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."
I never apologize for anyone else's behavior (or writing style for that matter) but you are taking King's remark of context.
By the way, you can safely count me among the Ann Coulter defenders as well as a Florence King fan.
Here is the whole paragraph:
"At her best, Coulter writes well, but the chief source of her success is that she is a perfect match for the American ideal: smart as a whip but dumb as a post, educated but not learned, sexy but not sensuous, all at the same time."
To me, what *that* paragraph says is:
The American ideal is someone ismart - but in the sense of common sense and does not wear their smartness on her sleeves and brags; someone with school learning but who does not pontificate, who is not pedantic; someone attractive, even sexy, like your girl next door - not someone vamping around with more skin than clothing, not someone with silicone lips or wardrobe malfunctions.
Take a hypothetical example of a guy running for sheriff. Let's say the guy has a *doctorate in criminology. But he won't advertise it. His campaign signs will read
James "Big Jim" Walburg for Sheriff
not:
Dr. James T. Walburg wants to be Your Sheriff.
Why? Walburg may have ample school learning, but the average voter, like me, can not relate to Dr. Walberg, only "Big Jim".
When "Big Jim" campaigns, Big Jim shows up in jeans and and western wear. Not the shirt and tie and fancy suit he got his diploma in. He is plain spoken, talks about crooks and bad guys - not elements of society battling socio-economic and cultural forces that manifest themselves in crime against societal norms.
In short, *Dr.* Walberg does NOT meet my *ideal* of the sheriff, but Big Jim does. You get the point.
And now, to Ann Coulter. I *really like her. Why? Smart as a whip but yet can play as dumb a post and trap someone on live TV no less. She is clearly well-learned, legal background, extensive grasp of the English language, and can cut through BS with a sword, not a stiletto. She has a good analytic capability. Finally, she is easy on the eyes.
In other words, Coulter is a perfect match for *my American ideal. Which is exactly what King said. ;)
The disagreement I *do have with King's current article is that Coulter's being the perfect match for the American ideal is *not* the only reason for Coulter's success. You, I, and many here on FR can relate to *what* Coulter says. We enjoy seeing a good slap down at the Liberals, particularly live. The Liberals have enjoyed extensive media coverage for years - it is about time that the tables are turned.
Florence King writes well, she polishes her phrases, perhaps too smoothly. Her lifestyle is inconsequential to me. And she probably wishes she were as popular as Ann Coulter. But times have changed.
It is unfortunate that some Coulter threads on FR have turned acrimonious. Probably for every two or three Coulter defenders there is someone who wishes she would express an opinion in a different way. Coulter does exemplify our time, IMO, and that is what King says.
It is also unfortunate some are attacking the messenger (King), rather than the message.... When King was writing for NR, you could often count on her to expose the Clintons innards with a scalpel. But she was an equal opportunity cutter. Her scalpel sliced anyone who demonstrated folly.
In fact, her columns were titled "The Misanthrope's Corner". http://www.nationalreview.com/mc/misanthrope_archive.html
Someone once asked King, "Why do you hate people?" To which King replied, "Who else is there?"
End of essay;)