Strange writing

[chococomilk.livejournal.com]

I haven't read any of LKH's books past Harlequin, as they were so trippy and orgy-tastic by that point that I felt ashamed to be seen reading them even by my family, but curiosity got the better of me and I went to read an excerpt on Amazon of the latest book, "Bullet", to see what it was like. Immediately, this two-sentence gem leapt out at me:

"Monica's son was under five, so he didn't count as male yet. He was just a generic child."

I was under the impression that if he's Monica's son, that means he is a male. You can't be called somebody's son unless you have male genitalia. Since when has biological sex been determined by age? And what is a "generic child"? Does she mean that to Anita, Monica's son is unremarkable from other five year old boys? Is that because Anita isn't a mother, and is blind to the powerful individualism mothers ascribe to their offspring from other people's? Is it because he has very ordinary features - brown hair and brown eyes, the most common of phenotypes?

"I heard my name squealed out, in that high-pitched generic toddler voice."

What is a generic toddler voice? Squeaky? Of course it is - a boy's voice doesn't break until puberty. I think I can see what she means, and from Anita's perspective that all children seem alike is probably understandable since she doesn't have any and doesn't know anyone who has any, but it is a remarkably clumsy bit of writing. There's a lot of commentary on the sheer avalanche of sex scenes in LKH's novels, and on excessive word repetition (e.g. spilled) but has anyone else been turned off by the lack of writing quality?