I guess what I don't understand is how refusing to let yourself revise as you go is a recipe for producing "literary" fiction. Isn't it characteristic of literary fiction to take endless pains over the quality of your prose? And isn't an author who polishes each sentence and each paragraph until it resonates like poetry before moving on to the next just as "literary" as the author who follows the Rules that say you shouldn't revise until you have a complete first draft? How is refusing to go on until you're fully satisfied with what you've got so far a "sloppy" approach to writing?

Of course, if what you've got is a would-be author who spends so much time revising their first chapter that they never finish the book, then you definitely have a problem; but you could also have an author who pushes forward until she's finished the first draft and then hates what she's written so much that she puts it away and never looks at it again. In both cases, the book never makes it to completion -- but is it the method at fault, or the author, or the combination of that particular author with that particular method?

Also "I'm published" doesn't really mean much. There are a lot of bad books--and many of them sell quite well.

True, but in the case of matociquala, she's a multiple award-winning (and I'm talking the BIG awards -- like the Hugo) SF author published by a major house, whose books are often praised for their complexity and their literary prose style. (I haven't read them myself, but this is what I hear from those who have.) So not a self-published hack blowing steam out of her ear, by any means.