/lit/ - Literature

Because being better than Proust is an attainable goal to set yourself as a writer?

Why don't people post the name of the author along with the picture?

>>18534655
Because he is better than proust
>>18534684
Because most people have been here for more then 2 days and already know who the same 10 authors /lit/ talks about are

>>18534655
Nobody even knows who tf Proust is.

>>18534655
He understands what is meant by an opinion.

>>18534655
He never said that.

>>18534744
He very strongly implied it by saying Proust was not literature but never had issues with people calling his work literature. Let me guess, BM is your favorite.

>>18534684
It’s Cormac McCarthy

>>18534748
Yes you are right BM is my favorite book.

This is what the said from the NYT interview :

“ I don't understand them," he says. "To me, that's not literature. A lot of writers who are considered good I consider strange."

I think he’s being very genuine. Isn’t that a feeling you’ve had. Certainly you’ve read a work that other people value and thought I don’t get it even though other people like it. I think that’s all he’s saying.

>>18534684
stfu poser

>>18534803
BM fags always have issues with nuance.

He is being genuine in expressing his opinion, he does not consider Proust to be literature but he considers himself to be literature, so it stands to reason he considers himself to be better at literature than someone who he does not consider to be literature. So Cormac thinks he is better than Proust, see how that works?

This is not a bad thing, or a good thing, it is just an old mans opinion.

>>18534655
It's more of a mixture of stupidity and arrogance.

>>18534818
You’re the one missing the nuance. These are two completely different authors with vastly different themes and styles hence why saying one is better than the other is dumb.

>>18534931
I never said that, I just explained what Cormac said and very strongly implied with his statement. Stay stupid.

>>18534655
He is infinitely better than Poost.

>>18534818
Not him but also a BM fag. Just based on the quote he posted you are stretching his words a lot. I see what you’re saying, but having a low opinion of someone and not commenting on people’s high opinion of you doesn’t mean you said or even implied that you are better than them. I think John Green is shit. I have also had professors say they enjoyed my writing. I do not think I am a better writer than John Green. See how that works? Also, fuck you. BM is among the best American literature has to offer.

>>18534748
>>18534818
>>18534655
You’re really trying hard to argue. Take a breath get off the internet and do something you actually enjoy

>>18534931
Well he is the one without nuance mocking Proust by calling him "not literature."

>>18534818
you're reading too deep into an offhand response of his

>It was like I was staring into the heart of an immense darkness
really Conrad?

>>18535781
I meant to post this as a thread sorry

>>18535787
Okay and now instead of one off-topic post you have made two.

itt: butthurt Cormac fans.

>>18535307
I never said anything against BM or Cormac, did not even imply such things, I like both. This really is not stretching anything, you should read the full interview and his few others, this is not a conclusion which requires reaching.
>>18535317
Not really arguing, just elaborated my point for an anon.
>>18535385
It was not offhand. You should read the full interview, the rest of the response suggests he never even read Proust, or James, who he also mentioned in full answer to the question.

>>18535937
Why do you care so much? If he doesn't consider him literature then it is safe to assume that being better than Proust has little value to him. It is literally just a two sentence statement made 30 years ago. He never said he is better than Joyce, cervantes or Faulkner ---his favourites--- that accusations of arrogance be labelled on him.
What is with /lit/'s obsession with writers' opinion? Same autism in all Nabokov threads.

Cormac is great, but Proust is so much above him that they shouldn't even be classified in the same group. It's like comparing Ginsberg to Shakespeare. No wonder Cormac doesn't understand Proust and James, they write much better than he does.

