Quirks of the Quantum attempts to read major works of American fiction through the lens of quantum theory under the claim that quantum theories share much commonality with postmodern theories. There are a number of potentially rich readings that do contribute to reconsideration of what it means to do literary close reading, and what is involved in the process of fiction writing. On the other hand, some of the claims of relations to quantum theories are unconvincing. Moreover, Coale attempts to substantiate these claims by arguing that the authors had been reading about quantum theories (even if most of their reading materials are from the popular media), which had, unconsciously, informed their creative process. He uses the notes and correspondences he had with the authors to justify these claims.

However, in the mind of this reviewer, more than nomological claims are required to show these major works as amenable to quantum-theoretical critique. First and foremost, the authors would need to imbibe, truly, the rules of quantum theories to a level that demonstrates competent understanding of the philosophies and concepts involved. Second, the writers also have to be aware of the difficulties involved in reconciling quantum measurements with macro-level worlds. Third, the method of close reading should bring about an almost complete disruption of the familiar and reveal the unraveling of classical certainty, all of which must be demonstrated rather than vaguely gestured at. Finally, the reviewer does not agree that quantum physics can be necessarily constituted as postmodern as that is a very reductive reading of what quantum theories are about. That said, quantum physics still affords many imaginative possibilities for exploration at levels beyond that of the mere scientific.

For example, on pages 168 and 169, Coale describes a correspondence between Thomas Pynchon and computer scientist Joseph O’ Rourke, whose research is on computational geometry. O'Rourke suggested the substitution of a word that Pynchon had used, “polygonal,” for describing “a group of tall buildings seen from a distance, the buildings appearing to be two dimensional,” with “polyhedral,” to take into consideration what is not merely perceived but also sensed: a long-distance apprehension of bulky flatness that hides knowledge, tucked within the cognitive spaces of the observers, of the three-dimensional real of the buildings. After an initial protest that the substitution would turn the adumbration of volume into extreme bulkiness, Pynchon acquiesced when he recognized that O'Rourke was merely trying to suggest a more accurate geometrical term for depicting the vision Pynchon wanted to create.

This is one instance where Coale could have used the interpretive affordances of quantum mechanics to demonstrate the interaction between the two correspondents. However, his evaluation of their interaction did little in that regard. The correspondence is but a slice of a much bigger swathe of quantum-theoretical genealogy (that has been generalized in this book) against an ambitious literary landscape of complexity represented by Pynchon, Didion, Auster, and O'Brien. Coale discusses the relationships between the authors of these texts and the scientific influences that inspire them to disrupt and denature the structure of formal and linear storytelling in their fiction; to mirror while also to critique the inanity, mundaneness, and paradoxes of modern and postmodern lives.

However, there are certain instances when Coale's attempt at critique appears too forced, as if he is trying to build an equivalence between his idealizations of what quantum mechanics can deliver and the more problematic areas of the texts he is tackling. When such a situation arises, and in the moments he drops the attempts at equalization, his analyses sparkle through.

The example above also points to an important element of language: the poetics of ambiguity, a point that drives Coale's desire to capture certain “unspeakable” acts within the narrative rubrics of the texts, especially when these texts contain scintillating speculative elements that parallel quantum epistemology. Language is a problem that physicists deal with daily in their attempts to produce instrumentally useful frameworks for describing phenomena that do not fit the usual logic that everyday physics is embedded within. The same issue applies to literary scholars working at pinning down that slippery triangulation between the (hidden) author, the reader (who is the critic in this case), and the text. However, the language of quantum physics, with all the flaws it has inherited from the same language that operates regularly in classical macroscopic epistemology, is an Ockham razor to be carefully wielded.

Overall, the book is an intriguing read in its attempt to tackle highly complex and subtle ideas that could not be readily pinned down. However, as has been argued, certain parallels between literary speculation and quantum interpretation cannot be so neatly drawn.