First McClelland tries to establish that Novak's self-potrait of an outsider in Washington circles is a crock, only to follow by saying “His critics labeled him a brooding outsider” Well, gee, if his critics (and wouldn’t that be the majority of the Washington press corps?) have defined him as such, might that not in fact be what he is? McClelland even gives a major source

That was how Timothy Crouse portrayed him in "The Boys on the Bus," his famed study of the reporters following the Nixon-McGovern presidential campaign.

You even point out how his political positions put him on the outside with the Bush administration. Disliked by liberals and the ruling conservative party. Yup, I’d call that outsider status.

But interesting that McClelland absolves him of the Plame affair. Clearly, by the very description McClelland uses, Novak wasn’t knowingly outing a covert agent, and indeed would have had no idea Plame was covert. The very quote of Armitage's fails to note Plame was covert. And McClelland is accepting that as factual.

Curious.

Here's a buzz word that's been around for decades and should be abolished: relationship. It's a perfect sound byte, for it suggests something definate ("we have a relationship") but is actually vague and contentless.

Anything that is not completely removed from the sphere of human interaction counts as a thing you have a "relationship" with. From the pecil you used for five seconds at the library to your partner of 50 years. Some self help books think they are very wise in saying "Everything is about relationships" and suggest that somehow this expressess a deep connection or maybe even "oneness." It's an empty pointless word.

Let's have marriages and romances and friendships and aquaintenceships, and dismiss this vague, empty term "relationship" forever.

Are you people really insane? For most of the history of criticism, critics have felt it was important, if you're going to evaluate a work, to evaluate the whole thing. CRITICISM ISN'T ADVERTISEMENT! It isn't designed to get you to the brink and then make you rush out and buy the product. It's an analysis of the work, considering how all the parts fit together and what is produced as a result. This can only be done successfully if the critic looks at the whole work.

It's so weird to me. There are people who are upset if even, today, you say Rosebud was a sled or Norman Bates was really "Mother." Get over it. Don't read a review until you've encountered the work, if you care so much.

But if the work can be so completely detroyed by knowing what's in store, than it won't hold up on repeated encounters, and ain't worth much to begin with.

Admittedly "whiny" and "bullshit" were overly harsh word choices. I just find this whole "spoiler" issue incomprehensible in general, and the response to this review baffling in particular.

I don't get any sense of one-upsmanship in this review. No sense of "we gave away the secrets first." Geesh, the thing is practically surrounded by a barbed wire fence on which a sign has been hung saying "Danger: Spoilers Ahead." The only people bothered are those who choose to read the article.

I do understand your feelings about letting the novel speak for itself rather than having others speak for it. You make a good point that this review—any review—could wait a week or so after publication. But sending advanced copies of books to reviewers has been the norm since the 19th Century. Miller and Salon aren't doing anything out of the ordinary. I guess between computers and the internet the reviews get out all the more quickly, but the situation's pretty typical, and has been for a long, long while, that the review coincides with a book's release. This is standard.

Heather Havrilesky regularly reviews shows that have not appeared on television yet, often Andrew O'Hehir reviews movies that won't get to America for months, and Stephanie Zacharek reviews movies often before, or on the morning of the day, a movie opens. And, as I said, this practice is hardly new in any media.

People have existed for nearly two centuries enjoying works despite knowing what was coming up. Indeed, they stood on the decks of New York, crying out to the shipmen bringing the next installment of Great Expectations, "Does Little Nell live?" They were begging for spoilers for a book they all intended to devour. I don't see why there is such a spoiler mania today.