Catch it now, before this article becomes accessible only through the Chicago Tribune paid archives:
Art Winslow has reviewed “Finn” by Jon Clinch, a prequel to Huck Finn that Winslow dubs “loosely a detective novel.” Though he admits that “Clinch is a talented writer who crafts many gripping scenes,” he also warns that “Clinch never the Twain shall meet.”
It doesn’t seem likely that Clinch’s work is as enjoyable as Winslow’s. Then again, I haven’t read the book, and as I always say, a reviewer’s opinion is just one opinion.
Eat the lotus @ literarylotus.com
Literary Lotus 
Well, you haven’t read the book, just reviews, and I haven’t read the book, just reviews, so it appears we’re both in the same boat. Though I think it is fair to read a review and assess the book’s likely “likability.” Isn’t that what most people who read reviews do?
This comment has been removed by the author.
I’m waiting for it at the moment.But I commented because it seemed to me that panning a book without reading it isn’t exactly fair or wise.
Thanks for the link, anonymous. I hadn’t seen the Post review as I’ve stopped checking the Post because…well, that’s a story for another time. What do you make of the book, and how have you had a chance to read it so soon after publication?
But you didn’t read the Clinch, right?Maybe this review from Washington Post Book World will make you feel differently, at least until you get a chance to read the book.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/16/AR2007021600958.html