Literature scholars will look back and declare this the era of Books that Had Little Point Beyond Demonstrating Their Author's Overeducated References and Footnotes.

We get it, you have a graduate degree from Yale. You read Kirkus, really we get it. No really, we do.

Been there.

I have a Ph.D. in 20th Century British Lit and thought this idea was kinda cute when Byatt was playing with it, and all my grad stud buddies and I were burbling on about homo ludens.

But, now--well, sigh.

There's quite a bit that's intellectually wonky about this book, yes, but give this one a chance. It's not actually the story of a cursed book at all-- it only begins that way. It's just so surprising and weird that Laura Miller justifiably doesn't want to give much more detail than that. Actually, surprising is the best adjective I can think of for it... I've never read a book quite like it, certainly not by Byatt. I was lucky enough to acquire a galley copy, and was up until 4 am on a weeknight finishing it-- it was tremendously gripping.

Despite the talk about Derrida and so forth, the crux of the book is very beautiful and easy to understand, even democratic. This is hard to explain without giving a lot away. But do give this one a chance!

I read A. S. Byatt's POSSESSION, which I suppose is what previous posters are referring to. I like the idea--biographers fall in love--but I felt the book was excruciatingly slow. I could not finish it.

I'm wondering if this book is the same, as are so many in which the novelist parades his/her literary knowledge.

That wasn't the case with Byatt, who cared more about rumination than pacing.

I can't stand sentences bogged down with adverbs, such as Henry James's. I like Stephen King's rule: NO ADVERBS.

I'm an impatient American.

I hope someone will tell me whether this book MOVES or not.