In a bookstore I have just read a bit about the novel in Bookmarks. Well, it seems to me that the NYT mentions Faust so I am right about that. (Phew. I felt stupid... no, not stupid but rather over-educated.)On the other hand it seems The Angel's Game hasn't gotten too good reviews (hasn't gotten too bad ones either), it has been judged as a mediocre effort, and everybody compares it to his previous novel of course. (See one of my posts about this - this comparison game is the stupidest thing ever.)
Again, it is absolutely possible that this novel goes downhills (has to drop quite a lot as it is now at a very very high point), but it has to be a totally different reason from what these idiot reviews are talking about. I haven't read even one authentic (=literary critical) reason so far for these face-makings.
Nevertheless, in spite of my common sense and knowledge, these things can put me off quite well.
(Part 1.)
2 comments:
Yes, most reviews of The Angel's Game have been so completely idiotic. It just seems people are unable to understand, and appreciate, the book. It is a darker and more complex read than shadow of the wind, one that demands that the reader participates and actually thinks rather than just sit there. It seems like Zafon may have overestimated his readers and produced a too ambitious and complex novel. I loved it and liked it even more than shadow of the wind, if that is possible. It is pure genius, and sadly, for what it seems, not fit for the "reading club" market.
Ah, you have spoken from my heart :D I do hate overexplaining and also, when I am hit on the head with some kind of (otherwise) evident "message" (in any form of art). I think we all should presume that our receiver is intelligent enough to figure out things themselves. Not to speak of the fact that the receiver's role is (would be) essential (and almost as important as the artist's role) in the process of creating any kind of real, authentical art.
Post a Comment