Initial Thoughts: I have mixed feelings about this book. I can see, on one level, why some people think it's simplistic, but I also think that's reductive. Of course, professors don't really look at books and just see the point of view or the other books that were influences on the author or what the style of the prose is. But those things *are* the background information a scholar has to start with in order to begin processing and interpreting a book. You can't write about, say, motherhood in a novel withotu thinking about who is narrating the book and how that may influence what is said about motherhood, for instance. I also think there's some tension in the book because the author teaches both literature and creating writing, and some of the approaches are definitely more of what I would expect a creative writer to notice and think about, rather than a literature scholar. (Finally, I have som reservations about some misinterpretations about both LotR and Harry Potter. For instance, the author claims that Harry is the only person who goes to Hogwarts not knowing about magic, which is BLATANTLY incorrect (see Muggleborns). It's clear that modern fantasy is not his area of expertise and maybe these were thrown in as examples more relatable than Joyce or Faulkner, but seeing clear misreadings of two different books did have me worried about some of the other examples in the book.)
Reading updates
-
Started reading
-
4 March, 2020:
Finished reading
-
4 March, 2020:
Reviewed
