Rebecca flipped through The Times book review this morning and got us to thinking of a few observations.
Just as they endorse (via silence) the views on torture by torture cheerleader Charles Krauthammer, they provide space to a torture cheerleader to review Mary Mapes books and that review resulted in three printed letters.
William Youmans and Alan Austin rightly take Atler's review to task for the uninformed opinion that it doesn't matter whether the documents of Bully Boy's National Guard foray were authentic or not. We agree with those two letters.
The third letter picking apart Alter's "logic" is from "Dick Thornburgh." (Usually billed as Richard but we'll go with Dick since he did.) Dick writes, "In his review of 'Truth and Duty,' Jonathan Alter characterizes me as 'clueless about the realities of how the privileged escaped serving in Vietnam." Dick then cites his record which, Dick feels, proves he is fully aware that the privileged escaped serving. Dick notes that from 1969 to 1975 "as a federal prosecutor" he handled cases against what would be termed draft dodgers. Dick expects us to assume that this means he went after the privilaged. Possibly Dick's going for a more class system critique than Alter?
From Dick's record, we find it hard to believe. Dick's speaking of a lower middle class grouping that he targeted. Rest assured that Dick didn't go after the children of the powerful (such as Bully Boy or Lloyd Bentsen). Alter's point stands.
Dick also attempts to argue Alter's point by noting that in 1966, in an unsuccessful bid for Congress, he "expressed my own serious misgivings about the war in Vietnam." Again, Dick that has to do with the children of the rich and power who escaped serving in Vietnam how?
We'd love to be able to say Dick demolished Alter. He didn't. Neither example he cites alters Alter's argument.
Michael Caracappa is bothered by Joe Queenan's review which played fast and loose with the facts. Considering that playing fast and loose is a hallmark of Queenan's writing (that and pretending to be Mickey Roarke for a day), we're bothered that the paper continues to print anything by Queenan. (It helps to be anti-woman, note to wanna be reviewers for the Times.)
Then there's the issue of the paper's picks for best books. CJR Daily roused themselves out of their slumber (did someone forget to fill their water dish?) to bark about the lengthier list. They barked about the fact that a number of books on that list featured writers for the paper (such as Maureen Dowd). The paper runs a list of ten books. (They wouldn't have room for those much needed drawings of tossing books into the air if they ran more!)
Five are fiction, five are nonfiction. Of course they pimp George Packer. They have to. To not do so would hasten the re-examination of their own Dexter Filkins' "award winning" reporting.
Packer's nonsense is the first of the five listed non-fiction books. But while the watchdog was sniffing and snarling at the lengthier list, we're wondering whether they bothered to look for inclusion because we're not honestly seeing much in the ten.
Not only do we see a lack of diversity in the demography of the authors, we fail to see diversity in the author's focus on the nonfiction list. Joan Didion is addressing a serious subject from an alternate angle. (That's not an insult, we mean she's gone beyond the obvious.) The other four books, including Packer's, they're hardly brave works, they hardly shake up the publishing industry.
The same magazine that felt the need to pass a smear of Seymour Hersh off as "balance" in the arts section this year, presents the false claim that Packer's produced "[a] comprehensive look at the largest foreign policy gamble" to which we reply, in both of your dreams, the paper's and Packers. May you share the same pillow and sleep in one another's drool.
And may CJR Daily learn to offer their own criticism and stop attempting to borrow it from others.
Turning to the best seller list, we scan quickly to see how high up Packer's book is. It's not in the paper (which prints the top fifteen best sellers in hardcover for nonfiction). Packer's hardly burning up anyone's charts but the paper won't stop, can't stop, pushing him.
We get e-mails on our book discussions from readers who really wish we'd focus more on ficition. (Some readers would say "focus any!" or even "focus a little!") We've been upfront that most of us don't read fiction (well other than The New York Times, it provides us with enough fiction for each week). Dona will read anything and does. Betty likes fiction especially comic novels. (We don't mean illustrated novels, we mean the writings of writers such as Paul Rudnick -- Betty's a huge fan of Social Disease.) But we're upfront about it. We've made the point repeatedly that fiction really isn't our interest.
