Hey guys, have just read the NYT for my course at uni, and have now decided to write one of my dissertations on it....does anyone have any random insight into any of it? I have the usual stuff about it being an anti-detective novel and that ur not supposed to draw any conclusions, but i would quite like to attempt a few!! anyway, i'd welcome any suggestions, the weirder the better!
Cheers

Check the links on this page, lots of useful critiques on NYT, including academic.

The three novellas stress the uselessness of the metanarrative. There is no singualr structure to define the human condition. Our lives are dictated by randomness. In a sense we are trapped by our own inability to describe ourselves and the world around us. Language is the only way to do it, yet it is inadequate. Ultimately the characters in these novellas are forced to examine themselves and they find nothing; we are without a final purpose, and that is the most terrifying thought.