I'm really confused about this Tom's Crossing thingy...

I mean, on the one hand, it sounds like Mark Z. Danielewski is pushing the boundaries of literary expression and defying conventions - and that's super cool, right? But then again, it also feels like he's being a bit too clever for his own good, with all these obscure references and poetic language that might just alienate readers who aren't in the know...
And don't even get me started on those narrative choices - some people are gonna love how he's weaving together elements of western fiction and mythic undertones, but others might find it all a bit too much to handle. I mean, I like a good western as much as the next person, but do we really need that many arcane references and academic considerations?
I think what bugs me most is that Danielewski seems more concerned with being "literary" than actually telling a story that people can get behind. Like, yes, it's great to explore the human condition and all that, but can't we just have a good ol' fashioned western tale without all the extra frills?
Still, despite all its flaws, I can see why Tom's Crossing would be polarizing - some people are gonna love it for its sheer ambition and literary density, while others might find it all too much to handle. Either way, it's clear that Danielewski is a master of his craft, even if he's not always making the most accessible storytelling choices...
