What a terribly written, yet interesting article. Have a look at this torture mascarading as a paragraph:
“But derivative works and adaptations can't fully explain why Christie's work endures. A splendid biography by Laura Thompson, however, does. "Agatha Christie: A Mysterious Life" was published in Britain over a decade ago and took an inexplicable amount of time to cross the pond. Yet the timing is perfect because Thompson's thorough yet readable treatment of Christie's life, in combination with artful critical context on her work, arrives at the reason for her endurance..”
For a writer writing about a writer, in the Washington Post no less, one might expect quality beyond that of a high school essay. It’s just ironic because Christie was a great writer. I have yet to find literary criticism that’s actually well written. Perhaps it’s a theory, but it always seems that literary critics are really just failed real writers.
I'm glad I wasn't the only person who thought this. The worst bit for me was "Christie, as Thompson details, came by such understanding through the traditional means of early hardship"... but the "hardship" then isn't explained for another three paragraphs!
“But derivative works and adaptations can't fully explain why Christie's work endures. A splendid biography by Laura Thompson, however, does. "Agatha Christie: A Mysterious Life" was published in Britain over a decade ago and took an inexplicable amount of time to cross the pond. Yet the timing is perfect because Thompson's thorough yet readable treatment of Christie's life, in combination with artful critical context on her work, arrives at the reason for her endurance..”
For a writer writing about a writer, in the Washington Post no less, one might expect quality beyond that of a high school essay. It’s just ironic because Christie was a great writer. I have yet to find literary criticism that’s actually well written. Perhaps it’s a theory, but it always seems that literary critics are really just failed real writers.