Well, I admit I'm more partial to her reported pieces than I am to her Latte pieces, but for me, the anti-Amanda thing raises a couple of interesting questions. One: how much of this is her seemingly perfect "package" (she's cute, thin, successful, young, powerful, married to a NYer writer, yaddayadda). Two: how much are readers willing to let young writers grow and learn and make mistakes? I met her this weekend at the IACP conference, and I confess I was suprised that she was so likeable. She was pretty open about the fact that she's still learning and taking chances and finding her way...and that the Times encourages her to do this. All that "this generation's answer to MFK Fisher" stuff isn't coming from her, and it seems to make her uncomfortable. So here she is, churning out dozens of stories a year and some are better than others. Perhaps people feel that the Times shouldn't invest so much in young, developing writers...that they shouldn't become staff reporters until they are as fully formed as, say, R. W. Apple. But as a relatively young writer myself, churning out story after story on tight deadlines for my employer, I find it kind of comforting to see other writers trying new things and sometimes even failing. One last thought: I think the intensity of the response to her seems to have more to do with her packaging. Same reason people like to see Martha Stewart fail...no one is allowed to seem so perfect. Because, really, why do we care so much more about her than we do about Marian Burros or Florence Fabricant or William Grimes, who have all fumbled on occasion...as all of us have? Why are we so much more invested in her?