more revenue than the opening weekend of the latest Potter movie, "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix," which came out July 10.

"The excitement, anticipation, and just plain hysteria that came over the entire country this weekend was a bit like the Beatles' first visit to the U.S.," Scholastic president Lisa Holton said in a statement Sunday.

I agree with Flipx99.

 

[CaliforniabOY5 10+ year member]

smartness

 

[Nukedsodapop 5,000+ posts]

i was reading today that it isn't being classified as a childrens book anymore, but i could have been wrong

 

[snoopdan 5,000+ posts]

I dont get it. I never could actually sit down and read a book. No lights, no buttons...no flashy things....meh. Just couldnt keep my attention I guess. My girlfriend and her friends had a copy of the book like that night it came out and havent stopped reading it since. .... I guess books are just way 2 dimensional for me :shrug: