Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Your reflection here has me interested. Could you kindly say a few more words?

I feel the same - if I've understood you correctly.

Ah wow, funny to go back and look at this now. (Also, my apologies to Glenn for somehow missing your comment for... five years!) I was a fan of big, difficult, language driven novels for years--Pynchon, Joyce, Delany, etc--and I think for a long time I felt the prose style was the most important part of a novel. But I do specifically remember that, while reading this, I realized that writing nice sentences (even big, whopping pyrotechnics like Gass) isn't enough to make me enjoy reading a novel. And, when it comes Gass in particular, it can make the experience a lot worse, because he's got a mighty prose but is missing nearly everything else that makes a writer like that worth reading.

I did an MFA program a year after writing this review and came to believe that a lot more strongly. But it's funny to read this review and trace it so clearly to this book. Strangely, when I picked this up, I had already finished The Tunnel, disliked it--and still come to try again.

Yes, that's what I thought you were driving at. I also felt like Gass is brilliant, and writes dazzling sentences, but the book didn't ever really engage me. (I haven't yet dared to approach The Tunnel.)