I just wondered if there was anyone else out there confused with the NY Times book review of the book? I read it and wondered why they let people review a book who have little idea of what they speak? She compares his books to Lemony Snicket and Harry Potter of all books! When in reality only true lovers of the Literature Cannon are privy to all jokes within his books, and Potter/Snicket lack such brilliance.
And because she hasn't read the other books, she can say things like:
So ''The Big Over Easy'' is better read as a string of anything-goes witticisms than for its tale of the Dumpty investigation.
Sigh. Why can't she follow the clues? They all fit together! AND she misses his amazing ability to critique our media/celebrity obsessed times in his "glorification" of detectives and their drive for the lime light at any cost - just as he made celebrity-dom look ridiculous in Name That Fruit and other Thursday Next TV shows that made poked fun.
There isn't even a mention in her reivew of his allusion to Sunset Boulevard in a Lola Vavoom scene that is simply perfection. She probably hasn't see the movie. Sigh.
Then she says of Fforde:
A lot of the time he's simply surfing on a rich stream of luck.
I have a hard time respecting someone whose opinion is without any research or intelligent examination. Luck does not lead you to write four, now five books overflowing with goodies for those of us who would rather read than anything else in the world.
If she does not posess wit, she should not judge the witty.
Or perhaps I'm just being a total snob as my fiancee says because I've read all his books, devoured all the allusions to literature, and understood all the inside jokes in Over Easy?
Please let me know your opinion, and read her drivel at:
Janet Maslin of New York Times
BOOKS OF THE TIMES; To Whip Up a Pythonesque Soufflé: An Egg and a Hard-Boiled Detective