His opinions are horrible:

>In one of his few interviews, McCarthy revealed that he only respects authors who "deal with issues of life and death", citing Henry James and Marcel Proust as examples of writers who do not. "I don't understand them ... To me, that's not literature. A lot of writers who are considered good I consider strange," he said.[22] Regarding his own literary constraints when writing novels, McCarthy said he is "not a fan of some of the Latin American writers, magical realism. You know, it's hard enough to get people to believe what you're telling them without making it impossible. It has to be vaguely plausible."[85] He has cited Moby-Dick (1851) as his favorite novel.[17]

Imagine believing in plausibility in the 21st century. Imagine thinking the reader should 'believe' in what he's reading, whatever that means.
He is a great writer, but his understanding of literature is very weak. In fact, his own books contradict his statements, because the Judge is a very surreal figure, and the best one in the book.
As for the 'life and death' thing, McCarthy is simply unable to differentiate between personal taste and aesthetic judgement. I hate Jane Austen's books, I find them very boring, as I tend to do with any 'realist' novel, other than those by Flaubert and the Flaubertians. However, I do recognize her talent as a writer. The writing itself is good. If I take an isolated paragraph and look into it, the worth of the sentences is clear to me. I don't need to like what I'm reading in order to see this.

Based McCarthy working the hell outta gay Proustfags.
Proust is the most overrated bullshit writer ever. His fanbase needs to stop projecting their homo fantasies onto everyone.

>>18536050
>they write much better than he does.
In bizarro world.

Proust was
1. gay
2. French

Who gives a shit

>>18536010
I don't care, like I said in my second post
>This is not a bad thing, or a good thing, it is just an old mans opinion.
Posting does not imply caring, even an effort post takes no real effort or commitment, we are anonymous, nothing gained, nothing lost. You might be projecting.

Mccarthy can outwrite any writer, living or dead. It's not even comparable. People who suck Proust's dick haven't even read him in French. Now or course, In search of lost time is a significant achievement, way beyond Blood meridian but in terms of writing talent, Mccarthy > Proust

>>18534684
yeah when the author is a literal who a name is required

>>18536132
>>18536093
This McCarthy cult is nonsense. I defended him here many times against his detractors, but he's not even better than Melville.
Stop pretending that he is the best. You know he isn't. He is the best one alive, though, easily. In America, I mean (not in the rest of the world).

mccarthy is stephen king tier
his fans mistakenly believe that just because he has a big vocabulary, his inane yeehaww fartfests must be literary

>>18536170
pynchon is still alive, at the very least

>>18536132
laughable, mccarthy couldnt write his way out of a wet paper bag

>>18536176
McCarthy is way better than Pynchon.
I once found a ''cold as ice'' in one of the first pages of Gravity's Rainbow which made postpone reading the book. Sorry, but I can't stand that.
I love Pynchon, but as a writer he's clearly inferior to McCarthy.

>>18536181
lmao

>>18536185
Yeah. Imagine writing ''cold as ice'', imagine not being able to invent a simile.

>>18536199
Imagine not being able to comprehend the use of simple, straightforward English.

Enjoy your pretentious purple prose.

>>18536235
Pynchon is more pretentious than McCarthy though.

Pynchon is for degenerate postmodern libtardss and schizo alt right qtards.

McCarthy is for the intelligent everyman.

>>18536176
>mccarthy couldnt write his way out of a wet paper bag
You have to really dumb to believe that.
>Pynchon is still alive
That explains it lmao.

>>18536170
I know he is. I can perfectly justify it too. I am not willing to sit and wait 60 years when everybody's on his dick to act like he isn't that great already.

>>18536176
>muh complexity

>>18536235
>Enjoy your pretentious purple prose.
>defends Pynchon

>>18536170
>hurr McCarthy sucks because he's worse than Melville, the literal GOAT

go back to the pynchon thread bubby, this is a bit beyond your level

>>18536276
>I can perfectly justify it too.
Than let's see you do it.

The cowboys rode on and farted and shidded their big boy pants. The judge came and raped a babby in its sphincter and then chops it up and cannibalises it with a tortilla. The End.

Leaked excerpt from Blood Meridian 2.

>>18536161
Not everybody is a newfag, sorry.

