Michiko Kakutani

Can anyone explain to me why the famous, influential, and famously crabby NYT critic is so grouchy? Is it that she has enormously high standards? Does she not mince words or suffer fools gladly? See her current review of the new David Sedaris book for only one of many examples.

I didn't see anything particularly crabby in the review. Then again, I don't see why everyone is so gaga over Sedaris. I don't find him at all humorous.

Marketing, maybe? Because I love Kakutani's scathing reviews in the same way that I love Dorothy Parker's. Bitchy reviews tend to have more staying power than treacly reviews.

But perhaps I'm biased, because I often agree with her. She's the only critic who shares my feelings about Ian McEwan's On Chesil Beach, for example (here, see especially paragraph 4).

I don't always agree with her but it has never occurred to me that she's particularly hardnosed, much less scathing.

But her fixed-point theorem is brilliant.