Originally Posted by kennyc
See the two posts above this one.
Yes, I've seen them, but what everyone seems to be saying is something like "It's wrong because I don't think she should have done it. And I don't think she should have done it because it's wrong", which is glaringly circular. Everyone seems to be treating the novel as a sequence of words not as a literary work of art - which is like treating Duchamp's Fountain like a urinal. What no-one seems to be addressing is that it is possible, theoretically at least, to create something of artistic, in this case, literary value by creating a new context for already written words, thereby giving those words new meaning.
All literary works are created in a particular socio-cultural-aesthetic context and, as such, rely on other works for their meaning. In this sense all literary work is a rearranging of familiar elements. A totally new work would be incomprehensible to most of us, cf. Joyce's Ulysses.
Again, I haven't read this book and so don't know what the author is trying to do in it. She may indeed be a rip-off artist, but we cannot decide that before actually reading it.