>>18536316
>The judge came and raped a babby in its sphincter and then chops it up and cannibalises it with a tortilla
Based.

>>18536294
Keep it bumped. I will drop one when I am done with work.

>>18536235
A cliché is a cliché, you dumb ape. He should have simply deleted it. The thing was completely unnecessary for the meaning of the sentence. If his goal was to write a simple sentence (which it wasn't), he should not have added a cliché.
A cliché is the easiest possible trick, and it is evidence that he wasn't careful enough with his writing.

>>18536316
kino

>>18536290
I am the one defending McCarthy against the Pynchon-fan, you imbecile.
You probably can't even read French anyway.
This is such a shitty thread. Fucking hell.

>>18536326
I have never seen an anon follow through with that claim. Just start a new thread if this one dies, it is not that difficult.

>>18536127
look how much i'm not caring tee hee

>>18536344
I want to focus on the fundamentals of writing, mainly prose and dialogue, to justify it. Reading him and other writers will probably make a better case because of the numerous intangibles that goes into writing a great work.
The first thing about McCarthy's prose is that it has evolved with nearly every book. One of his most standout features is the range of his prose. He can go from hynoptically minimal to biblically ornate within half page lengths.
Even across books you can see it; The Road is minimalist and made up largely of monosyllabic words, while something like Blood Meridian or Suttree consistently drops ornate long running sentences packed with 5 or 6 syllable words at times. In his westerns you can see both of types of writing varied over with great effect. (there is a scene in The Crossing where Billy is handling the Wolf written in sparse but almost magically hypnotic short sentences)
There might be writers who can show command over both types of writing (very, very few) but even lesser still that will come to be Recognized for BOTH of them. I can't give you any examples, maybe you have some. Beckett is one but he is mainly famous for his minimalism and not 'dream of middling women'
A very strong case can be made for McCarthy's imagery to be THE best in literature, or atleast one of the best. It isn't the simple act of delivering riveting similes or memorable metaphors, but populating a large body of work with them. If you ignore dialogue 80% of McCarthy's books are similes and metaphors (makes sense, he is an imagist in the spirit of Pound). You would imagine he would run out of them sometime, but he doesn't. I think it is safe to say that he is a virtuoso in this regard. (even his sonetimes detractor: James Wood, believes he is the greatest observer of landscape/things) It is one thing to present great images and entirely other to present great images for thousands of pages. Blood Meridian arguably has more quotable passages than does Moby Dick (in my opinion anyway), and it is largely descriptions of a barren landscape. Surely you can imagine the finesse put into writing something like that.
Besides all that, his range of emotion in prose is also brilliant. He can deliver bilblically epic sequences, very tender scenes, great descriptions of fights and even scenes with a strong adrenaline rush are very well imitated in his prose. I would post passages as example but I don't have the books with me right now. Most writers would do a few of them well, certainly Proust cannot depict the savagery that Mccarthy writes about but McCarthy can depict a tender scene with the softness of Proust. (John grady and Alejandra's swim together; the Doctor attending to Boyd etc.)
His prose is also very poetic with consistently great prosody.

(1/2)

>>18535794
I don't care, sorry revoked

>>18536344
I have gushed about his prose but his dialogue is just as good. He captures the speech and mannerisms of the south and south west with near perfection. His spanish dialogue is also very competent (can't think of any other bilingual writer who does that well; Conrad and Nabokov maybe, though Nabokov's English dialogue isn't very convincing but thankfully he keeps it minimal). It is humorous, melancholic and works well in philosophical discussions. His later books like Cotp and Nfcom are very dialogue oriented so he is more than capable of writing books without solely crutching it upon his Prose.
One last thing, Suttree, Blood meridian and even The Crossing are slower, more plotless works and they are arguable his best works. However, he is still more than good enough to deliver a riveting, page turning story like Nfcom and Atph without phoning it in. How many other greats can claim that? Certainly not Proust and Henry James. Funnily enough McCarthy's vision of the world and the themes he deals in completely dwarfs James' and Proust's, and yet he still writes without boring his readers for long sections.

