Unfortunately, the first bit is a bit topsy-turvy to me. I don't really get why you have admitted to using sentences that are not your own and then used that as an example to differentiate yourself from an author who you go on to suggest is not in control of all the words she writes. I mean, I kind of get it. We read something and presume it was written by the person who's name is on the piece for the sake of the piece... I don't really get it, sorry

I also don't know if I would agree with the use of the word 'parody'. Without having ever read anything by JC, I suspect she should be given more or less credit. I don't believe that she is purposefully creating a parody of a conventional novel. Nor do I believe that she is so incompetent that she sits down to write a decent novel and yet ends with so hopeless an imitation that all we can call it is a parody. I think she is just someone who writes for a particular audience, an audience she knows very well. Thus, I would recommend the use of another 'p' word. It seems to me that in a JC book the story/narrative, characters, motives and turning points are all just Pretexts for a certain kind of language: sentences that the JC readership are absolutely counting on reading. They want to read these lines over and over again until they have perfected them in their head and can carry them with them while vaccuuming, or lying inertly in bed next to their paunchy, comatose husbands, or sitting back down to their cluttered desks after a stolen lunchbreak. I agree entirely that JC's real plaything is her capacity to torment her reader with their desire for the expected. The real measure of her success as the kind of writer that she is, is in imagining what they want, but imagining it better. Her fantasies have to knock the sox off the average fantasy, hence it is inevitable they become, well, more and more fantastical.