You say this like Ellman was responsible for making the book famous. Take issue with critics and the literary establishment, not Ducks. I think the book is mediocre and flat, failing where The Pale King's fragments succeeded over a decade ago, but she definitely tapped into something that some group of people found valuable, and you can't call that an unmitigated failure of her alone.

I believe that fungus by the way makes colonies near the brain and muscles, so the ant stays cognisant (as cognisant as an ant) the entire time. The brain is fine and can only watch the body kill itself.

That's funny, outside of the theme of routine I find them rather opposite and sense nothing common to slow cinema in Ducks.

The film "Something in the Dirt"?

Not trying to be dumb or condescending, I remember media wrong sometimes. If this is a book I'd be interested since it seems to have some odd overlap with a movie that I don't think is nominally based on any book.

I read the historian as a tween and didn't hate it. Had some charm. Why didn't you like it?

The Alchemist however is garbage and I would support that the Amazon rainforest be burned down entirely if it meant it spared the trees from the possibility of the fate of having Coelho's words printed upon them.

Ross is the biggest friend.

Couldn't agree more, The Buried Giant at every level falters. The language and dialogue are strained, the overall allegory is effete, and Ishiguro is at his worst there.