I rest my case

>>18536123
this
also based

>>18536514
All you did was gush and offer superficial observations and opinion. There is no case to rest, there is no purpose in justifying opinion.

>>18536495
>>18536514
>>18536344
Sorry for the typos. I am phoneposting.

>>18536534
He asked for it, so I gave mine. Is there any other way to talk about what makes somebody a good writer? Do tell please.

>>18536534
>offer superficial observations and opinion
They are not superficial if you have read those writers. Those who have will know what I am talking and in reference to what.

>>18534684
>>18536161
>literature board

>>18536543
I asked for it and you asserted that he was the best and you could justify it.
> Is there any other way to talk about what makes somebody a good writer?
Learn about grammar (syntax, morphology, etc), rhetoric, plots, structure, etc, everything that makes up a novel. This will allow you to be able to offer comparisons between authors and works beyond the level of "because I like it better." It will also allow you to appreciate language and writing more, there is a hell of a lot going on and McCarthy knows what he is doing, it is not just luck or talent or trial and error, he has studied and learned the form in which he works in.

>>18536550
I have read every writer you mentioned. And yes they are superficial, they do not go beneath the surface.

>>18536592
I already said that I am going to focus on Prose and dialogue. Spamming the thread with comparisions between plots and structures between completely different writers is autistic. Besides, I only wanted to focus on the common ground, if you have read them then you will know what my blanket statement means. If they don't help other anons in understanding the difference, then they better read the writers instead of leaning on my posts.
Certainly you don't expect me to sit here and autistically break down passages from their books to compare their prose abilities. You are just being unrealistic with your demands. You show me yours then.
>This will allow you to be able to offer comparisons between authors and works beyond the level of "because I like it better."
You are just an idiot. I gave proper reasons as to why he is better, even hitting up on what he does and what others don't. If that is all you gleaned from the posts, it is safe to say you simply don't want your head narrative changed.
>it is not just luck or talent or trial and error, he has studied and learned the form in which he works in.
Where the fuck did I imply it was luch, you retard?!?

>>18536623
>Spamming the thread with comparisions between plots and structures between completely different writers is autistic.
You directly asked for other ways to discuss the quality of literature so I gave them.
>autistically break down passages from their books to compare their prose abilities.
You would not need to, you would be able to say exactly what it is that makes his prose so great and give a few examples contrasted with a few examples of others and you would have been able to do it in fewer words than you used in those two posts.
> I gave proper reasons as to why he is better
"cause I like it better" is not a proper reason. As I said, there is no point in justifying opinions, just state it, verbosity serves no purpose here and only makes you come off as insecure.
>Where the fuck did I imply it was luch, you retard?!?
Where did I imply that you did? I gave a list of things which his work is not and then said what it is. Context is important.

>>18536568
Lmao if you think corncob yecarthy is relevant outside of /lit/. He's a complete nonentity.

>>18536568
do your books have pictures in them?

>>18536316
>cannibalises it with a tortilla
kek

>>18536592
Not him, but plot is shit. Structure matters, but plot is shit made for lazy readers who can't stand not having a bunch of events following a logical sequence that their low IQ brains are able to absorb.
D. Quijote is arguably the greatest novel ever written, and its plot is sheer, utter confusion. It even contradicts itself very strongly sometimes.