We think The Times needs to be similarly upfront. Not in memos or statement to trade papers, but to their readers. The Times doesn't really care about fiction these days. The new editor of the book review has been upfront about that and his disdain for fiction.
So if you're a fiction writer, you might be feeling shortchanged.
So for Fiction Writers Ignored By The Times, we offer these tips to ensure that your next book will be reviewed in the paper.
1) Praise the paper in interviews. It may seem silly but Grey Lady loves her props. Praising her gets you on her radar.
2) Write something very generic with just a trace, just a tad, a dollop, if you will, of adventure.
In fact, you should follow the previous sentence's structure when writing it. A reporter for the international scene does and those pieces always get published as news. Despite recalling the "writing" of Candice Bergen's character in Rich & Famous. In fact, let's provide that as the template (since the international reporter's already practiced it to much succes):
In Paris, in France, they had a guy who was, for the record, both homosexual and a Jew, who wrote a seven-volume book they continue to refer to as a masterpiece, who was such a nitroglycerine in the head he had to hide out in a cork lined room or he'da gone up in shrapnel.
Those commas, those clauses, those starts and stops, are very important to the paper. Write your novel utilizing them often enough and The Times might ask you to a be a foreign correspondent and put you on a plane to India because there's no rule that the paper can only have one in house poet. Regardless, they will note your novel because what others see as "flowery," the paper mistakes for strong writing.
3) Promote anothe profession when promoting your book. This week an anthropologist gets praised for an attempt at fiction. The Times really doesn't like fiction at this point. So find an angle. Maybe you were standing in line for 20 minutes at Wal-Greens? Sounds like you're practically a chemist! Promote that.
4) Write for the paper. It doesn't pay much but it does expose you to their clubby mentality. As the watchdog yapped, it can even get you included on their best of list.
5) Get a trophy wife. This applies to female authors especially! Get a trophy wife. The institution loves trophy wives. They especially love trophy wives that put forward the opinion that all women are seeking to leave the work force. So you might want to consider a joint-novel
(or has co-authorship of novels fallen by the wayside -- it's been so long since Patti Davis penned one -- or rather, co-penned one). If you can skewer working women, you're sure to get a mention.
6) Sign with a publisher who advertises heavily in the paper. Or insist that the publisher you're with advertise heavily in the paper. "Tit for tat and this for that" is the paper's unofficial mantra.
That's why exploring the releases of smaller presses is left to others. Don't buck the system, exploit it! The New York Times can always get behind that!
7) When the review trashing your work appears (probably midweek, probably penned by what some term "a former groupie" whose past is supposed to be shrouded in mystery and now cloaked in respectability but the tales are still told by those who observed them -- and they're so much wilder than anything that appears in book reviews) you need to realize that there are only two responses.
a) You write a letter thanking them for the "wonderful" review and note, in passing that a minor mistake occurred. Now maybe you wrote about life on the frontier in the 1800s and the paper dismissed your book as "yet another attempt at a look at cosmopolitan life." No, that's not a minor error. But the paper wants to act as though they only make minor errors and that their reviewers actually read the books they review. So word it so carefully that no one will be offended that you point out that, point of fact, no metrosexual appears in the text of your book.
b) Write with fire in your letter. The Timid is not known for it's spine. If you merely point out flaws in a vocal letter (as opposed to a kind one kissing their asses), you've just destroyed your chances of being noted in the paper. The blacklist does exist. Ask Gore Vidal. The way you ensure that you're not on it is with a firey letter. (Threatening legal action is always good and there's someone in the entertainment industry that the paper currently bends over backwards not to offend after slanted coverage led to a strong reproach.) Scare the hell out of them. They'll think you're crazy. That's not a bad thing because they think crazy and creativity go hand-in-hand.
If none of the above works, e-mail us and we'll advise you of which philanthropic committees in NYC you need to sit in.