After reading Janet Maslin's review of Stephen King's Cell in yesterday's NYT, I'm wondering: Since when is the Times letting its book reviewers pretend they're also industry pundits? To wit, while it's one thing to accept the premise that readers might have some interest in what Maslin thinks about the quality of a text, it's quite another to have her pontificating on marketing strategies, as in: "So far, so good—although it would have been better had Mr. King not agreed to promote Cell with cellphone ring tones being sold by his publisher." Later, in describing the "facsimile of 12 handwritten passages of Mr. King's next and very different-sounding novel" included in the back pages, Maslin opines, "Unlike Cell ring tones, this is a welcome and legitimate form of promotion."

It's not like I'm any great fan of the Cell ring tones, because I've mocked them myself, although it's the execution that amused me more than the fundamental premise. It's just that, well, call me old-fashioned, but unless the Times is taking up the anything-goes, stream-of-consciousness blogging style of journalism, I don't see how pontificating about industry practices really helps in the aesthetic consideration of the story. Then again, I think this cover must have Max Perkins spinning in his grave. But if you think I'm being a reactionary, tell me why I'm totally off-base.