[bwteim]

I am glad there a few fans of Florence King on board.

Coulter and King do differ in style. Both have their fine points, both are intelligent, and both write extremely well. Florence King is dense at times, and at times, I did not enjoy every topic. But she wrote well - and her pen cuts like sword, both ways. When King stopped writing for NR - and it was in the inside back cover - I stopped subscribing.

Here is an excerpt from a column written by Florence King March 23, 1998 after Clinton and his diddling in the White House:


"WHEN Clinton's post-scandal approval ratings soared the Left saw blase sophistication and the Right saw moral corruption, but Americans are neither sophisticated nor corrupt, just childish and democratic. What they really approve of in Clinton's behavior is the way he takes the adult out of adultery and the in out of sin. If he had kept a soignee thirtyish mistress and visited her discreetly the whole country would have felt threatened. Mistresses are for kings and discretion is elitist by definition, but love on the rope line suggests a limitless participation that reduces adultery to the minor crime of tumescence in office.

To prevent his kindergarten from swelling beyond the acceptable class size that concerns him in tranquil moments, he ought to reconsider a woman he met a few years ago: the five-hundred-year-old Peruvian mummy he said he'd like to date.

She might not be bad if he put his mind to it. As Agatha Christie said: ``An archeologist is the best husband any woman can have. The older she gets, the more he is interested in her.''

[Rocky]

I like Florence King's writing as well. She has from time to time done book reviews in The American Spectator, and I always enjoy those.

But if someone is going to represent the conservative position on one of those talking head shows, I would pick Ann.

[maine-iac7]

Another boorish paragraph followed with the only good line in the piece - which seems the only way she can get something genuinely witty in - a quote from someone else's writing.

[Oztrich Boy]

Here is an excerpt from a column written by Florence King March 23, 1998 after Clinton and his diddling in the White House:

That's just perfect.

[jwalburg]

To each his own, I guess. I did not find her analysis of Clinton here terribly artful, and while the prose was sophisticated, it seems sophisticated for no purpose, as if to say, look at me, I can throw around three-dollar words! Mark Steyn uses a wide vocabulary, but he does it with purpose as well as panache, not only to decorate his prose with stylistic flourish, but to emphasize his arguments. But I guess you can't tell much about a writer from one or two sample paragraphs. I'd be more willing to look further at King if she hadn't woodenly called Ann "dull as a post."

[mbraynard]

But I had to re-read several sentences in that a few times to even grasp what she was trying to say, and I'm not even sure what she really meant. I think she just wanted to tell that Agatha Christy joke.

Look, Buckley writes hella dense and always send me to the dictionary at least once per column - but the man has a POINT to his writing.

I was one question off from a perfect SAT verbal. I read a lot of Russian literature badly translated and I have been published often. I can get Shakespears most subtle jokes.