Harry Potter is facing his most formidable opponent yet: the New York Times book review.

Despite a seemingly airtight and, as proven Wednesday, litigious-leaning embargo that prohibited the distribution of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows until midnight Friday, the Grey Lady's leading book reviewer published a review of the final boy-wizard installment Wednesday evening.

In her review, Michiko Kakutani copped to having written her influential assessment not from an advance copy sent by the publisher—they sent none—but by purchasing an illegally leaked copy of the tome at a New York City retailer, The Bookstore Which Must Not Be Named.

Joining Kakutani in being among the first mainstream publications to toss legal caution to the wind and review the unreleased book, the Baltimore Sun's Mary Carole McCauley, working from a copy of the book sent by a leaky online retailer, also published a review of the book Wednesday night.

Adding insult to embargo-breaking injury, both Scholastic, Inc. and Bloomsbury, the book's U.S. and U.K. publishers, and creator J.K. Rowling herself have blasted the papers for not only allowing the reviews to run two days before the final work is due out, but for allowing them to contain so many, and such major, plot-revealing spoilers.

Both publishers, particularly in the wake of the purported photographic leak of the entire tome this week, have spent millions of dollars to ensure the secrecy of the book through its weekend release.

"I am staggered that some American newspapers have decided to publish purported spoilers in the form of reviews in complete disregard of the wishes of literally millions of readers, particularly children, who wanted to reach Harry's final destination by themselves, in their own time," Rowling said in a statement released through Bloomsbury.

"I am incredibly grateful to all those newspapers, booksellers and other who have chosen not to attempt to spoil Harry's last adventure for fans."

For her part, Kakutani, who surely broke all manner of speed reading records if her story of buying the 759-page book, reading it and turning around a thorough 1,135-word review of it all in less than one day is to be believed, did give the book a positive review, if not also a too-revealing one. [Spoiler alert! Fans not wishing to read details of the final book should stop reading now.]

In describing the conclusion of the Harry Potter series, Kakutani writes that it does not end openly, with "Soprano-esque equivocation, but with good old-fashioned closure: a big screen, heart-racing, bone-chilling confrontation and an epilogue that clearly lays out people's fates."

It's the fate of just one person, however, that has fans alternately panting for the book's release and taking metaphorical arms against detractors who feel inclined to leak details of Harry's would-be end.

While Rowling has spent the months-long lead-up to the Deathly Hallows' release pleading with readers and media types alike not to spoil the ending, she has also revealed that at least two main characters die. She has been careful, however, to keep mum on the fate of young Harry.

The New York Times reviewer, however, saw fit to see Rowling's two deaths and raise her four more, revealing that "at least half a dozen characters we have come to know die in these pages, and many others are wounded or tortured."

McCauley, meanwhile, managed to show minor restraint, refusing to cut to the chase and flat out reveal whether Potter bit it in the final installment, though slightly less coyly did offer that, "once you have consumed the final sentence on the final page crafted by Rowling, the ending seems inevitable...it all seems rather obvious. No other outcome would have been as plausible."

In her most potentially foretelling of spoilers, however, McCauley also applauds Rowling for ending the book the way she did, all the while practically spelling out the wizard's fate, by giving Harry "a rare and precious gift, a treasure that outshines any boon she can imagine—including immortality."

Kakutani was equally as forthcoming.

While she refrains from specifically spelling out Harry's fate, she too treads dangerously close to confirming what most pop culture watchers have long assumed: that the boy-wizard is not long for his world, no matter how magical.

Kakutani nearly threatens readers with the news that "the Potter series has grown increasingly dark, and this volume...is no exception," adding that, in his final showdown with archenemy Voldemort, he is forced "to come to terms with his own frailties."

Kakutani's review also harps on the mortality of Harry Potter's world, painting it as "a place where death and the catastrophes of daily life are inevitable." Kind of like spoilers in this world.

Aside from the fuming author and her legally-inclined publishers, diehard fans have already risen against Kakutani and McCauley's seemingly unfathomable breach of embargo.

Theleakycauldron.com, a leading Harry Potter fansite which provides a spoiler-free zone for avid readers, has called for fellow enthusiasts to write a letter to the New York Times expressing their disappointment at the leak, claiming the decision to publish an early review "goes against the express wishes of the author and anyone that calls themselves a true Harry Potter fan."

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, while widely accessible already, will be made legally available at midnight Friday.