Wow!

[Mall]

Getting a book published by Random House is itself an amazing achievement, but only a select few of “the best of the best” of even the books published by the major houses are reviewed in the New York Times, which is the goal of most serious authors. That honor is not without stress, however, as only the top experts in particular fields do the reviews, which can be brutal. It was therefore understandable that Christiane was experiencing both cautious optimism and a little trepidation at the Spa last week in anticipation of today’s paper.

It is rare, and maybe unique, when a Times’ review describes a historical story as “enticing and extraordinary.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/books/review/Wheatcroft-t.html?_r=1&ref=books)

Pass on my personal congratulations to Christiane on reaching a truly remarkable milestone that all but a very few authors can only dream about.

[TGJB]

Mel-- I\'ll do better than that, I\'ll show her this post.

I think the term I used was a little different than trepidation, something about doing something in her pants. Probably because I\'m a New Yawka.

[moosepalm]

C\'mon, it  was only called \"an enticing and extraordinary story.\" What\'s the big deal?

Seriously, major kudos to the author.  That\'s a graded stakes win.

[TGJB]

I am happy to learn that some of our posters read the Times. One of our other posters will be too, a guy you played golf with.

[magicnight]

Yes, my exacta selections these days are not putting any kibble in the hound\'s bowl, so we continue to encourage people to read the NYT.

What Mall says is dead on, and I would only add that writers and artists, like nature, hate vacuums. Therefore, of the three possible results (positive review, negative review, no review), only one is bad, and it ain\'t the negative review. Congratulations to Christiane for having written another wonderful book, and for getting the best possible result from her NYT review!