The review that never ran...almost

This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.

Deciding not to publish something doesn’t always conclude a matter, especially when it happens in the British press. The Spectator pulled its review of Tina Brown’s ‘The Diana Chronicles’ for unspecified reasons, but today the piece has surfaced, courtesy of the Guardian.

Was it too sharp? Too snarky? Wait, isn’t that what the Brits do best?

The Spectator’s reviewer, Sarah Bradford, has written books on the late princess, as well as on Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis and Lucrezia Borgia. She calls Brown’s book a combination of ‘self-consciously pacey modern schlock and sentimental drivel,’ then goes on to list everything she finds insufferable about the book, including the attention the author focuses on herself at the expense of her subject--including the absence of photographs in the British edition. Well, there is one. ‘Perhaps the publishers find themselves strapped for cash after the much vaunted advance they allegedly paid,’ the reviewer says near the end. ‘Punters, on payment of an advertised £18.99, will have to be content with an alluring picture of the other blonde, Tina Brown.’

Set this review beside our own, and it seems like the reviewers didn’t read the same book. What gives? Our reviewer, Patt Morrison, found ‘The Diana Chronicles’ to be ‘adroit and penetrating.’ Maybe she would have hated it, too, if she had been the Diana chronicler everyone had first thought of--until Brown came along.

Nick Owchar