WASHINGTONIENNE DOES THE WEEKLY STANDARD

Kanishka and the guy from DCSOB seem to have been won over by Jessica Cutler, better known as the Washingtonienne, the author of one short-lived blog and one apparently better-than-expected book. But I'm not buying it. Among some surprisingly positive reviews, one that actually persuades me of the opposite is by Judy Bachrach in the latest Weekly Standard.

Not only does the book sound bad, but Bachrach's review is one of the most jaw-droppingly wrongheaded book reviews I've seen in a serious periodical. Because I can't make a final call on "The Washingtonienne" without reading it (unlikely) I'm prepared at this point to pronounce Bachrach more of an airhead than Jessica Cutler. Bachrach begins:

"How sad is that?" a young female character observes in Jessica Cutler's roman-a-clef, after spotting George Stephanopolous and James Carville across a crowded Palm restaurant. "Those are the biggest celebrities Washington has to offer, and they're not even attractive."

A brief intake of breath here, the kind that always accompanies a rarely uttered truth (a commodity the novel celebrates), and then, just one line down, Cutler does it again. Washington, D.C., her main character points out, is "Hollywood for the Ugly."

Wow. That's such an original thought. Besides, the exact phrase was used by P.J. O'Rourke in 2002, and it's been attributed to him since. O'Rourke is even a contributing editor for the Standard. I wonder if he's picked up his copy this week.

Having lost it in the very first paragraph, Bachrach just plows ahead:

Ever wonder why, when you phone your local congressman, no one, however low-level or clueless, bothers to answer? Cutler's book is full of dialogue that provides useful insights into this problem.

Pardon? What problem would this be? I've been calling offices on the Hill with some regularity for a couple years now — quite a bit in just the past two months, actually — and I am completely unaware of this as being a problem. Did Bachrach actually call any Senate offices, or is she just taking Cutler's word for it?

Bachrach is thrilled with what sounds to me for all the world like rather pedestrian (not to mention prurient) observances. Here's one she quotes, the first in a series of bad calls — commence fisking:

"Like, duh, of course I was immature. I was half his age! That's why he was f—ing [verbatim] me instead of his wife, remember?"

By this point, Bachrach can't even make consecutive sentences agree:

Yes, that's the joy of this novel. The rest stems from figuring out who in this novel is actually Who. Here the author displays a bracing lack of imagination.

Let me get this straight: A principal "joy" of Cutler's writing is her "lack of imagination"? That's a strange way of making the sale. And Bachrach just sinks lower:

"I found him chatting up some drunk woman who looked like a goblin up close," Cutler writes of an aging lover who runs into a female network correspondent. "She had a beak of a nose, funny lips, and bad skin. The thick layer of makeup she was wearing did nothing to cover the horrible craters all over her cheeks."

Hmmm . . . Ever sleep with this gal? the heroine wonders. "Noo!" her boyfriend assures her. "Do you know who she's married to?"

Well, yes. I suspect I do.

Why making fun of Andrea Mitchell's looks is such a hoot, I'm not sure. Possibly Bachrach loves the bitch-slap because she's not the target? (I'll let someone else pursue that argument.) If all Cutler observes is that the most important people in Washington are less attractive than they were back in Manhattan, then you'll have to forgive me if I don't rush over to Amazon and buy it right now.

She should get it over with and move back to New York. (And she can take James F. from why.i.hate.dc with her.)

Perhaps a better question is why Bachrach is even writing for the Standard at all. She's a contributing editor for Vanity Fair, an eager profiler of Michael Moore and very vocal against the Iraq war. (She also looks like a Washingtonienne grown long in the tooth. Run with it, it's yours.) I'm all for magazines opening up their pages to writers of different political stripes, but she's not a good fit with the Weekly Standard. More importantly, she just isn't any good.

° ° ° ° °
On a related note, I've said, if not written before, that the marginally famous Ana Marie Cox of Wonkette gets invited to speak on way too many panels and television news segments about blogs. Today Duncan Black of Atrios/Eschaton, Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos, Mike Krempasky of Red State and others testified at the FEC. So who did Fox News interview for their story? Why, Ana Marie Cox, of course. All I can think of to say is: Arglebargle!

At least her book doesn't seem to be going so well right now.

---

posted by WWB at 6:28 PM |