>>18536680
>As I said, there is no point in justifying opinions, just state it, verbosity serves no purpose here and only makes you come off as insecure.
I was asked quite literally to "justify an opinion". That I did. I wrote my posts simply under the assumption that the reader has read the works.
McCarthy's prose is poetic. It is common knowledge. I do not need to post passages to somehow prove it. You can simply read the works and come to the same conclusion. Your criticism that it is superficial because I did not post examples (not true. I referred to sections in the book that you can simply go and read or would have already read) is itself an example of "grasping at the straws".
Again, I do not think you read my posts. "Cause I like it better" is definitely not I wrote. I even compared the difference in range, the variation in minimalism and maximalism and even his imagist heritage to make my point. Again I do not need to post passages from other writers to prove that they do not do the same. You can simply read them if you want proof. Similarly for dialogue. Either you are blind or maximally stupid.
>Learn about grammar (syntax, morphology, etc), rhetoric, plots, structure, etc, everything that makes up a novel.
Lmao. An answer for non-autists please? (Proust writes in French and Mccarthy in English; Melville writes in Shakespearean english, there can be no comparison of syntax or geammar. The comparison is entirely stupid here)

>>18536690
Then fuck off from here.

>>18536722
No i came to this thread to make fun of mccarthy mutts

>>18535937
Yeah sure anon. You're the one who was so upset by what he said, but everyone else is triggered

>>18536050
What makes you think cormac doesn't feel about Proust the same way you do about Austen? He didn't make any comment on Proust's talent as a writer, he just said he doesn't like the subject matter, the same way you don't like austens choice of subject matter

>>18536738
you're not doing a great job anon seeing as you're already on the defensive

>>18536711
Plot can and often does serve purposes beyond itself.
>>18536715
>I was asked quite literally to "justify an opinion"
You said you know he is the greatest and could justify it, that is stepping over the opinion line.
>The comparison is entirely stupid here
No, it really is not, and I did not say comparison, I said contrasted. Understanding syntax and grammar would all you to explain why you find McCarthy's imagery effective and Proust's ineffective, What language it was written in does not matter as long as you understand that language.

>>18534655
The two aren't even comparable. In fact, I don't know what author would be similar to Proust. And yes, I've read "In Search of Lost Time" through twice. Probably under 100 people in the world can say that. If you doubt it gove it a try.

>>18536781
Give

>>18536766
he is the greatest and could justify it, that is stepping over the opinion line.
Pic related
>why you find McCarthy's imagery effective and Proust's ineffective
I don't find his imagery ineffective. Proust is a great writer, he just isn't quite as good as Cormac. Syntax can never do justice to imagery, i must not have to tell you that. At times Proust's imagery is similarly great but Mccarthy delivers it more consistently over differing styles. How is this not a perfectly valid and understood justification? You can simply read the two and see the difference. I only intended to compare where they logically can be compared. They cannot be compared poetically because they write in different languages. Dialogue is also not comparable because Proust uses 1st person narrator. They are comparable in their stylized used of their language and use of metaphors and similes. And I have touched up on all of them.

>>18536680
>you would be able to say exactly what it is that makes his prose so great and give a few examples contrasted with a few examples of others and you would have been able to do it in fewer words than you used in those two posts.

>you would be able to describe an abstract concept to a literal retard in just 2 lines br0!!!

>>18536761
>What makes you think cormac doesn't feel about Proust the same way you do about Austen?
This. Even Joyce said he sees no special talent in Proust. So is he just a jealous bitch now?

>>18536795
>Even Joyce said he sees no special talent in Proust
He would say harsher things of Memecarthy

>>18536801
>misses the point

>>18536781
Far more than 100 people have read it more than twice.
>>18536786
That is called an example, notice I did not quote you.
>Syntax can never do justice to imagery
kek. You don't know what you are talking about.

Anyways bedtime.

>>18536816
No you have no idea what you're talking about and no I will not explain why, bedtime bitches

>>18536816
>You don't know what you are talking about.
Sure. Tell us how the grammar of writing makes up for your no-talent in observing likenesses.

>>18536810
This thread is about a deluded old man thinking he is better than Marcel Proust. Regardless of your thoughts on Proust, he is clearly a superior writer to this glorified genre pulp shitter

>>18536828
Easy there anon. You sound really mad.

