The Devil and the Gray Lady

National Review Online ^ | June 10, 2003 | Mark Goldblatt

[Mia T]

ping

[Mia T]

ping

[Mia T]

ping

[bmwcyle]

I hope investors either bail out or can this little boys butt.

[Mia T]

the logical endpoint is Pinch in the Old Gray Lady's womb, fully protected....

Another bit of irony....

[Mia T]

bump

[Mia T]

ping

[Mia T]

ping

[GOP Poet]

Welcome then to the world of writers and publishers.

Incestuous and cruel are breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Why do you think writers are known for the time they spend ALONE!

Believe me when I say, yes the gray lady/snobs/climbers were out in full force when it came to reviewing and ripping this author and her book, but this has nothing on the teachers of writers and how they treat their students that may in anyway show a sign of being great. Squish squash and exterminate replaces teaching/guidance. It is sad. Just as thoughtful and intelligent book reviews are replaced by social chastising and provincial ice pick throwing.

When you publish a book such as The Devil Wears Prada, you expect there to be a fight--if you don't you have been living under a cooled lava formation. When you are just starting out looking for support and skills, you don't expect this same sort of treatment, but it all starts from the beginning for many. Especially if they are very talented.

Many authors are terrified all the time after a big success. The publishing end of this industry, the marketing and reviewers are actually a very seedy underbelly most of the time. The exception is when it is NOT. I think more people outside of the incestuous circle just saw it more clearly in operation on this book.

[AZLiberty]

The Gray Lady attacked "The Devil in Prada" because, despite being set in the fashion industry, the novel is really about Hillary Clinton.

[Teacher317]

The Devil and the Gray Lady

Same thing.

[Mia T]

This sort of thing happens also in other creative disciplines, especially in those whose markers for 'brilliance' are subjective and arbitrary, governed by what is chic rather than by what is transcendent.

pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic
WHY THE LEFT IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA

by Mia T, 5.15.04

eave it to the French to make pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic all the rage.

They and their moneygrubbing, Oil-for-Food defrauding cohorts abroad, and their power-hungry would-be terrorist sympathizers here, are all sporting "THE LOOK."

(How many of those oh so trendy Kerry-clinton-Kennedy hate-America, blame-America-first sound bites will al-Jazeera broadcast today?)

The trusty triad's half-truths, exaggerations and outright lies, confounded by fog of war, vagaries of peace and uncharted territory of asymmetric netherworlds, remind us that things are not always what they first seem. The UN Oil-for-Food scandal, for example, has shown us it was not "going to war with Iraq" that was "all about oil." It was, rather, "not going to war with Iraq." The Left, we now see, had that one, (as they have most things), exactly backward.

The dernier cri of seditious and corrupt Leftists everywhere, pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic renders the Left, irrespective of policy, no less dangerous to Western civilization than the terrorists they aid and abet.

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2004, 2006

[Mia T]

You have a good point.
Anna Wintour. hillary clinton. A distinction without a difference. ;)

[Mia T]

Chicness and elegance aside, of course. ;)

[AZLiberty]

Chicness and elegance aside, of course. ;)

Stirring in chicness and elegance was necessary to conceal the true subject. If the author had used the title, "The Devil Wears Pantsuits", she would have been taken on a ride to Fort Marcy Park.

[new cruelty]

BUMP

[AZLiberty]

Anna Wintour. hillary clinton. A distinction without a difference. ;)

The first item returned by a Google search for "Anna Wintour" AND "Hillary Clinton" includes this interesting quote:

"Anna Wintour's fashion influence extends to celebrities and politicians: because of it, Hillary Clinton underwent a drastic makeover and became the first First Lady to strike a pose on the cover of Vogue in the midst of Monicagate."

[Mia T]

;)

The author at one time worked for, and was, thus, abused by, Anna Wintour. This book is a not-so-veiled account of that experience.

As for the Times, I think it's simply the case of Maslin, Sulzberger et al. not wanting to cut off their Armani to spite their Prada, so to speak. ;)

[GOP Poet]

So true.

I get a sense though in the other arts, people generally know this, but they have this sense that writer's just write these neat little stories and these neat little publishers publish the neat little stories and the reviewers write neat, little, thoughtful reviews of the neat little stories that the neat little publishers automatically neatly send the compiled and neatly edited book to the neat little bookstores that put the neat little book on the neat little shelves in the neat little front of the neat little bookstore, preferably in the neat little window.

The neat little publisher does the neat little marketing for the nice little writer who wrote the neat little story and the nice little consumers read the neat little reviews and see the neat little write up on the nice little writer and go to the neat little stores and spend their neat little money on the neat little book and the nice little writer sails smoothly into getting a publisher for the next neat little story.

Not!