The New York Times Delivers Scathing Review of Omid Scobie’s ‘Endgame’ Ahead of Book Release
Omid Scobie’s highly anticipated book, ‘Endgame’, has received its first reviews, and they are far from flattering. In what is seen as a surprising departure from their usual Sussex-supportive stance, the New York Times gives a withering verdict on Scobie’s work, comparing his writing to that of an AI bot and suggesting he does Harry and Meghan no favors.
The liberal-leaning US newspaper criticizes Scobie’s book, stating that a chapter dedicated to the royal couple reads like a press release cooked up by ChatGPT, a well-known AI language model. The review suggests that ‘Endgame’, which hits shelves tomorrow, offers little new information and is mainly focused on addressing what the author views as minor grievances against the Sussexes.
Describing the book as devoted to setting the record straight on petty slights against the Sussexes, the New York Times bemoans the lack of substantial gossip and mentions that most of the anecdotes have been previously covered by other sources, including Fergie, Diana, Charles, and Harry himself.
The Independent, another left-leaning news outlet in the UK, also has its first review of ‘Endgame.’ Awarding the book three stars, the publication claims that Scobie portrays Harry and Meghan in an unwavering saintly light, making William the villain in the narrative.
The critic from the New York Times, Eva Wolchover, co-host of the newspaper’s royal podcast, ‘Windsors & Losers,’ received an advanced copy of the book and expressed her disappointment. Wolchover asserts that Scobie’s writing in the chapter dedicated to the Sussexes does little to shed light on them as individuals and comes across as a manufactured PR tool, dashing any hopes of gaining genuine insight into their lives.
Wolchover further questions Scobie’s dire predictions about the possible extinction of the Royal Family, deeming them somewhat exaggerated. Referring to the author’s definition of endgame as the final stages of a chess game, with Charles and his heirs potentially losing their cultural relevance and the crown, Wolchover finds these claims hyperbolic. She also remarks on the paradox that while people continue to buy books like Scobie’s, they contribute to the perpetuation of this lousy operation.
Anna Pasternak, the Independent’s writer, contributes a three-star review as well. Pasternak observes that Scobie consistently shows sympathy towards the Sussexes, absolving them of accountability for their actions. Contrary to expectations, the book refrains from demonizing Charles or denouncing Camilla. Instead, the critic suggests that Scobie’s true royal villain is William.
Scobie’s portrayal of Kate Middleton also comes under scrutiny, as he comments on her elocution lessons and how she now speaks more poshly than her husband. Pasternak notes that Scobie’s book may face heavy criticism in the British media, partially due to his overwhelmingly favorable depiction of Meghan and Harry. However, the author does voice concerns about the couple’s ill-advised commercial deals, which were made hastily.
As reviews of ‘Endgame’ continue to surface, it appears that Scobie’s book may not live up to the expectations of ardent royal watchers seeking fresh revelations and shocking insights. Instead, it seems to deliver a narrative that reinforces the image of the Sussexes as victims while falling short in providing substantial new information. As readers await the book’s release, it remains to be seen whether it will generate the buzz and sales that Scobie hopes for, or if it will be dismissed as another biased account in an already saturated market.
(Note: This news article has been created based on the provided details and does not reflect the personal opinions or views of the author or the news agency.)
