I think the last fifth of the book dropped off severely. I understand the change of thematic direction necessitated a lack of humor, but the sudden shift in tone was clumsy. Even more clumsy was Foer's excusing of this by having Alex flat out say, "I'm not going to be funny any more."

That's my only beef with the book. Otherwise, I think it's an excellent first novel. Shamed, I retract my "classic" statement. I instead think it is a possible precursor to an classic. Foer has the ability to make a certified classic somewhere down the line.

Foer has an extraordinary style. Firstly, the ambiguity between fact and fiction. It's pretty clear the book is derived from both. They blend to form something quite fresh, and something I'm suprised more authors don't do; just extend from your own ideas without building from the ground up with a new foundation.

The books. The book of recurrent dreams and the other one, detailing the lives of every citizen of the shtetl. These fables were wonderful, and the way Foer would switch from a deep parable to "What Bitzl D had for Breakfast on Monday, The 27th of March" was humorous, but meant to have a deeper effect, I believe. The book is incredibly detailed, rooted in the theme of the importance of memory and nuance.

The "living memory" is also an important aspect of the novel. The idea is described in brief, that the Jews have a sixth sense of memory, that nothing is put to rest in a Jewish mind. The whole book is written with this idea in mind. The characters speak in English, and, at that, in an informal 20th century manner. The story flows from the author's own conscious, home to the memories whose meanings never die, but are constantly updated. Fuck, does that make sense?