Do writers need special institutions that recognize and treat their mental peculiarities, without granting these any special visionary status? (Such institutions are known as MFA programs.)
I find when I read literary novels - you know, with a capital 'L' - I think an awful lot is nonsense. If I want to know something interesting about the way human beings work, how they relate to each other and how they behave, I'll find an awful lot of women crime novelists who do it better, Ruth Rendell for instance. If I want to read something that's really giving me something serious and fundamental to think about, about the human condition, if you like, or what we're all doing here, or what's going on, then I'd rather read something by a scientist in the life sciences, like Richard Dawkins. I feel that the agenda of life's important issues has moved away from novelists to science writers, because they know more.
"Anne's positive features are among the strengths of people with fetal alcohol," she said. "Her verbal skill, her trusting friendliness, her flair for drama, her rich fantasy life, her storytelling. Those are all things that seem to emerge undamaged in people affected by fetal alcohol. But she also has the distractibility, obviously, the inattention, the poor judgment, the indiscriminate friendliness."
Hoy said her theory is not meant to ruin the book for readers.
"For me it's a way of showing how our readings change over time, just as our readings of social conditions change over time."
« Older How to do accents.... | Writer Melanie Thernstrom... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt