The greatest editor of newspaper history could probably have used an editor. First, some of the most thrilling stories of his time were told in almost too casual a way, so as to not emphasize for those readers who were mere babes in the woods at the time the events happened just what the significance was--the assassination of Anwar Sadat, for example.
The clearest part of the book is the run up to his being editor of the Sunday Times. His childhood upbringing, the character of his family and their origins--isn't it a great country where a man of humble origins can grow up to be knighted kind of a tale. Not maybe the tale that readers wanted to hear, but he does a good job.
The weakest part is the transition between his first and second marriage--I suspect that he was trying to spare feelings all around, which is admirable, but could have been left out completely--why include his exclusion from the sexual revolution because of his marriage and small children, then drop that marriage with the mere mention of an ongoing affair, and then almost a footnote that his marriage ended amicably, and then his marriage to the object of his affections? Dissatisfying, and not necessary to include at all. Tell it, or leave it out.
The thrilling part of the story is told with reasonable restraint, but then his life at Conde Nast has a feeling of holding something back. Maybe he will write a book about those years? I would have loved to hear more about the quality of that transition, but maybe it is really just that the fire can only burn so long, that with his second family he wanted more time to pay attention to the details of those childrens lives and there isn't much a story. So, in all, it is an uneven tale, that is easy to read, but could have used a really good editing job.
No comments:
Post a Comment