I'm on vacation and have Middlesex ready to go since I'm determined to read it this week (although I do have to get through the last few pages of Norwegian Wood, which, sadly, I find difficult to finish yet cannot say why). Middlesex caused a buzz when it came out and everyone was reading it, but I had no idea what it was about until I finally bought my copy and read the back cover.
This morning, I searched for reviews to see what others thought and came across one from Salon. It begins as one would expect, discussing Middlesex's central theme, then slides into how it "will inevitably be compared to Jonathan Franzen's The Corrections" although "the two works aren't all that similar." So why bring it up?
I am reminded why I gave up reading The New York Times Book Review. Besides the absurd decision to move away from literary fiction because "'the most compelling ideas tend to be in the non-fiction world'" (What? When was the last time you read a novel, buddy?), reviews seem to now be more about the reviewer than the reviewed. I've often been turned off when I've noticed subtle references to why the reviewer is a better writer, making me wonder if I'm being subliminally bombarded with "BUY MY BOOK" messages. I also have little interest in the well-read reviewer or how a particular work conjures up thoughts of Faulkner since the fact that you've read Faulkner impresses me not.
Please, just give me a plot summary and let me know if it's worth my time and effort.
