Sammiches, et cetera . . . .

[LBernier at tribune.com]

Seany (pgb451 at lulu.acns.nwu.edu) writes:

(deletia)

>	b) crappy writing. boring to read. What do I mean? Well, I'm sure
>at some level the story might become intriguing but does it (or will a story
>of this format) adhere itself to the art of writing? I would assume not.


I think within the realm of bestsellers there are some where the writing,
judged from a "does the author execute his/her ideas well, and do you stay
interested throughout" is good.  LeCarre (although some, not myself, will
argue him as "literary") comes to mind.  Rice would be okay if someone could 
just edit about 200 pages out of each of her books, Clancy has his moments,
and Grisham should be shot.  But does this mean that the "art" of writing
is only evident IF the book serves to enlighten or explore social contracts
or otherwise function in some philosophical vein?  There are a whole host of
books out there with these goals, but the writing is atrocious.  I personally 
believe that the author's intention in writing the book, whether it be to 
enlighten, or simply to entertain should be the yardstick against which to
measure it's worth.  So if the goal is simple entertainment, does the author
tell a rollicking good story?

Besides, you've gotta have something to read down at Lee Street Beach all 
summer.