/lit/ - Literature

>>22169928
>a sick mind and fifth grade writing skills
That's mastabatory moralizing in lieu of bringing something to the table when it comes to theme (i.e. being a good reader) and hyperbolic contrarian nonsense standing in for an actual take on McCarthy's writing. Only retards are fooled into thinking Anglin is saying anything here (or anywhere else for that matter).
>gross, saccharine, self-indulgent, and above all repetitive prose
Pro-tip: people hide the fact they don't have a real take by hiding behind a vague idea of "prose." There's nothing gross about McCarthy's prose, I'm pretty sure Anglin doesn't know what "saccharine" means, I don't find his writing to be pretentious or self-indulgent, and I could just as easily make an appeal to rhythm while pointing out he's telling on himself by admitting he's bored ("repetitive"). This is an opinion being asserted without even the slightest bit of substance to back it up.
>Any moron with a thesaurus can write broken sentences without correct punctuation
McCarthy's use of language adds a layer of depth to his work, alongside tone and atmosphere, and his minimalist approach to punctuation effectively brings the reader closer to the story. It creates a clarity that somehow maintains itself even in the presence of dialogue--I've never had to reread in order to figure out who or if someone is speaking.
>Mixing transgressive imagery with an assault on the written language, and underwriting it with themes of nihilism and blasphemy, should have been viewed as an abomination
First, that's just more hyperbolic moralizing. Second, I've given a deeper take on McCarthy's syntax than Anglin managed to do and I don't find any "assault on written language" taking place. Third, I personally wouldn't call McCarthy's work "transgressive" just because it examines historical reality of violence by depicting violence itself (Anglin is once again hiding behind buzzwords of which he doesn't seem to know the meaning). Fourth, calling McCarthy "nihilistic" is to ignore the human relationships that offer meaning to the characters he presents--it's a very reductive read. Fifth, I don't find his work to be a blasphemy and there are elements within it that present the idea that attenuating yourself so as to be open to hearing the voice of God is to find meaning (opposite of nihilistic).

Anglin's entire take is simply pontificating reactionary nonsense. There's nothing of substance or depth in his criticism of McCarthy; he's presenting a contrarian take retards like yourself will mistake for insight. He has nothing to offer--he's a small man who betrays his own ignorance when it comes to the work of a more creative and substantial man.

I will say again that Anglin is a pathetic manlet who isn't even tall enough to have been in the SS. He reminds me of that faggot Rittenhouse shot (i.e the bald ginger manlet)--the only difference is they radicalized in opposite directions.