'The New York Times' list is a bunch of crap. They ought to call it the editor's choice. It sure isn't based on sales.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Yeah, the New York Times is very intellectual and very, very prestigious, but it doesn't reach the market that People magazine does.
I know real people, whose names I could tell you, people I know who have said 'I've stopped buying the New York Times.' Why? Because their editorial position has filtered, has leached into the news pages.
My worry about the New York Times is that it's got the only position as a national elitist general-interest paper. So the network news picks up its cues from the Times. And local papers do too. It has a huge influence. And we'd love to challenge it.
I think the 'New York Times' reviews overall tend to overlook popular fiction, whether you're a man, woman, white, black, purple or pink. I think there are a lot of readers who would like to see reviews that belong in the range of commercial fiction.
I'm very happy that the New York Times has spoken well of my stuff; who wouldn't be? But it's not a choice I made.
'The New York Times' is a great newspaper: it is also No Fun.
If 'The New York Times' didn't exist, CNN and MSNBC would be a test pattern. 'The Huffington Post' and everything else is predicated on 'The New York Times'. It's a closed circle of information from which Hillary Clinton got all her information - and her confidence.
I'm never surprised by the insensitivity of 'The New York Times' editorial board.
I didn't make 'The New York Times' bestseller list until 'Charmed Thirds,' and then again for 'Fourth Comings.' It gave me a certain validation, and it certainly helps position me for future books, but it's not something I think about on a daily basis.
I intend to buy 'The New York Times.' Please don't take it as a joke.