Let's go in reverse chronological order, shall we? Starting with Michiko Kakutani, who isn't satisfied with skewering Scott Smith's return to novel-writing after a thirteen year absence, she has to go and spoil a major plot point that other reviewers kept scrupulously mum on. Sure, it's oh-so-obvious that La Kakutani was having a major crank-on and took it out in prose, but acting the willful, petulant spoiler is a move that's usually limited to those in far greener reviewing pastures. (For a much better example of spoiler-free reviewing, see South Florida Sun-Sentinel's mystery columnist Oline Cogdill's mixed take on THE RUINS.)

Then there's Janet Maslin, who contrary to usual behavior actually finds a female crime writer worthy of her attention. It's Glasgow-based Denise Mina, whom Maslin praises for making main character Paddy Meehan "a riveting creature of her time and place." But why, oh, why must she damn with faint praise by saying Mina is "moving into the boys’ club dominated by her male colleagues"? Talk about a back-handed compliment...

Last but not least is Liesl Schillinger. Not for the content of her review of Marie Arana's novel CELLOPHANE (which is frustratingly elliptical, but typical of Schillinger's style) but because of what she didn't include: any mention of her previous history contributing book reviews to the Washington Post Book World, where Arana is a senior editor. I suppose the NYTBR doesn't require its contributors to disavow any conflict of interest (as Book World's contracts do, something I know about firsthand) and it might not count as a true-blue conflict of interest, but it's certainly worth mentioning, isn't it?