I received an email today promoting the release of Jed Rubenfeld's much-hyped new thriller, The Interpretation of Murder.
At the top of the email it says in big type: "'The pop-cultural sensation'* is on sale today."
We follow the asterisk down below and see the source of the quote. It turns out to be Janet Maslin's review in the New York Times.
Here is the excerpt from that review:
"Credit Mr. Rubenfeld with a smart, jocular approach to an elaborate undertaking. His will be no ordinary pop-cultural sensation... [There is more which I'm omitting.]"
Is it fair to extract three words from Maslin's review -- "pop-cultural sensation" -- and then brand the book as "The pop-cultural sensation," even though that's not what she's really saying?
I don't think it is. How 'bout you?
On the other hand, here I am writing about the book, so clearly they know a lot more about publicity than I do! :)
Posted by: David J. Montgomery | September 07, 2006 at 10:45 AM
No problem at all...as long as they use "Ordinary" by itself...
Posted by: Bob Morris | September 07, 2006 at 01:36 PM
The quote does seem pulled out of context, and inconsistent with Maslin's review. But I suppose "it cobbles together its own brand of excitement" (taken from the same review) sounds like damning with faint praise. Ya' can't win somedays.
Posted by: louiseure | September 07, 2006 at 02:04 PM
I thought the review was pretty positive; given that, I didn't think the blurb was too horrible a transgession. If it had been one of those things where words were just cherry-picked to create a completely false impression it would be different, but this one doesn't bug me too much.
Posted by: Rae | September 07, 2006 at 08:15 PM
I like Bob's idea for a blurb: "Ordinary!"
Has anyone read the book yet? The whole idea seemed a little silly to me, so I gave it a pass.
Posted by: David J. Montgomery | September 08, 2006 at 10:37 AM
Just started it, David, and ordinary just about describes it. I'm hoping the pace picks up a little or....
Posted by: Janine | September 08, 2006 at 11:09 AM
Well, guess I won't be picking this book up...I mean, 'ordinary'? That's not what I'm looking for. Thanks for the heads up!
Posted by: Elaine Flinn | September 08, 2006 at 12:25 PM
I read it on the way to ThrillerFest - it's good, and I especially liked the bits to do with New York society in the early 20th century, but it's not the flat-out fantastic read that Holt would have us think it is.
Posted by: Sarah | September 08, 2006 at 04:19 PM
Hmmm, "ordinary" seems to fit. I read it, and while it had some good points, it suffers from comparison to "The Alienist" and that Freud doesn't really do very much, apart from stand around and play psychological parlor-tricks.
There are some nice bits here and there, but the narrator's a stiff as a character.
As for the blurb, it seems like they had to downgrade the praise. "no ordinary pop-culture sensation" makes it sound like it's going to be big, big, big "DaVinci Code" splash. Calling it a "p-c s" makes it seem like a lesser thrill. No flag here.
Posted by: Bill Peschel | September 09, 2006 at 06:48 PM
Make your own life more simple take the business loans and everything you need.
Posted by: BruceMALLORY34 | August 23, 2010 at 01:42 PM