Talk:Michiko Kakutani

Fake quotes / vandalism
I removed the fake quote from David Foster Wallace. If anything, it was a slur against Wallace (calling him inebriated). Whoever put it there tried to give a legit source (Review of Contemporary Fiction 12.3 {which was Fall 1992, over three years prior to the release party for Infinite Jest}) but the quote is not in that source (or sourced anywhere besides Wikipedia). I'd imagine that there are other fake quotes in the Criticism section, but I haven't fact-checked them yet. Mattbucher (talk) 05:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Name.
I have corrected the romanization of the Japanese version of MK's name, which happens to be the same as how it's written in English, only in surname-personal name order. The apostrophe was simply unnecessary; the word and character 子 is "ko こ" -- not a long sound, as had been indicated. Please look in any Japanese dictionary to confirm this (e.g., http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/cgi-bin/wwwjdic.cgi?1C). 130.54.104.138 02:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Harry Potter Section
This section is totally irrelevant, and only appears because of the current hype surrounding the release of the new book. When judged over the scale of her work, this is a non-event and I see no reason why it should include a section of its own. It should be removed.

I attempted to incorporate your suggestion by directing those interested in this controversy toward the comprehensive accounting of the facts - including the signed complaints of many Harry Potter fans - which appears on The New York Times website. We'll see if others are satisfied with this approach. - 02:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: POV
Regarding a potential POV issue. I largely rewrote this article and consciously used the term 'laughable' to describe Kakatuni's use of the word limn in her reviews. I did so specifically because her use of the word prompted her more trenchant opponents to laugh at her (follow the links). This is not, therefore, a POV issue. Another term may be more applicable, but it needs at any event to convey the implicit polemics. Dottore So 22:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Mailer
Um, I don't think we need to have Norman Mailer's complaints about Kakutani. Wikipedia is a collection of facts, not a collection of opinions famous people have about each other. Isomorphic 28 June 2005 04:35 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree. The Mailer quote is used to give a more well-rounded sense of her reputation. He speaks for a lot of people.
 * Aroundthewayboy 19:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I also disagree. The Mailer quotes, while sensational, are newsworthy enough to be included in a "criticism" section. His irritation at her practice of bringing out scathing reviews in advance of publication to damage the reception and ultimately sales of a book is worth including, as is Rushdie's quote. She's not an especially well-liked person in the literary world. Inoculatedcities 02:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article can do no more than limn the person who is featured. The Mailer quote is an aid to this process. We should accept any assistance that we are fortunate enough to be given.Lestrade (talk) 02:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Re: 'practicing Christian'
I'm a great fan of Michiko - but where does the author come up with the notion that she's a 'practicing Christian.' The sum and substance of her writing is overwhelmingly secular, urban & liberal; there is no trace of Christianity (or any other religion for that matter) in her writing -  so I doubt that this 'factoid' is accurate. Juststoppinby 04:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)===POV===

Sources needed
I have moved unsourced material from the article to the space below. All quotes should be backed up by sources before being moved back to the article to comply with Verifiability. I also re-wrote the article to comply with Neutral point of view and Biographies of living persons. -Classicfilms 18:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Her more famous excoriations include: John Updike's Seek My Face ("bogus in every respect"); Tom Wolfe's I Am Charlotte Simmons ("cheap, jerry-built affair that manages the unfortunate trick of being messy and predictable at the same time"); and Don DeLillo's Cosmopolis'' ("a long day's journey into tedium").

''Salman Rushdie has called her "a weird woman who seems to feel the need to alternately praise and spank". In a June 2005 interview with Rolling Stone magazine, author Norman Mailer criticized Kakutani as a "one-woman kamikaze" (Kakutani is of Japanese descent) who deliberately "bring(s) out your review two weeks in advance of publication. She trashes it just to hurt sales and embarrass the author." Mailer also said that New York Times editors were "terrified" of Kakutani, and "can't fire her" because she's "a token," "an Asiatic, a feminist."''

...which the New Haven Advocate called "a great moment in McSweeney's history, by Kakutani's college classmate Colin McEnroe." ---


 * A source can be found for the Rushdie quote and there is a source listed for the Mailer quote you excised below. What's the problem again? Inoculatedcities 02:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Media references
The "Media references" section seems to be of no value whatsoever. Anyone can mention her name. Of what importance is the mention of her name, especially by mindless TV shows?Lestrade (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

Slanderous quotes are not appropriate by themselves
The quotes calling Kakutani names like "weird woman" (Rushdie), and "a one-woman kamikaze" (Mailer) are not helpful by themselves. It almost seems as if someone who chose them — and not any of the other more academic quotes — probably has a personal vendetta against her. I would even guess that Kakutani has reviewed this person's book(s) unfavorably.

Much more appropriate for an encyclopedia would be quotes from impartial appraisals of Kakutani's work — not her personality, since she is emphatically not a public figure. She is a very private writer. (And I have never met her personally or communicated with her or anyone who knows her.)

Let me expand on that: The ability for Wikipedia "editors" to choose for inclusion highly negative quotations about an individual can be like putting a machine gun in the hands of a child. It is far, far too easy for this ability to be misused so as to paint a highly biased (either for or against) a particular individual. This is 100% contrary to the crucially important no-POV principle underlying Wikipedia.

For that reason, quotations should come only from sources that are at least clearly trying to present an unbiased view of someone. In the case of a private writer like Kakutani, the only relevant opinions are of her work, not her personality.

And by the way, there is zero evidence that either Rushdie or Mailer ever got to know Kakutani personally, so there is no reason that they even have any basis for assessing her personality.Daqu (talk) 14:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

^I fully agree with this above statement. These quotes are by authors whose work Kakutani has criticized, so it is obviously extremely biased and not at all an accurate reflection of her as one of the most globablly recognized literary critics. If these are to be included, they should be paired with authors who have spoken highly of her, otherwise it's just demonization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.117.155 (talk) 01:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Since those quotes are not criticism, but insults, I have removed the section in accordance with this discussion. The entire section needs to be revised in order to fulfill NPOV, since it's nothing more than petty grievances in its current state.The Legend of Miyamoto (talk) 06:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)