You can check out this interview in the Huffington Post - and I should say that I share the interviewer's sentiment, that the The Unnamed is a wrenching, harrowing work, and I also share Ferris's incredulity at the one-dimensional reading he's been afforded by too many critics. (It's rarely a great idea, I think, to take one's critics - although my British friends have always felt differently - but Ferris shows how it can be done.)
I think that there have been displays of an impoverished reading of the book. I get the distinct feeling at times that certain critics have not risen above a 10th grade level of reading and that they approached the book with expectations of preconceived notions that then drive a very boneheaded reading. In other words they don't allow the book's rules to establish themselves before applying their own aesthetic criteria to it which I think is a mistake. I think a careful and adult reader allows the book to establish its world and then evaluates it on how well it does so. I also think a smart critic does not drag behind him or her like a dead horse whatever presuppositions the first book might have indicated where the second book might be about or what kind of freedom the writer might be exploring as a writer. All of those things I find unfortunate when I read a review that seems misbegotten. But I'm not sure that this is not a new phenomenon and it would be a Sisyphean task to argue against a misreading because those misreadings are an inherent part of the critical apparatus.
What he said. I was hoping to attend but a likely to be jet lagged MOTEV arrives from NY, and the prospect of the cross-town drive at rush hour makes my heart sink. But go, and enjoy Ferris's astute rendering of a modern marriage. (And yes, for all the wags, Ferris did blurb my novel, but if I didn't come by these sentiments honestly, I would simply shut up - believe it or not, I can be silent. It hurts. It's hard. But it's doable.)