/lit/ - Literature

>>18754615
>The rest of us respect the tradition. The canon. The list of works that have survived generations and have been unanimously regarded as the best mankind has produced. My arguments are in line with the canon. The first poster's are idiosyncratic.
I can tell you don't read much beyond these boards.
McCarthy is part of the canon, American canon at the very least. This is not an opinion from the board. It is from outside, from any literature circle around.
This just proves you are incapable of understanding basic arguments. You sperged on my Franzen opinion but a half smart dude would realize what I meant. It is retarded to rank canonical writers, especially those regarded as major stylists. In that sense any of their major works can be regarded as a "peak of prose" without, in spirit, generating a sperg reaction. (Unfortunately for us here today)
Franzen is not canon and not as a stylist at the very least. That is what I meant and if you weren't so retarded you would understand.
>But earnestly calling him the greatest shows either ignorance of the literary tradition or some kind of cognitive incapacity.
Toddlers also think that math is just gibberish. Just saying.

Your argument is still jeopardized by the fact that you have not read the book. In fact, you haven't even left any chance for pretending to have done so. Your arguments are in bad faith. Retardedly holding up writers from years yonder as the greatest in the objective sense without reading a contemporary great's novel in question is a perfectly teenage tier response. I am certain I have read more books in the canon than you have. (Which is why your Faulkner knighting doesn't go down well with me because McCarthy is a better stylist than him. Subjective, yes but I have seen Faulkner fans say so). Even if your intention is alright, your arguments are in bad faith and very near-sighted. Now don't get mad, but pic related fits. Lol.

>>18696400
>you can't enjoy him, he was paid by the word!!!!

>>18593178
>hit a nerve
So easy to get pedos riled up. Be honest, that wasn't why you read Lolita originally, did you?
Got you mad, sweaty?

>>18474347
t.chud