Obviously correct, malone, but I don't think the definition is quite right, is it? You only "beleaguer" someone else in the military sense of "lay siege to"; otherwise it's a passive verb? (I.e. one can "be beleaguered")
That's odd, trevor - it seems to be the same article, but the one I read was definitely in the Review section of the Saturday Guardian - a pre-release, perhaps?