 Morris Dickstein of The New York Times was more critical of the book , calling it " a misconceived and badly executed novel , a sideshow distraction from the serious business of thinking through the unspeakable horrors of the Nazi era . " He described it as " wearisome " that is " suffocate [ d ] " by too much " fine writing " ( belles @-@ lettres ) . He also complained that the characters are lifeless , and while they each have detailed histories , they are only " verbal figments " that do not separate them from one another . Finally Dickstein noted that because almost all the points of Hitler 's speech are drawn from some of Steiner 's earlier works , he " unwittingly creates sympathy for Hitler by making him old and pathetic yet also lucid and brilliant — at once absurdly harmless and unconvincingly dangerous . " 
 Morris Dickstein of The New York Times was more critical of the book , calling it " a misconceived and badly executed novel , a sideshow distraction from the serious business of thinking through the unspeakable horrors of the Nazi era . " He described it as " wearisome " <a href='null_relcl' title='1'><mark>that</mark></a><a href='drop_aux' title='2'><mark>is</mark></a>" suffocate [ d ] " by too much " fine writing " ( belles @-@ lettres ) . He also complained that the characters are lifeless , and while they each <a href='got' title='3'><mark>have</mark></a> detailed histories , they <a href='drop_aux' title='4'><mark>are</mark></a>only " verbal figments " <a href='null_relcl' title='5'><mark>that</mark></a>do not separate them from one another . Finally Dickstein noted that because almost all the points of Hitler <a href='null_genetive' title='6'><mark>'s</mark></a>speech are drawn from some of Steiner <a href='null_genetive' title='7'><mark>'s</mark></a>earlier works , he " unwittingly <a href='uninflect' title='8'><mark>creates</mark></a> sympathy for Hitler by making him old and pathetic yet also lucid and brilliant — at once absurdly harmless and unconvincingly dangerous . " 
Morris Dickstein of da New York Times was more critical of the book , callin it " a misconceived and badly executed novel , a sideshow distraction from the serious bizness of thinking through the unspeakable horrors of the Nazi era . " He described it as " wearisome " " suffocate [ d ] " by too much " fine writing " ( belles @-@ lettres ) . He also complained dat the characters are lifeless , and while they each got detailed histories , they only " verbal figments " do not separate em from one anotha . Finally Dickstein noted tdatbecause almost all the points of Hitler  speech r drawn from sum of Steiner  earlier works , he " unwittingly create sympathy for Hitler by making em old and lame yet also lucid and brilliant — at once absurdly harmless and unconvincingly dangerous . "