tampalawjobs

I read this a few weeks after taking the bar exam because after studying for the bar I wanted to feel human again and I guess literature is as close to human as it gets for me. This book was so well-reviewed that I had high hopes. Fans of modern literature, you must! etc etc. No, I don't must. Anyway, kinda interesting plot, under a microscope nothing incredibly original, other than the true identity of the teach & Dad. Why couldn't she just work on the plot instead of drowning us with footnotes? What the critics called the markings of literary genius just felt like self-conscious ramblings. As in Yes I'm smart and well-read so I can write about teenagers but still make this a great work of art. Eh, I don't really buy it. Generally my approach to literature is what would Nick Hornby think? He would think the footnotes drag the book down. Or so I think he would think. And the title...don't get me started. Should have been something simple like Prep (also overrated but maybe I'm just jealous she's writing novels and I'm not). Instead, we have Special Topics on Something Long and Unrelated to the Content of the Novel. At least David Foster Wallace's footnotes and the number of words in his titles are inversely proportional. Ha! Special Topics in fractions! I am still looking for a book that is plot-driven, well-written and features characters you want to know more about. I just read Fight Club and the plot and writing were great (I read some review on here that criticized the repetition of certain phrases but I loved it, very conversational, we repeat ourselves right, very conversational), but the characters were plot twists, not characters. John Irving and Zadie Smith come close to my ideal. But hey, just because it looks different and has a weird name doesn't mean it's the next great thing in modern literature. Jeez.

2023-06-23 06:19