/lit/ - Literature

>>21976155
>muh atmosphere
Can you for once not resort to these vague words abstracting all sense from the conversation? An atmosphere is nothing more than the words on the page: you're trying to create a preternatural God out of the text, confusing the independent particles for the totality of what is *there*. God damn it, and why is mine utterly forgettable? I wish we would stop fanboying over this author; frankly, it's ludicrous to me. He does nothing that Melville or Faulkner don't do better, for fuck's sake and then some. I've quite had enough of hearing about him for the past couple of days and this sudden uptick can do no more than confirm your own biases for him without your being able to explain why you even like him without grasping at such vague abstruse ideas as "muh atmosphere." Enough already for fuck's sake with this man; he would not even be fit to lick Melville's boot, let alone go toe to toe with a Joyce.

>>21974983
But I don't need the context of the passage. Every sentence taken out of context needs to be able to stand on its own and that sentence clearly does not because it's overwritten and unnecessarily bombastic. I'm not going to continue repeating myself there.
>Nabokov's main criticism of non-artistic writers was that they never treat their world as if it is lived in. No context, no details. You'd fit his paradigm
Nabokov was the person furthest away from the ideal of writing. A world of fiction is not lived in. It is text. It has no correspondence with the reality of the world. Please read Finnegans Wake or some other book outside of your limited paradigm of what constitutes a written world.
>>21974991
Thank you.
>>21975000
See above. The sentence by itself doesn't stand alone. "Howling" as a word is so theatrical as to undermine the expression of grief McCarthy is trying to go for. Silent desolation will always be a stronger expression of sorrow and there are other words to use to convey the permeation of "howling" through the passage.
>>21975021
I've read all of those writers that I've mentioned thoroughly. McCarthy is Whitman basically on amphetamines. He is completely redundant.

>>21974457
I'm just joshing you. I honestly don't give a shit. I know what my inadequacies are and what things I can improve on. The only reason I'm on here is out of procrastination, which really translates into my fear of continuing my life's progress. Eventually something in my brain will click and I'll take care of what needs to be taken care of.

I didn't mean anything about your atoms earlier. I hope they stay intact. To the other anon, hope everything works out. I know what not to expect and yet I know I'd like to do more.

Yours,
Humphrey Chimpden Earwicker

>>21972295
>>21972643
>>21972665
Name one good thing about him that isn't regurgitated from pop culture or the general mass delusion.

>>21972042
The devouring cannot be called good if it causes pain to another creature. No creature willingly submits to be devoured. The necessity of devouring does not entail its goodness. Something must die to fuel us; this fact cannot be allowed to so easily slip away from us under the notion of goodness.

It is not good. It is not good that we require signals of pleasure in order to feel good about consuming another sentient creature. Think logically about this: a lion or a hyena in the desert eating us is a horrific thought. Can we argue that it's good for the lion or the hyena to eat us? It is abhorrent to us to think about being eaten and yet we eat other things every day. Imagine if some more sentient being than us developed and decided we'd be good food and we were entirely helpless to do anything about it. Is that not evil? Is that not horror, good sir?