<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Reluctant Habits &#187; Bill Keller</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.edrants.com/category/bill-keller/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.edrants.com</link>
	<description>a cultural website in ever-shifting standing</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:42:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
<atom:link rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com" />
	<atom:link rel="hub" href="http://superfeedr.com/hubbub" />
			<item>
		<title>NYTBR: Bill Keller Can Do No Wrong</title>
		<link>http://www.edrants.com/nytbr-bill-keller-can-do-no-wrong/</link>
		<comments>http://www.edrants.com/nytbr-bill-keller-can-do-no-wrong/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Feb 2008 21:42:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Edward Champion</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bill Keller]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Book Reviewing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Journalistic Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York Times]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ruth Conniff]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sam Tanenhaus]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.edrants.com/nytbr-bill-keller-can-do-no-wrong/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Just when you think the New York Times Book Review couldn&#8217;t get any sleazier, editor Sam Tanenhaus has proven yet again that there isn&#8217;t an unctuous pool he won&#8217;t dive...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just when you think the <i>New York Times Book Review</i> couldn&#8217;t get any sleazier, editor Sam Tanenhaus has proven yet again that there isn&#8217;t an unctuous pool he won&#8217;t dive into.  The latest disgrace is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/books/review/Conniff-t.html?ref=review">Ruth Conniff&#8217;s review</a> of Bill Keller&#8217;s <i>Tree Shaker</i>.  Bill Keller, of course, is the executive editor of the <i>New York Times</i> and Conniff&#8217;s review is perhaps the most egregious conflict of interest in the <i>NYTBR</i>&#8216;s entire history.  Conniff isn&#8217;t critical one whit about <i>Tree Shaker</i>.  The review may as well have recycled the book&#8217;s press release.  But Conniff (or perhaps the editors) have no problem invoking these boilerplate plaudits:</p>
<blockquote><p>With its striking layout, bright graphics and photographs on almost every page, Keller’s biography of Mandela vibrates with the feeling of history come alive.</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>This book does not condescend to its young audience, leaving readers to draw their own conclusions. </p></blockquote>
<p>We learn that Keller, despite writing a children&#8217;s book, is &#8220;more a historian here than a biographer.&#8221;  (Never mind that the book is a mere 128 pages.)  We learn that he wrote &#8220;a thoughtful afterword.&#8221;  The only thing missing in this review is a phone number for <i>New York Times</i> readers to confess their conversion from Christianity to the Church of Keller.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m still puzzled why Conniff didn&#8217;t declare Bill Keller &#8220;the greatest writer in the history of children&#8217;s literature&#8221; or &#8220;the most profound humanitarian since Gandhi.&#8221;  Why didn&#8217;t Conniff demand that all literary people supplicate before Keller&#8217;s dais, declare Lord Bill the True Leader, and be prepared to sacrifice their babies to the volcano?</p>
<p>Tanenhaus doesn&#8217;t stop there.  In addition to featuring a ten minute podcast interview with Keller on the <i>Times</i> website, he also offers <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/books/chapters/1st-chapter-tree-shaker.html?ref=review">the first chapter</a>.</p>
<p>Of course, it&#8217;s just possible that Conniff really did love the book.  But when one examines the first chapter, Keller&#8217;s writing deficiencies become self-evident.  Grammarians will wince at the folksy use of &#8220;gotten&#8221; and the sloppy &#8220;past half a century.&#8221;  A double &#8220;was now&#8221; has managed to escape the copy editor&#8217;s eye.  We learn that Ahmed Kathrada is &#8220;a thoughtful man&#8221; because he &#8220;earned multiple college degrees while in prison.&#8221;  We get awkward redundancies such as &#8220;Then we rode to their old cellblock, where Mandela posed for pictures in his cell&#8230;&#8221;  (In his cell?  No kidding?)  </p>
<p>Beyond these flubs, there is nothing more here than dry generalized description that could have been easily cadged from the back of a travel brochure.</p>
<p>That such a book would be uncritically accepted and that such a review would be published in a section that purports to be a critical beacon are salient indicators that, when it comes to dealing with top brass, Sam Tanenhaus is nothing more than a literary lapdancer.  </p>
<iframe src="http://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?href=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.edrants.com%2Fnytbr-bill-keller-can-do-no-wrong%2F&amp;layout=standard&amp;show_faces=true&amp;width=450&amp;action=like&amp;colorscheme=light&amp;height=80" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" style="border:none; overflow:hidden; width:450px; height:80px;" allowTransparency="true"></iframe>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.edrants.com/nytbr-bill-keller-can-do-no-wrong/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

