IIRC, there seemed to be an underlying critique of literary criticism/scholarship embedded in it that, for me, got in the way of the much more interesting the stuff about filling in the gaps, reclaiming women's stories, etc.
That makes sense of some of what I remember feeling about the weightlessness of the novel, that the contemporary characters were satirical, but the historical ones were pastiche, and neither felt real enough for me to be compelled by them rather than content to watch their movements, so all I was left with was the structure which springs its secret at the last moment and the language, which was beautiful, but had more substance for me in her other work. Perhaps I would have enjoyed it more if I hadn't expected to care about the characters as people? Other people I knew didn't seem so disengaged.
no subject
Thank you for letting me know!
IIRC, there seemed to be an underlying critique of literary criticism/scholarship embedded in it that, for me, got in the way of the much more interesting the stuff about filling in the gaps, reclaiming women's stories, etc.
That makes sense of some of what I remember feeling about the weightlessness of the novel, that the contemporary characters were satirical, but the historical ones were pastiche, and neither felt real enough for me to be compelled by them rather than content to watch their movements, so all I was left with was the structure which springs its secret at the last moment and the language, which was beautiful, but had more substance for me in her other work. Perhaps I would have enjoyed it more if I hadn't expected to care about the characters as people? Other people I knew didn't seem so disengaged.