Throughout the reading I have been struggling to find some underlying solid base that connects the work and transcends all of the playful banter that fills “Humphry Clinker’s” pages. I usually just take a work as it comes to me, but in the second half I found it harder and harder to just read as I found myself growing tired of the story and the format. After finishing, I started in on a few of the various critical essays that follow the text in my copy of the book. Of these essays one in particular grabbed my attention and gave me almost exactly what I was looking for and I was wondering if anyone else felt like some of these criticisms tied things together for them as well. I found Wolfgang Isner’s “An Examinations of Smollet’s Humphry Clinker” to be the most insightful and agreeable to my interpretation of Smollet’s last work. The point that stuck with me the most was that this work is so vital because of the fashion in which Smollet blended three different concepts of ‘the novel’ so well. “Humphry Clinker” really is a blend of three different styles and it is done so well that one might not notice at first. Furthermore, the styles that Smollet put together in this novel were all transforming at the time it was written making it an even more vital work for the time period. Smollet seamlessly intertwines the forms of the epistolary novel, “the book of travels,” (Isner 374) and the picaresque novel. Isner points out how these were all “greatly favored in the eighteenth century” (374). Looking back at the text this seems like an incredibly insightful way of looking at “Humphry Clinker” and I find myself in almost complete agreement with Mr. Isner and for some odd reason it really brought the text full circle for me. I was just wondering if anyone else got to these criticisms as I didn’t get to them all and if anyone had a similar experience with any of the others.