Who wasn't shocked by the Times's "negative" review of My Life? I didn't particularly care, but I was a little impressed - "Well, at least they're strong enough to go against what one would assume would be their liberal orthodoxy and print a negative review." A moderately positive or even slightly fawning review was what was expected, but a review that pointed out the problems and seemed to mesh with what many outsiders (including myself) thought would be the end product by the term-paper cramming way he was writing it just two months ago seemed a pretty honest, straightforward review. I would hardly call the reviewer a "right-wing conspirator" or anything like. So, not one to thrill the hearts of the Bill fan club, but you can't win them all.
Well, it appears I was wrong. If you're Bill, you can (more or less) win them all.
In an unprecedented move, the Times is running a second review, this time a favorable one by Larry McMurtry. Although it won't appear in the print edition until the Third of July, the Times already has it posted, so that all good liberals can see its mea culpa.
This really is embarrassing, unless they had it in the can a long, long time ago and were going to publish it all along. Kathy Park, an NYT pressperson, says that reviews have been released early before - but fails to note that they were the initial reviews for books that were not yet out. This is a titch different.
Oh, but I'm sure they must have had it in the can a while. Because, of course, the venerable, honorable Times wouldn't commit such a slap in the face to one of their longtime reviewers, and of course they wouldn't bow to pressure, either, would they?