Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

I have a Ph.D. in English Literature, and have spent the greater portion of my life reading novels and writing about them. I enjoy a good fantasy novel, and bought into the "buzz" surrouding JS. Luckily, I grabbed a copy from the library, and didn't purchase it. It boils down to this: 1) JS fails as a standard pot-boiler fantasy/adventure novel. That's fine. So does, for example, Mervyn Peake's "Ghormenghast." It's not necessary for every novel to grip you by the lapels and drag you on a wild ride. 2) JS fails as a literary work of art. That's ok, so do lots of fun and interesting novels. So does the "Harry Potter" series. 3) JS fails as a historical novel. The "period" evoked is done so in an amateurish way; in some ways, it's not even up to Regency romance novel standards. But that's ok, not every book manages this trick very well. 4) JS fails regards structure: it's not just a shaggy dog, it's a dog that's never been within 10 miles of a scissor. But that's ok, sometimes lack of structure opens up interesting narrative possibilities. 5) JS fails to be interesting stylistically. The prose is very straightward and dull. This is pretty bad, but can be overlooked. 6) JS isn't that funny. Very unfunny, actually. This is a serious strike against it. It's ok if a novel lacks 1 or 2 of the above. 3 or 4 is not so great. Sadly, JS lacks all 6. To sum, JS simply fails to qualify as a good or interesting or even mildly gripping novel. Take, for example, the very few and awkward uses of "archaic" words sprinlked through the text. Or old spellings, such as "surprise" rendered "surprize". That's fine, in moderation, or when done well. But honestly, Susanna Clark uses the word "surprize" on almost every page. I'm not kidding you. Go back and read the first 100 pages of the novel. Count the number of "surprizes" that stick up and poke you in the eye. It's an astonishingly amateurish display. I'm amazed that anyone's charmed by the "footnote" ploy. It's a very old trick at this point (entire novels have been written consisting of nothing more than a footnote in a footnote in a footnote, etc. Refer also to Nabokov's 'Pale Fire' for another take on it.) I found the footnotes: 1) Not interesting or funny enough to warrant their inclusion, 2) Not adding to the plot, mystery, sense of wonder, etc. of the overall novel. 3) Irritating after a while. For those people comparing Susanna Clarke to any of the great writers of old, Austin or Eliot or whomever -- it's balderdash. Dickens infuses more life into a character in one page than Clarke manages in 700. There are more out-loud laughs in a paragraph of Austin than a chapter by Clarke. There is no emotional connection betwen the characters, between the reader and the characters -- nothing. It's empty. Once the loud buzz dies down, I think people will end up shoving this book off the nightstand and into a box, soon to be shuffled off to the attic or garage. I'm sorry to put it in these terms. I came to the novel with great hopes and expectations and plenty of good will. I now regret the time I've wasted reading it.