The Millions has a great little takedown of Michiko Kakutani up on their blog, accusing the New York Times' book reviewer of something they call The Kakutani Two-Step:

It works roughly like this: belittle a novelist’s finest work to date — preferably by tossing around unsupported adjectives…say, “arbitrary,” “flimsy,” and “unfinished.” Then, five or six years later, when the novelist in question brings forth his next book, or the one after that, complain loudly about how lame it is compared to his previous masterwork, which, it is to be inferred, you adored. (Bonus points if you actually now call the previous book a “masterwork.” Double bonus points if you also work in the word “limn.”)

They catch Kakutani red-handed in slaughtering Jonathan Lethem's great new novel, Chronic City in part by referring to it as a decline from his previous novel, Fortress of Solitude, which she slathers with praise like "deeply felt" and "vividly and movingly about regular people." But back in the day, she loathed Fortress of Solitude, calling it "fundamentally flawed" and "contrived." The Millions continues with this great paragraph:

To be sure, it’s possible to square the two Lethem reviews, if you’re enough of a Kakutani exegete to infer that her kneejerk distaste, in each case, is for Lethem’s forays into genre-bending. But all the casual reader will notice is the invidious comparison between the two books, the sudden vanishing of any her earlier reservations, like a magician’s cloth being whisked away to reveal a tiny, perfect turd.

They then ask their readers to locate more cases of the Kakutani Two-Step. I hope they keep pushing at this one, because there's plenty of room on the internet for this kind of Kakutani Comedy Gold.