the future of fiction?

[bekah]

I'd avoided the book after reading a very brief review because it 
sounded like some kind of specialty variation on "chic-lit" (gag). 
But a friend whose taste I generally trust recommended it so I'm now 
about 1/3 through it.   My first impression was correct.   I'm going 
to try to finish it but if it wasn't for my friend's recommendation I 
wouldn't bother.

Bekah


At 8:06 AM -0500 4/21/07, Daniel Harper wrote:
>On Saturday 21 April 2007 06:54, you wrote:
>>  Now I feel better about not being able to get past page 12 of Special
>>  Topics.
>>
>>
>>
>>  Is her physics that dense and complicated? Wha?! More complicated than
>>  quantum physics?!!!
>>
>
>In the first hundred pages or so, there is no physics at all. It reads like a
>high school English paper written by a bright but unworldly 18-year old --
>which the character is supposed to be (Lee, 1960). She also includes
>footnotes (Asimov, 1972) and references in-text (Joyce, 1916) that interrupt
>the flow of the writing to an enormous degree.
>
>Unlike my clumsy example above (Rand, 1943), it's a masterful parody of the
>style, and makes perfect sense in context, but it's very difficult to read,
>and doesn't have the kind of rewards that Pynchon gives out like candy. Pessl
>is a good writer who's written a book that I simply couldn't get into, but I
>may end up giving her another try here in a few weeks.
>
>>  _________________________________________________________________
>>  Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
>>  http://search.msn.com/
>
>--
>No reference to the present day is intended or should be inferred.
>--Daniel Harper
>countermonkey.blogspot.com