Quality of NA
Posted by Valerie Mc. on January 19, 1998 at 21:27:12:
In response to a wrap up week for NA, written by Kate on January 18, 1998 at 21:38:03
] Is it clearly not as good as what are seen as the great works?
I guess it depends on how we define "good". It is certainly not as complex as even, say, P&P. We seem able to spend eons discussing the nuances of Charlotte, Mr.B, etc. NA's characters are simpler and with little room for interpretation.
But it was intended as a parody of the "classic" popular fiction of the author's time - a sort of "Clueless", as it were (how's that for circular reasoning?) So there was no need for complexity. Once the jokes were made, any elaboration would have been redundant, or turned it into another novel altogether.
Me, I think it's exquisite - "good of its kind", even though it's a simpler kind.
Posting followups to old messages is disabled; instead go to the main index and post a new message which mentions this one.