I really don't like to give bad reviews to people who help explore literature, but I have to say something here about the leading of this discussion on Parade's End.
1. Neither participant seems to have bothered to read the whole tetralogy. Ok, it's long, but nevertheless, I might have had more trust in the podcasters had they done more than read just the first book (Nichols).
2. Since they made no reference to it, it seems neither had read what is usually thought of as Ford's finest work - The Good Soldier - reading that might have given them more context to their generalisations. Essential, I would have thought.
3. At a certain moment, Nichols butted in on her guest, only to give her extremely long-winded, somewhat superficial 'feelings' about the whole first novel. It seemed like she would never end the string of trivial observations, most of which she had more succinctly summarised in her introduction. Very repetitive and boring. It is supposed to be a back and forth discussion. Also quite rude to her guest, since he made considerably more interesting observations, and was able to express them far more effectively. He should have been given more time to talk and develop his points, but no, Nichols liked to interrupt and have her say.
4. When her guest had made a fine point about how Ford's writing satisfied him, by way of the structure of the last section in the novel and how it symbolised much broader connection to the coming disasters of WW1, Nichols could only make a few vapid remarks and non sequiturs, as if she had neither been listening or even thinking. Awful!
5. Nichols struck me, with her endless repetitions of 'like' and her pauses and hesitations, only to come out with more shallow points and repetitions as really not being up to the task.
Pity, it is a great work, and needs a host with deeper reading.
