The Times Strikes Again

The latest true crime author to be unnecessarily excoriated in the pages of the New York Times in a grandiloquent review is Dave Cullen. He can take comfort in the fact that he joins an exclusive club: Ann Rule, Vincent Bugliosi, and many other authors in our favorite genre have been derided in its pages. 

It appears that book critic Janet Maslin read both new Columbine books, as she mentions the second book out now by Jeff Kass. It's hard to tell how the two books compare, so the review offers zero guidance to those who want to choose between them. The Associated Press reviewer did a better job in that regard. I am left to wonder if the Times reviewer read both books and decided to write about the one she liked the least. Maybe it's more fun to write nasty reviews?

I am hard-pressed to find a positive review of a true crime book in the New York Times archives -- at least in the last decade. The exception to the rule: Harold Schechter managed to garner three praise-filled reviews in the Times for The Devil's Gentleman. They were well earned reviews, to be sure (I loved the book), though none were penned by Ms. Maslin, who has repeatedly stated that she sees no value in true crime subjects -- and mystifies me by reading and reviewing a "tabloid" genre she obviously loves to hate.

If you've seen any other favorable reviews of a true crime book in the Times since 2000, I'd love to read them. And I keep browsing the paper often, hoping a flattering review of a true crime title might one day again appear there. Will Ms. Maslin ever read a true crime book and like it? I don't think it's a realistic expectation. If Rush Limbaugh joined the Peace Corps, I'd be less surprised.

With my own first book coming out in a month, I hope my publisher will not send a copy to the Times and have asked it not to do so. I have no reason to think the Times would pluck my tome from the heaping pile of submissions but dread the thought that it might not skip a chance to unfavorably compare an umpteenth author to Truman Capote.

Comments

[Kevin M. Sullivan]

The New York Times is a paper in serious decline. Beyond the war reporting of Dexter Filkins, I see no use for the paper at all. Most folks around the country, and many in the city from which it hails, understand it's a bastion of liberal bias, and that true, unbiased reporting, left the paper years ago. And, in my opinion, this is why they are in such financial trouble today.

Of course, this is not something we should be welcoming with glee, for the down-fall of a once great newspaper is nothing to laugh about. But sometimes institutions, like people, can be very slow learners.

[Laura James]

Hi Kevin,

I think you've got a valid viewpoint on the Times in general. I'm just very sorry and frustrated that the leading book reviewing publication has such open disdain for our favorite genre. I am sure its negative attitude has a great impact on the publishing industry; many major houses shy away from true crime altogether. Would that be the case if the Times wasn't so damn harsh on true crime? I don't think so.

[Kevin M. Sullivan]

Hi Laura--

I think the problem stems from how out-of-touch the Times folks really happen to be when compared to the average person on the street; excepting, of course, the above mentioned Filkins, who appears to have his head screwed on correctly, and has not allowed himself to enter (apparently) that holier-than-thou realm many folks at the paper seem to wallow in on a daily basis. That such an institution would slam the honest and hardworking endeavors of those who write true crime is utterly amazing to me.

[Mardi Link]

I just checked to see if the Times reviewed one of my fav true crime books of the last few years, The Suspicions of Mr. Whicher by Kate Summerscale. They did on July 20, 2008 and actually seemed to enjoy the book, though it wasn't the rave this title deserves imho. Still, the reviewer was Marilyn Stasio, not Janet Maslin.

[Nora Rawlinson]

Good catch on The Suspicions of Mr. Whicher. However, Marilyn Stasio writes for the New York Times Book Review and not for the daily Times -- the book review staffs are quite separate. I'm not sure if Laura examined the archives of both entities, or if she was focusing on the daily NYT.

Maslin is not someone to turn up her nose at potentially popular titles, so it's odd that she is so obviously annoyed in this review.

I've been hearing great things from librarians who have read the galley.

[nc]

Maslin's observations of Cullen are mirrored by one of the key Columbine families involved in the tragedy. Randy Brown, whose family reported the killers many times before the shootings, has been vocal about criticizing the Cullen book.