To the List:

	This is aninteresting article.  Smith's view of fiction seems
antithetical to that of VNN.

	But my question is:


		<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger>Main Entry:
</bigger></fontfamily><bold><fontfamily><param>Arial</param><bigger>2helter-skelter 

</bigger></fontfamily></bold><fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger>Function:
<italic>noun 

</italic></bigger></fontfamily><bold><fontfamily><param>Arial</param><bigger>1:</bigger></fontfamily></bold><fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger>a
disorderly confusion
</bigger></fontfamily><bold><fontfamily><param>Arial</param><bigger>:</bigger></fontfamily><fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><color><param>2323,5050,8A8A</param><bigger>TURMOIL </bigger></color><bigger>

</bigger></fontfamily><fontfamily><param>Arial</param><bigger>2</bigger></fontfamily></bold><italic><fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger>British
</bigger></fontfamily></italic><bold><fontfamily><param>Arial</param><bigger>:</bigger></fontfamily></bold><fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger>a
spiral slide around a tower at an amusement park 


	Which does she mean?


Sandy Drescher



</bigger></fontfamily>

On Tuesday, January 23, 2007, at 05:08  PM, Sandy P. Klein wrote:


<excerpt> 

</excerpt><<image.tiff>

<excerpt> 

<underline><color><param>0000,0000,FFFF</param>http://januarymagazine.com/2007/01/fail-better.html</color></underline>

<bold><smaller><smaller>Tuesday, January 23, 2007</smaller></smaller></bold>


</excerpt> 

<excerpt>

<bold><color><param>9999,0000,0000</param><bigger><bigger>Fail Better</bigger></bigger></color></bold>



</excerpt><<image.tiff><italic>ì... somewhere between a criticís
necessary superficiality and a writerís natural dishonesty, the truth
of how we judge literary success or failure is lost.î

<excerpt>

</excerpt></italic><excerpt>In a two article series for <italic>The
Guardian</italic>,
<underline><color><param>6666,0000,FFFF</param>Zadie Smith</color></underline>
(<italic>White Teeth, On Beauty</italic>) doesnít pull any literary
punches. Smithís lengthy, two-part piece is wonderful, managing as it
does to be both accessible (ìThatís how young readers are, too, when
they start out. They are doubters and seekers.î) and urbane (She
quotes both Kierkegaard and Nobokov while somehow never losing her
of-the-reading-masses tone).


<italic>I have said that when I open a book I feel the shape of
another human beingís brain. To me, Nabokovís brain is shaped like a
helter-skelter. George Eliotís is like one of those pans for sifting
gold. Austenís resembles one of the glass flowers you find in
Harvardís Natural History Museum.



</italic>Thereís so much here that is terrific, the temptation is just
to quote and quote and quote: most of what Smith shares in the space
is worth repeating. But Iíll save both of us the effort: part one
<underline><color><param>6666,0000,FFFF</param>is
here</color></underline>, put two
<underline><color><param>6666,0000,FFFF</param>is
here</color></underline>. Savor it for yourself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

</excerpt>