Reviews:
- The Globe and Mail's Matt Kavanagh, So, was it worth the wait? Heaps of spoliers.
- January Magazine's Linda L. Richard, Love Letter to an Icon. Spoilers:
The Pale King is impossible to review properly, and for so many reasons. One, of course, is the fact that it’s been pieced together -- by loving hands, sure. But still. We will never know exactly had Wallace had in mind. And it doesn’t matter what the reviews say in this case, does it? Those who loved Wallace will read The Pale King no matter what is said about it. And they should because, in this instance, reviews are really not the point.
- Boston.com's John Freeman, The Fallen King. Spoilers:
Wallace’s genius was that he could absorb the infernal logic of data — all those vectors of complexity, its relentless torrent — and still give us the magic of narrative. That moment when we, as readers, become co-imaginers of a text because there are characters in whom we believe, and a story we learn how to anticipate. Information and storytelling: They are opposing forces, like certainty and faith, yet Wallace stood across this divide and proved that if there was, in fact, a social novel of our time, here is where it would be built. Not by papering over the ruptures in realism, but by writing right through them.
- Ted Gioia for The Dallas Morning News. Spoilers.
- The Kansas City Star's Kevin Canfield, Wallace’s ‘Pale King’ is a challenging examination of boredom. Lots of spoilers.
Non-review Updates:
- Thought Catalog's Phil Roland, Why I Won’t Be Finishing The Pale King.
- Robert Douglas-Fairhurst in The Telegraph, David Foster Wallace's The Pale King: Can it still be a masterpiece?
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
