provenance: unknown

« Is economics really that hard?  |  Really Unnecessary Verbiage Dept. »

A reviewer, reviewed

Reviewing his collection of movie and book reviews in the New York Times Book Review, Laura Miller takes the New Yorker's Anthony Lane apart, and then puts him back together again. "I could not read him on the writers he loves without being seized with a desire to read them too," Miller concludes; reading her own review affected me the same way.

[NB: It is puzzling, but the print version of Miller's review is substantively different from the online version. In the print edition, for instance, the above quote is slightly altered ("I cannot read" instead of "I could not read"), and precedes her "unpalatable truth" quote (whereas online it comes immediately after the quote). The online version is actually shorter, too; the last two paragraphs in the print version have been melded into one. (I would've expected the reverse, given the lack of space constraints on a web page.) I don't know the Times' policy on this — if this is something they do intentionally — but it raises an interesting question — which review should I cite? And why would they edit (and publish, if it is intentional) two distinct versions?]

September 1, 2002 1:41 PM

Comments (and TrackBacks)

Post a comment


Email address: (optional)

URL: (optional)


Remember info?

Copyright ©2001-2003 Matt Pfeffer


. Home
. Web Editing
. Stray Voices
. Writings
. About
. Archive