Incidentally, anyone wanting to point people at the review in question so they can investigate and decide for themselves whether there was any actionable copying going on can still see it via Google's cache, at least for now.
ETA: Turns out it wasn't that review what done 'im in, but rather a community dedicated to posting parodies of Archie comics. Scholastic's DMCA letter certainly didn't help any, though, because somewhere between the DMCA and 6A's abuse procedures there's a "three accusations and you're out" clause. IOW, since defending against accusations can be so expensive up front even if a successful defense means the accuser must pay the defenders legal fees; and if it has to go to court in the 9th Federal District, which covers California, fraught with uncertainty even if it's clear something is fair use or otherwise exempt, as they've had some really boneheaded fair use decisions come out of that district; and the teeth in the DMCA as far as ISPs are concerned are much stronger than the teeth in a simple standard C&D letter, it looks like simply sending DMCA letters to ISPs--whether one's claims are accurate or not--can be an effective way of conducting a DOS attack. Nice chilling effect there, Congress.
(That said, if two DMCA letters come from one creator and the second refers to material that could and should have been included in the list of offending material from the first letter, that shouldn't count towards considering someone a repeat offender. It isn't continuing to thumb one's nose at the law if a creator happened to miss some supposed infringements the first time around. I know that'd be nigh impossible to apply in practice, but it just seems to represent the fairest interpretation of the spirit of the law.)
Feudalism: Serf & Turf