Michiko's Gone Maaaaaaaaaaad!
June 19, 2003 10:38 AM   Subscribe

Michiko Kukatani goes whacky! (NYT Reg Required) Maybe all the craziness at the NYT is taking its toll, but everyone's favorite high-brow book bully reviews Candace Bushnell's (Sex and The City chick's) new book as a letter from...Elle Woods?!
posted by adrober (13 comments total)
Hey, Legally Blonde 2 is coming out this Summer, maybe Kukatani just wants in on the action!
posted by billsaysthis at 10:51 AM on June 19, 2003

Not the first time
posted by donth at 11:02 AM on June 19, 2003

That is really, really weird.

Also weird is that when I was still in publishing I was at a conference with Candace Bushnell and my co-workers and I realized she had different size breasts at different times of the day. At a conference one morning she had the ones you see in the NYT picture and in the evening at dinner they were noticeably larger. I always thought that accessories were earrings or a scarf, not breasts, but maybe we're a little behind the times in California. That said she was a nice woman and a good pool player.
posted by Woolcott'sKindredGal at 11:09 AM on June 19, 2003

Kakutani's review is gimmicky and amateurish and I would have rejected it if I were the editor and it was anyone but Kakutani. Any book issued in good faith deserves a good faith review in the reviewer's own voice.
posted by Faze at 12:20 PM on June 19, 2003

Wow. I didn't understand a word of that.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 12:29 PM on June 19, 2003

To: Michiko Kukatani
From: Your own fundament
RE: "Trading Up" review

posted by rusty at 12:37 PM on June 19, 2003

Well, you pretty much know going into a Kakutani review that she's going to act superior to whoever's work it is she's reviewing. So I suppose this is just her way of acknowledging that if she really, truly wants to harsh on someone, she needs to pretend she's someone who wouldn't necessarily be superior, so that that way when, pretending, she still acts superior, it actually means something.

(Assuming, of course, you care.)
posted by mattpfeff at 12:39 PM on June 19, 2003

The same sort of bogus review technique is exactly why Pitchfork drives me nuts.
posted by COBRA! at 2:43 PM on June 19, 2003

hmmm...i somehow remember Carrie on SATC hoping for Michiko Kakutani to review her book...could this be virtual/reality synergy at last?
posted by serafinapekkala at 2:46 PM on June 19, 2003

Why the hell can't Michiko wax wacky from time to time? Kick the guy in the nads all you want, but, as someone who practiced criticism for several years, I can tell you that it's easy to get burned out on the limited review format. Basically, it boils down to snappy lead grabbing reader's attention, summary of film/book/product, synthesis and conclusion hammering nail on the head leaving final impression. There isn't a lot of room for fun, aside from the similes, illiteration and adjectives that you try to sneak in, followed by negotiations with the copydesk to overlook some of the wilder stylistics before another editor then further revises it.

So when someone practices in another voice, it's something of a relief for everybody: writer, editor and reading audience. (I once sold a film review written entirely in iambic pentameter.)

Why not have fun with the form? Man, at this rate, I can see you folks lynching Man Ray before the poor bastard got the opportunity to snap a photo.
posted by ed at 2:52 PM on June 19, 2003

Umm, no one's lynching anyone ed. And Michiko's a she. And it's alliteration. Thank you.
posted by adrober at 2:57 PM on June 19, 2003

Illiteration is much better. Plenty of reviewers pepper their reviews with illiteration.
posted by Furie at 9:42 AM on June 20, 2003

« Older Yad Vashem   |   Another EPA report gets Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments