ABSTRACT
Despite the awards given to Connie Willis’s To Say Nothing of the Dog (1998)1 and a generally positive response from readers, the book has attracted an undercurrent of dissent and discomfort among bloggers and online critics. Complaints range from too great a reliance on suspension of disbelief to questions of the generic propriety of time travel itself or a deep discomfort among some readers (carefully related back to questions of generic propriety) with an apparent suggestion of a Providential order in the text. All these caveats, share, it could be argued, a misreading of the setting.2
