Harry Potter flies home...as carry on.

[cheezedoodle]

Posted: 9/14/06 at 2:30pm

Not sure what the exact terror threat of this actually was - or was percieved as being.

The Associated Press

LONDON -- British author J.K. Rowling says she won an argument with airport security officials in New York to carry the manuscript of the final "Harry Potter" book as carryon baggage.

Had security agents not relented, she said on her Web site, she might not have flown, she said in a posting dated Wednesday.

"I don't know what I would have done if they hadn't — sailed home probably," she wrote.

The author had participated in a book reading for charity on Aug. 1 with fellow writers Stephen King and John Irving. Security was drastically tightened after Aug. 10 when British police said they had intercepted a plot to blow up U.S.-bound airliners.

"The heightened security restrictions on the airlines made the journey back from New York interesting, as I refused to be parted from the manuscript of book seven.

"A large part of it is handwritten and there was no copy of anything I had done while in the U.S."

Eventually, she added, "They let me take it on, thankfully, bound up in elastic bands."

J.K. Rowling Challenges Airport Security

[Pippin]

Posted: 9/14/06 at 2:50pm

the absurdity of the heighted security measures at airports is increasing day by day. it is laughable.


ha ha.

[DG]

Posted: 9/14/06 at 2:52pm

I'm going to assume that there's something not mentioned that would make the action taken sensible. As it is presented, I'm with Cheeze - I don't get it.

[SonofMammaMiaSam]

Posted: 9/14/06 at 2:53pm

perhaps she hand wrote it in lipstick or toothpaste? WTF?

[#1Elphie]

Posted: 9/14/06 at 2:57pm

I think that, on flights to and from Heathrow around the time of the threat, no carry-on baggage was allowed at all. Which would include a book.

[Fiction Writer]

Posted: 9/14/06 at 2:57pm

I was confused by the article too.
Maybe they thought it was a How To manual for something.

[DG]

Posted: 9/14/06 at 2:58pm

#1Elphie - thanks. If that's true, at least it makes sense - and interesting that she was able to override the restriction.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 9/14/06 at 3:08pm

Were they perhaps afraid that this final book might in fact be a bomb?
Updated On: 9/14/06 at 03:08 PM

[Craig]

Posted: 9/14/06 at 3:17pm

I find it equally odd that she would not have any "backup" of the manuscript. A bit dicey if you ask me.

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 9/14/06 at 3:22pm

dun, dun . . . .DUN!

[cheezedoodle]

Posted: 9/14/06 at 3:25pm

Craig - I know my memory is bad sometimes, but I seem to recall that someone stole her backup once from a safe - or safe deposit box or something...maybe she does not have one due to that incident. She must have this manuscript under her pillow at night! lol

[#1Elphie]

Posted: 9/14/06 at 3:29pm

Here we go, I found this to back up my thought:

"At the time of the initial ban, allowed items were limited to:

* Baby milk or juice if travelling with an infant (contents must be tasted by an accompanying adult in the UK)
* Passport and other official papers needed for flight
* Small (pocket size) wallet or (pocket size) purse with contents, but not handbags
* Keys, but not electronic key fobs
* Unboxed sanitary products for babies and women
* Unboxed tissues
* Glasses with no case
* Contact lenses with a case, but not any cleaning solution."

So basically only necessary items were allowed as carry-ons.

I guess it makes sense that she didn't have all of the manuscript backed up. A lot of writers prefer to hand-write their work, and I'd imagine they would want to keep writing new material without taking the time to stop and type up everything already written.

[DRSisLove]

Posted: 9/14/06 at 3:29pm

This is absurd. God damn terrorists.

[colleen_lee]

Posted: 9/14/06 at 4:04pm

I would've been like "I'm J.K. F****** Rowling dammit, and you let me take this book on the plane I'll speed dial that jackass President of the USA and the Queen of F****** England dammit!"

Yea. That's what I would've been like.

[Craig]

Posted: 9/14/06 at 4:07pm

Please. The woman has more money than she knows what to do with now. Why was she even taking a commercial flight and not booking her own jet to whisk her away.


Take a boat my behind!

[jacobtsf]

Posted: 9/14/06 at 4:12pm

ummmm, Craig, maybe she hasn't let all of the money go to her head. Maybe she likes feeling like an actual person and not some celebrity who has no connection to the real world.

[Wildcard]

Posted: 9/14/06 at 4:12pm

She had most of it backed up in her London computer. However, most of the parts she wrote while in the US were handwritten, hence no back-up.

[Wildcard]

Posted: 9/14/06 at 4:12pm

She had most of it backed up in her London computer. However, most of the parts she wrote while in the US were handwritten, hence no back-up.

[Craig]

Posted: 9/14/06 at 4:14pm

jacob - I was saying that tongue planted firmly in my cheek

But truth is, getting home for her was never really an issue. If she couldn't take the commercial flight, she could have booked a charter...

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 9/14/06 at 4:14pm

I'd continue to fly commercial if I were wealthy because smaller private planes are often handled with less care - at least in my very crash-phobic imagination.

Not regularly backing up the manuscript is brazen and silly.

[jacobtsf]

Posted: 9/14/06 at 4:16pm

I was hoping you were Craig, but there are plenty of people on this board who were probably thinking the same thing, and the post was aimed more at them.

[AbbaRabbit]

Posted: 9/14/06 at 4:21pm

"Baby milk or juice if travelling with an infant (contents must be tasted by an accompanying adult in the UK)"

i'm guessing that includes breastmilk? and you have to taste it?
sorry but if it came out of my body, i aint puting it in my mouth!

[cheezedoodle]

Posted: 9/14/06 at 4:24pm

"sorry but if it came out of my body, i aint puting it in my mouth! "

So - would you put it in your baby's mouth if not your own? I guess breastfeeding will not be for you then.

[AbbaRabbit]

Posted: 9/14/06 at 4:27pm

it's meant for babies, not for adults.

[colleen_lee]

Posted: 9/14/06 at 4:28pm

And that makes it different......how?