argross at bigpond.net.au
Fri Feb 20 01:59:39 EST 2004
> >It might have been deliberate... but it's still something you might call
> >"bad art".
> Well, maybe not me, personally. Again, I make the point that a lot of
> literary fiction does much more impenetrable things with descriptive
> I don't see McKinley being a worse writer than any of those literary first
> novellists who get reviewed in the NY Times. In fact, she's much better
> than some of them.
This is the way I see it, too.
FWIW, I find McKinley's prose the opposite of imprenetrable. To me, she's a
most accessible writer; I find it extremely easy to get involved in what she
writes. But I realise that this kind of thing is very subjective.
> I was making a point about writing in a genre and the
> kind of expectations that creates. I think Patricia McKillip gets similar
I very much like McKillip's books, but I can see how her writing could be
seen as inpenetrable, much more than McKinley's.
To unsubscribe, email dwj-request at suberic.net with the body "unsubscribe".
Visit the archives at http://suberic.net/dwj/list/
More information about the Dwj