Why so negative Sanders?

I remember the first book we read was not something that I liked, but I had read worse stories than that one. I thought, 'Maybe this story will be different, maybe the author would not be so negative.' As I started reading the story, I realized I was wrong. My impression of the story before I read it, was that it would be more captivating than the other story because, maybe Dillard would tell her story, unlike Sanders who wrote other people's opinion even though it was his story he was writing. It is true that Dillard did not do what Sanders did, but she did other things too, that made the story not very good. She would be telling her story just fine of how she could not write, but then she would diverge into another story all together. For example, she would be talking about concentrating on her writing, but suddenly talk about a person having to concentrate if they were Zulu warrior. I thought it was bad writing and story telling, how she kept jumping off into other places, and examples that had nothing to do with the story. Also, she goes on to say that she hated being a writer, yet she is writing this story saying that she hates writing. I found it too weird that she is doing something she does not like, while isolating to make sure it gets done on time. If she truly found it dull, then she should find something else to do, that makes her happy. I did not like this story, but a person needs to read stories that they do not like, to truly know what type of stories will interest them.