(Fwd) Re: Slate (no spoilers)

[Bill Millard]

Some off-list correspondence from yesterday, pertinent to Walter
Kirn's unfortunate comments, belong here as well, as Murthy has
suggested.  I still hope Slate can outgrow the irritating tendencies
discussed here & elsewhere, though I'm disinclined to bet the rent
that they will....

-- Bill

------- Forwarded Message Follows -------

Hi, Murthy:

> Bill Millard writes [Re: bad review of M&D at slate]:
> > I expected better from Slate.  
> 
> Now, clearly this was your mistake. Slate is neither interesting nor
> perceptive as a rule - see "http:www.stale.com" for a good parody.

Stale is hilarious, true, and well-deserved.  Actually, my personal
weathervane blows back & forth about Slate; sometimes it seems their
writers rise to the occasion, and sometimes all they come up with is
intolerable Beltwaybabble for policy nerds.  Kinsley's a smart and
civilized editor, but the inconsistency of the overall operation is
maddening.  Their lit & culture reviews are particularly plagued by
Oneupmanship Syndrome, the fear on a reviewer's part that he/she
might be caught liking something that some other reviewer pans
(diagnostic signs of this syndrome include unnecessary snideness and
attempts to condescend to works one doesn't come close to
understanding).  

[other private stuff snipped]

Cheers,
Bill