Talk:Fates and Furies (novel)

Critical reception

Why does the article say critical reception was mixed? Almost every reference to the book I have seen has been glowing. The Guardian review linked to by this article notes that it was on more critics' best of year lists than any other book. It very nearly won the National Book Award. The only citation for the mixed review claim, which is also the only review I'm aware of that isn't almost unequivocally positive, is James Wood's New Republic review. The second half of the sentence, which says that the critical mixed reception is a reaction to the novel's second half, is basically a summary of Wood's stance (it should be noted that he seems to have liked much of the novel and is giving a largely positive, though slightly critical, opinion). Wood is an important and gifted critic, but this article really seems to be using only his opinion as the stand-in for the entire critical reaction to the novel.

If we need evidence, here's the Washington Post: "Even from her impossibly high starting point, Lauren Groff just keeps getting better and better [...] Her new novel, “Fates and Furies,” is a clear-the-ground triumph"; The New York Times: "The word “ambitious” is often used as code for “overly ambitious,” a signal that an author’s execution has fallen short. No such hidden message here. Lauren Groff is a writer of rare gifts, and “Fates and Furies” is an unabashedly ambitious novel that delivers — with comedy, tragedy, well-deployed erudition and unmistakable glimmers of brilliance throughout"; and here's NPR: "The best lines? Nope. They are all (or almost all) best lines. The book is a master class in best lines; a shining, rare example of that most unforgiving and brutal writer's advice: All you have to do is write the best sentence you've ever written. Then 10,000 more of the best. Then find a way to string them together into the story of something. Which is what Groff has done here. And if you do want to learn how to be a great writer, you could do worse than skipping out on that M.F.A. program or pricey writer's retreat, dropping 28 bucks ($17-something on Amazon!) on this book, studying the hell out of it, and then spending all that money you just saved on gin cocktails and hats. It's that good. That beautiful. Occasionally, that stunning."

There are more that read like this. I just don't understand how that's a mixed reception. "Released to critical acclaim" or "to nearly-universal praise" would seem more accurate.

Okay, well, I left that comment up for a week and no one disagreed, so I changed the article and left new references.