Not to be a pest, but the article seems to be picking on the author of the book being reviewed for speding so much time describing the physical attributes of the radio personalities she is profliing. I don’t think the New York Press is sexist for pointing out the oddness of these descriptions.
Or maybe I missed the joke you were going for . . .
A fair enough point, Kevin. And I had certainly considered that. But it seems to me that the reviewer is just as equally rapt with the physical descriptions as the author. Why was the whole review devoted to this and not, say, the depth and quality of Lisa Phillips’ coverage? Normally, this sort of quibble is confined to a few paragraphs, not the entire length of the review.
Not to be a pest, but the article seems to be picking on the author of the book being reviewed for speding so much time describing the physical attributes of the radio personalities she is profliing. I don’t think the New York Press is sexist for pointing out the oddness of these descriptions.
Or maybe I missed the joke you were going for . . .
A fair enough point, Kevin. And I had certainly considered that. But it seems to me that the reviewer is just as equally rapt with the physical descriptions as the author. Why was the whole review devoted to this and not, say, the depth and quality of Lisa Phillips’ coverage? Normally, this sort of quibble is confined to a few paragraphs, not the entire length of the review.