![]() Somewhat bafflingly, Joshi seems to consider it an outrage against proper storycraft or something that the book doesn't spoonfeed readers easy answers to its mysteries. That by itself makes it interesting, no matter how well it ultimately succeeds. ![]() ![]() I wouldn't call the book a classic, and it clearly owes much to Lovecraft's influence, but it also offers a sometimes compelling vision of an encounter with unknowable forces operating with a weird, inscrutable logic that defies all human efforts to penetrate or control it. And despite the characterizations, I didn't pick up on any pc agenda at work in the story, and I have a pretty fierce allergy to those. His comments on the writing quality probably have some merit, too.īut I also think Joshi deliberately misrepresents aspects of the book here to score points, and his criticisms of the story itself just come across as pedantic and petty and suggest a crucial lack of inagination on his part. On one hand, I agree with Joshi's criticisms of Vandermeer for being part of the self-righteous "Lovecraft was such a terrrible guy" crowd of puritans who nevertheless continue to build names for themselves out of his legacy. Having read the first book out of curiosity for the movie, I'm of two minds about this review. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |