By: E&P Staff Every so often editors at the influential New York Times Book Review are accused of assigning a book to a reviewer with some link, happy or mad, with an author that may have slanted their assessment. And once in awhile a reviewer there offers surprisingly unkind words about a book by one of the newspaper?s staffers. These two unusual events seemingly came together in one place this month in a review of columnist Maureen Dowd?s new bestseller, ?Are Men Necessary.?
The review was written by well-known writer Kathryn Harrison, who Dowd had mocked in a couple of columns in 1997.
On her popular blog, Arianna Huffington points out that this appears to violate the paper?s ?Ethical Journalism Guidebook,? which warns against ?conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflict? in arts reviews.
Citing no sources, Huffington claims that ?when Dowd complained to book review editor Sam Tanenhaus about the curious choice of book reviewer, he suggested that if she didn't like criticism, she shouldn't write books, but acknowledged Harrison had admitted that she remembered having been mentioned in Dowd's columns. Even that, though, didn't raise any red flags.?
In 1997, Dowd in a column called ?Banks for the Memories? described Harrison's book ?The Kiss??-a controversial memoir of her consenual four-year sexual affair with her own father--as an example of a trendy genre: "Creepy people talking about creepy people." Others mentioned in that column included Mark Fuhrman and Paula Barbieri.
In another column a few months later, Dowd included Harrison in a group of memoirists who aimed for ?titillating revelation and vengeful intent.?
In her review, Harrison opined that Dowd's skill as a columnist "does not enable her to produce a book-length exploration of a topic as complex as the relations between the sexes." She concluded the review by noting that ?an award-winning acid tongue just may be a tragic flaw.?
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here