>>18536828
Oh OK, I'll be noting down your post number so I can source this in essays

>>18536835
yeah this is one of the only threads on /lit/ that is actually about literature. so unfortunate that not only do 90% of posters come here just for off topic shitposts, but of the 10% who actually read novels, 90% unironically enjoy dreck like ayn rand and corncob beancarthy

>>18536823
>>18536825
are you anons seriously trying to make the argument that sentence structure (syntax) has nothing to do with the effectiveness of that sentence to convey its idea?

>>18536847
>corncob beancarthy
How will McCarthy ever recover? Epic

>>18536859
mate
I really don't think he will care about a silly jibe i made on an imageboard

>>18536858
Only to the extent of how readable the sentence is. McCarthy's shirking of grammar doesn't make his sentences even REMOTELY unreadable unless you're ESL or retarded.

>>18536847

Fuck off you anti-intellectual pseud

>>18536858
No. I am just contending that Syntax doesn't help you in your imagist writing beyond the very basic level. If you can't see likenesses, no amount of patrician syntax is gonna make up for it. For example, McCarthy's syntax is one of the weirdest in literature but he is able to work it because he has a talent for imagery.

>>18536847
And the rest 10% enjoy Fag trash like pOOst.

>>18536895
rather read well written books by fags, perverts, nonces, than western capeshit by a senile boomer

>>18536906
Bit they aren't well written. They are bullshit. I will take western capeshit over sleepworthy masturbation.

>>18536917
that itself is the problem

>>18536816
Very doubtful

>>18536871
so something like the order of the metaphors within a sentence has no effect? syntax is far more than just readability. mccarthy's meandering scenery descriptions in blood meridian are a prime example of this and is what makes them work. try rewriting them, see what happens, play with the syntax, easy to keep them just as readable but good luck keeping them anywhere near as effective.

>>18536887
you are just throwing around words, nothing all that weird about his syntax, he is essentially conventional with with a few quirks thrown in.

>>18534685
>>18536568
Fucking posers. Real lit enthusiasts don't know what any authors look like they just read them

>>18536973
>nothing all that weird about his syntax, he is essentially conventional with with a few quirks thrown in.
I really don't know what to say to you.

>>18536795
Joyce was a notoriously poor critic.

>>18536989
Cope

>>18536987
just prove me wrong

>>18536995
I've nothing to cope with, anon. Proust is near-universally recognised as one of the greatest modernist authors, and his In Search of Lost Time as the greatest novel of the 20th century (or one of them). It's McCarthy's fanatics who are grasping at straws. I don't even dislike McCarthy, I enjoyed Blood Meridian.

>>18537007
Is anyone here saying Proust sucks? They're just saying they think McCarthy is at least comparable

>>18537012
hes not though lmao

>>18536998
You don't accept anything even when it is in your face. What use would it be? You can just look up opinions about his syntax and just how unconventional his writing is (not just punctuation btw).
All of that is besides the point over here, most people are not going to immediately take to his style (kinda the definition of unconventional) but stick with it because his imagist prose is good. That is all I am saying; observing likenesses>>>syntax, when it comes to imagery.

>>18537015
Maybe you can make a better case than me then?
>>18536495
>>18536514

>>18537016
i asked one question and responded to the responses, nothing has been shoved into my face yet. you made an assumption and are playing the very game which you accused that other anon of.

>>18537027
ok here goes

mccarthy sucks balls because i said so

>>18537012
I'm not here to diss McCarthy but defend Proust. Anon invoked Joyce's criticism of Proust, I dismissed it.

>>18537057
How am I to know that you aren't the previous guy? You don't have a trip and sure do type the same way.

I’m 100% certain than all Cormac fans in this thread never read Proust past some initial chapters.

Proust is very turgid and somewhat clumsy in his flowery style, but he knew human beings far better than Cormac.

