Yesterday, the New York Times reviewed David Denvy’s book, Snark… minus the chapter (yes, chapter) taking down Times columnist Maureen Dowd. (h/t, Eric Boehlert)
Of Dowd’s Bush-era columns Denby asks: “Did it ever occur to Dowd that her chummy, high-schoolish, I-can-see-your-undies routine might be bizarrely beside the point?” Of Dowd’s work during the Democratic primary Denby writes, “Her writing was a desperate, disjointed, and demoralized performance…”
The only mention of Dowd in yesterday’s Times review, written by Walter Kirn:
When he finally reaches the present era, Denby pronounces Tom Wolfe and Maureen Dowd masters of “snarky mimesis…”
Related: CJR’s James Marcus interviewed Denby last month (Dowd did not come up).
It was a hatchet job of a book with a lot directed straight at Maureen Dowd. Kirn did a good job at revealing what a shoddy shallow book this is without openly defending Dowd. For a taste of his unfair attacks on Maureen, you can read this:
http://dowdreport.blogspot.com/2009/02/cheap-shots-at-queen-of-snots.html
#1 Posted by Mo MoDo, CJR on Mon 23 Feb 2009 at 06:50 PM
Whatever the flaws of Denby's book, it was not a hatchet job, and I'm sure Maureen Dowd can defend herself. Or if she can't, there's always Charlie Rose. I stumbled upon Rose interviewing Denby a couple of weeks ago. He had spent the first half of the program kowtowing to the founders of MySpace; for most of the second half, he took Denby to task for daring to criticize Dowd, who he openly admitted was an old friend. It's a small world after all.
#2 Posted by James Marcus, CJR on Tue 24 Feb 2009 at 02:34 PM
Yes, I saw the Rose interview and transcribed the parts relevant to Maureen Dowd. I also embed a video of the entire interview.
http://dowdreport.blogspot.com/2009/02/rose-defends-dowd.html
Rose cornered Denby into admitting that his major complaint with Dowd is that he thinks she has no political agenda and is unfeeling in her criticism. In truth, he just objects to her agenda. It's part of his rather selective definition of snarky. People that agree with him aren't.
Dowd herself has stayed above the fray, as perhaps she should.
#3 Posted by Mo MoDo, CJR on Wed 25 Feb 2009 at 02:25 PM
Denby's biggest complaint about Dowd is that he finds her work sophomoric, not that he disagrees with her political agenda (I would guess that their political views are reasonably close). And I don't think his real litmus test for snark has to do with being a registered Democrat. He dislikes the snotty, nihilistic tone of it, unless it's being deployed by a truly brilliant writer--for example, Gore Vidal. This isn't to say that I agree with everything in the book. It's almost impossible to write something like this without coming off as slightly schoolmarmish; you're scolding the kids for giggling during class. But he does have his points to make. And I found Rose's performance embarrassing, since he couldn't seem to steer the conversation away from his chivalric defense of Dowd, who's hardly a damsel in distress.
#4 Posted by James Marcus, CJR on Fri 27 Feb 2009 at 04:20 PM