After several weeks of intolerable, gut-wrenchingly long and/or boring editions of the Times Book Review, yesterday saw the Gray Lady finally put out something that made Intern Alexis's nipples perk up: a big fat work of hotness from big bad Barney the Purple Public Editor, addressing conflicts of interest when it comes to reviewers and their subjects (holla, MoDo!). As if that didn't bring enough joy, the Review even toyed with such evils at Hitler and bloggers. After the jump, Alexis's guide to sounding like you're halfway literate.

The Book Review: Who Critiques Whom - and Why?
by Byron Calame

Normally, like the horses who draw carriages through Central Park, we wear blinders, staring straight ahead at the poop of the horse in front of us, and pretend that other horses don't exist i.e. On Sundays, we usually only have time to read the Book Review and if we're lucky, the weddings section. This week, however, we stepped out of our bubble and felt we just had to read this week's Public Editor column, because it was written, it seems, almost expressly pour nous.

Public editor Byron Calame discusses how books get into the Review, how reviewers are assigned to books and why there are so many gosh-darn books by Times reporters in there — and whether or not this is fair, ethical, masturbatory, etc.

Robert Harris, deputy editor of the section, apparently "uses a simple test to determine whether a relationship between a potential reviewer and the author is too close: 'Do you know the names of her children?' If the reviewer knows the names? 'It's not good.'"

Calame give his several cents on the issue, writing: "In some situations, I think the editors probably could have done more to find a reviewer less vulnerable to the perception of a conflict. Kathryn Harrison, author of the memoir "The Kiss," was chosen to write a November review of "Are Men Necessary?" by Ms. Dowd, a Times columnist. The Book Review editors made the decision even though they knew about a 1997 Dowd column in which she referred to the Harrison memoir about a four-year consensual affair with her father as "creepy people talking about creepy people." Oooh, juiciness!

As we all know, Maureen Dowd has no children, in fact, her book is all about the problems of high-powered women finding the right man with whom to bear children, so the "simple test" clearly did not work in this case!

Speaking of Maureen Dowd, a Times writer whose book was on the 2005 notable book list, Calame writes: " my sense is that Mr. Tanenhaus and his editors genuinely care about general readers and the literary
world, and want their choices to have credibility. Yet the perception of a conflict of interest can hang over both the weekly review process and the notable-books list when Times staffers are involved.

"A year ago," Mr. Tanenhaus told me, "my colleagues and I considered discontinuing this practice altogether and instead simply notifying readers of new books by Times staff. We set the matter aside for various reasons. Perhaps the time has come to revisit this solution." I believe that it has.

Will the Book Review see a restructuring in 2006? Will reviews of books by Times reporters contain "full disclosure" tongue-twisters like all those Jesse Oxfeld / Elizabeth Spiers / mediabistro posts on Gawker? Will reviews of books by Times reporters only be available to TimesSelect subscribers? Will reviews of books by Times reporters start only being negative? Time will tell so much to look forward to in the new year!


The Third Reich in Power
 By Richard J. Evans
Review ed by Brian Ladd

When we watch The OC with our friend Alan he always comments on how uncomfortable the large swastika on the spine of our copy of William Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" (which sits above the TV on our bookshelf) makes him. So, finally, on Saturday night Alan decided he had had enough and made us turn the book around, binding in, pages out, swastika and Shirer's name hidden. Then on Sunday, we read Brian Ladd's review of Richard J. Evans's "The Third Reich in Power: 1933-39," in which he holds up Evans's new tome to Shirer's classic and ultimately decides that Evans "presents a story with few heroes and too many colorless villains a fuller and truer picture of the Third Reich, but a less gripping one than Shirer's." So, feeling validated, last night we turned Shirer right on back around, binding out, pages in, unfortunate swastika in full view again. Sorry, Alan! Never forget!


Essay: What Are the Blogs Saying About Me?
By Pamela Paul

We love a blog-related essay! Especially one in which such bold-faced book names like A.J. Jacobs, Rick Moody, Amy Tan and Julie Powell make guest appearances and discuss how blogs make them feel. Most of the authors say dull things about how sometimes bloggers can be mean and other times bloggers can be nice, but Moody says a decidedly un-dull thing. On typing his name into Technorati, "I can graph it onto my serotonin levels it's like taking a pill to enhance suicidal ideation. Even the good ones make me want to kill myself." That's the holiday spirit!

Also, our lie detecter totally started beeping when we got to MoDo's quote: "It seems narcissistic to be trolling around looking for mentions of yourself, though I am thrilled to be blogged about," she said. "My sister and my assistant show me things they think I need to see. But I don't want to get too caught up in it myself." OMG, yeah right!!! Yes, if there is one thing that Maureen Dowd has always avoided, it's narcissistic endeavors...