Its something like comparing Tolstoy with Cormac. You get the feeling that you’re dealing with a comic-book-for-grownups writer when you compare the works of CM with those of Tolstoy.

By the way, if you people enjoy great drama and poetic language, how can you put Blood Meridian above Moby Dick?

>>18537069
moby dick is boring, the plot is too simple and the nonfiction chapters are pointless

blood meridian is interesting, non stop action and philosophy with superb prose

>>18534655
having no job is tough

>>18537064
You have poor reading comprehension if that's how you interpreted the anon who posted Joyce. They weren't saying that Proust sucks because Joyce said so, they were responding to the people who were saying that any respected authors critisim of another respected authors works is done due to jealousy.

>>18537066
ultimately, what does it matter? that is the point of anonymous, all that matters is the knowledge you offer, so far you have offered little and i am likely done with you.

>>18537094
Yes. Joyce didn't like Proust because he was a notorious poor critic, as I said, not because of professional jealousy.

>>18537069
>Proust knew humans better
Proust only knew himself better. His bourgeois are caricatures.
>You get the feeling that you’re dealing with a comic-book-for-grownups writer when you compare the works of CM with those of Tolstoy
Utter bullshit
McCarthy doesn't shove sentimentality in your face but his characters are perfectly human in both Border trilogy and Suttree. You simply missed it hard or are just going by impressions from one book. He also doesn't larp about poors despite being an aristocrat.
>how can you put Blood Meridian above Moby Dick?
Better passages/page

>>18537099
Even if you aren't the original guy, my claim will perfectly serve here as well
>you don't accept anything even when in your face
You need to learn to read better. I have already offered my stance on syntax and imagery and you are still wanting for a response. But leave it, you aren't smart enough to hold a conversation.

>>18537101
So? You still interpreted the anons comment incorrectly

>>18537069
>putting Proust with Tolstoy
Both overrated but Proust belongs with Jack Kerouac in his knowledge of humans, not the Russians. Proustfags are fucking delusional as hell

>>18537103

You never read Proust, not even Tolstoy. You don’t have the right to comment. It’s bad-faith and dishonesty and you know it.

>>18537103
>Better passages/page

You don’t really know great poetry. Moby Dick is far richer in great imagery, in visionary metaphors and strange similes.

>>18537145
Bullshit. This is your cope.
I can say the exact same for you and McCarthy. It's obvious you never even read BM let alone other books of his because your opinion is exactly of someone going by impressions.

>>18537138
>Both overrated

Tolstoy overrated but not Cormac? I have the feeling you have something like 18-19.

>>18537150
>redditspace
>mad as hell
Stop spamming buzzwords kiddo. McCarthy's imagery BTFOs Melville's without resorting to muh Shakespeare. Read the book before spamming bullshit, you redditor.

>>18537167
You are making the teenage tier comparison retard. Never said anything about McCarthy. Your sperging spells mental illness. Did McCarthy fuck your mother or something?
>muh Proust

>>18537168
>McCarthy's imagery BTFOs Melville's without resorting to muh Shakespeare.

Examples?

And to learn with Shakespeare is no problem. Cormac would never be capable of the same richness of imagery.

>>18537150
>visionary metaphors and strange similes.
Cringe as fuck. You have to be 18+ to post here

>>18537184
>And to learn with Shakespeare is no problem. Cormac would never be capable of the same richness of imagery.
Says you not everyone else, dumbass. Even Shakespeare's biggest dick gobbler, Bloom had an unhealthy obsession with Blood meridian. He said that there are many passages in BM deserving of Shakespeare and Homer and the Judge deserving a place among Shakespeare's best villains.
>Examples?
Read the book. It is littered with imagery because it is quite literally his bread and butter.

