lady_schrapnell | Follow-up to 'Hmmm' (re Ness on GULLSTRUCK ISLAND)

I've seen that Patrick Ness made a note on his diary that the Guardian deleted a 'self-deprecating' sentence from his review in which he 'fully acknowledged' that his own books were 'hardly Penelope Fitzgerald miniatures'. In all fairness, having written a review 'the gist of [which] is defending it against potential accusations (levelled at a number of children's books) that it might be too long', it could be quite embarrassing having that cut made. I still feel about his review essentially as I did yesterday, and wonder if he's possibly thinking a bit less than clearly about a) the purpose of a book review; b) what he's actually said in the review. For one thing, 'blame JK if there just happens to be more of it than there used to be' is defending Gullstruck Island against potential accusations that it might be too long -- how?