In the interview with Thomas McGuane (I tried to find a good excerpt from McGuane, but his work needs to be taken in its entirety -- much like Jim Harrison), he states the following:

"Many of our writers are also able amateur historians," he says. "But, if we're going to have serious literature, we have to have good writing. Period," he says.

It can't just be a story about the aggrieved ranch woman or the broken-down rancher. It has to have a larger life, "not just agricultural melancholy," he insists.

In fact, for many interviews, he talks at length about keeping Montana Literature progressing. So ultimately, it brings us to this question. Is Norman Maclean's, A River Runs Through It, good writing?

In 250-300 words, begin to make the case that the writing either qualifies or doesn't qualify as good writing. Take in some of McGuane's thoughts regarding time, place, and a sense of something bigger than region.

By asking this basic question, you will be developing the ability to drill down into a topic that could be used as a literary analysis or a literary criticism. But without first being to answer this question (Is it good?) then you won't be able to get to the "why."