I think if we're honest, we all have some friends we enjoy the company of, though we have little in common.

My issue is, as StJohn said, that the characters are unsympathetic. For me, it's because they lack depth; the way that love is treated is curious. Pelletier and Espinoza both love Norton. Why? Because she's around and she likes that one thing that they both like and it's easy to talk to her? Then Norton moves on, she and Morini are now in love. Why? They both like Archimboldi and Edwin Johns?

This lack of depth makes me wonder again, whether or not that these are truly supposed to be "characters" that is, for all intents and purposes except for biological realization, living, thinking people with flaws. Yes, we certainly see their flaws and some of their thoughts, but not much by way of their feelings or how they experience things-- everything is seen at a distance. In fact, to me they seem two-dimensional in a way that makes me wonder if the author is actually telling the story through archetypes of academics, or of human beings in general.

Also, there is no real conflict in the story. "Norton loves x, oh no! Let's read or fuck." And they simply travel and wonder about Archimboldi. In a way, it's a bit like Scooby-Doo. I like it, but it does make me wonder if the many reviews about it being an endurance test are right.