Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

In spite of others' praise, I have to say I don't think highly of the book. It seems rather obvious to point out that stories can't be entirely original and writers will write partly in response to what they have read, and create variations on themes, situations, and subjects -- but is it really enlightening to claim that there is only one story? This idea can only work if you reduce stories to "Somebody lived once. He or she did things and then died" -- which is not, of course, looking at a story on any meaningful level. Similarly, the discussions of symbolism, etc., seemed shallow to me. All meals are not communions, and claiming that they are will alienate many thinking readers who recognize that. Does the author really think so poorly of his students to oversimplify in this way? It would be far better to talk about the resonances and suggestiveness of meals and eating, and include communion as a symbol in that group of associations. There is a huge difference between "x = y" and "x suggests y." I can very readily believe that he gets disbelieving looks from his students. I found his cutesy writing to be very annoying -- such as "Guess what?" and "you-know-who" (meaning Shakespeare). Barf. But worse, does he have a good command of what he's talking about? He says Henry V has his old friend Falstaff hanged, but this does not happen in the play. (Where was a knowledgeable editor? And why didn't those other professors who provided the rave reviews on the back cover & inside front of the book point this out to him? Linda Wagner Martin of UNC says "What a knowledge of modern literature! What good stories!" Another is James Shapiro, who, it seems, has written a book about Shakespeare.) He claims "benighted" comes from Old English meaning "anyone darker than myself." This is flip and I think he believes that it's witty -- but it's also not even close to the meaning of the word, and therefore isn't particularly funny. The word has nothing to do with a person's color. "Benighted" actually meant "overtaken by darkness" (that is, as a traveler who has not reached his destination by nightfall) -- and, metaphorically by extension, being spiritually in the dark. [The "darker than myself" statement makes me wince to remember an English professor of mine who frequently just made things up as he went along; he apparently valued being entertaining more than he valued being accurate.] These last points are not critically important, maybe, but they sure undermine his credibility