He is a competent writer, but it seems to me that there is something like a lack of knowledge about what human beings really are in his work. There is something almost caricaturesque about his men and women; his books are almost superhero stories written for adults. It's something that someone who admires the mentality of "hard men" and manual workers would write, trying to be such a man himself. If you think of Tolstoy's and Checkhov's human beings and compare them to McCarthy's you feel that whoever is writing ithe latter is a kind of old teenager, a teenager who has had plenty of time to perfect his style but who has failed to see people notin a superficial way. It's always the same thing: duty, silence, hard life, brutish minds, brutish souls, men of few words, women grown up among farms of brutish men, surrounded by rocks and grass.

It seems like all the time he writes with the same color palette: something gray, with a taste of bones and ash. Men and women in his work always have dry leather souls, or they are almost incarnations of chaos, the desert, war, a wild west, but never people.

If you want to know how people who experience deprivation, poverty and lack of any access to culture really are, Checkhov's "Peasants" and "In the Ravine" will show, with a far more cruel and a cold and mercilessly true vision what poverty really does to the soul. Spiritual deformation is far more repulsive than McCarthy's "wolf-men".

But even in McCarthy's tragedies you won't find anything like the language of Shakespeare or Melville. There is almost an ability to obtain great metaphors and constant imagery, but the material is always more diffuse: you feel the lungs filling with breath, but the singing never appears. It seems like an attempt to write in a language that evokes a well-crafted translation of biblical writing, but it's never the biblical poetry of a Job.

>>18537197
this is pasta. get over mccarthy. if your too dumb to understand him just read something elsr. no need to cope and seethe like a bitch.

>>18537194
>Even Shakespeare's biggest dick gobbler, Bloom

I don’t respect his criticism. Not even of the writers I like. By the way, I like Cormac, but he is far from the greatest poets of language, and much less someone who really understands humanity in the same way that Tolstoy or Chekhov or Shakespeare.

>>18537204

Do you think it is a good pasta?

>>18537197
Exactly the kind of person I was talking about
>Men and women in his work always have dry leather souls, or they are almost incarnations of chaos, the desert, war, a wild west, but never people.
Complete and utter bullshit. The poster never read a book of his either beyond Blood Meridian or not even that.
>muh wolf men, muh hard men
Lmao. More than half of his Protagonists are well natured, christian men/boys with a decent moral compass.
Besides Holden and Chigurh, there are no personification of forces in his work. The entire post is worthless, as a pasta too. Neither does he write Character dramas (besides arguably Suttree). His books are journeys where besides the protagonist, most characters last maybe 10 pages. There is no comparison with Tolstoy and Chekhov. Sensationalist post written entirely on assumed cliches.

>>18537213
No. It is factually wrong on many things.

>>18537211
>I don’t respect his criticism. Not even of the writers I like.
Me neither. But he sure as hell has read more than me. Sure as hell knows Shakespeare better than many others.

Ok, here’s what I’m going to do.

I will reread BM and compare it with passages from Shakespeare and Melville.

Also, I will read far more carefully the Border Trilogy, by this time not for the style, but the characters.

When I’m finish I will make a post either to admit I was wrong or to try to prove my point by means of examples.

The only honest thing I ask you guys to do is: read War and Peace or Anna Karenina from start to finish, without prejudice. I’m going to read Cormac again with the utmost respect for his work. I liked BM when I read it, but I really thought it was overrated.

I also suggest you reread Moby Dick with neutral eyes. It seems to me you are being unfair with Melville.

If you are still on /lit/ in something like 3-5 months from now you will see the thread.

I hope I’m wrong, because the more greater writers are there the better.

>>18537266
>I will read far more carefully the Border Trilogy, by this time not for the style, but the characters
Don't care for BM, but do this especially. I recently finished a reread and liked it better much more. Especially his characters, especially Billy.
One tip: Billy's relationship with Boyd and his father is made up mainly of silences. Reas their responses closely.

Hope you have a good time.

>>18537278

Thank you, I will read it very carefully and take notes on all things that impress me. Of course, it will be just my opinion, but even if I’m a nobody I still owe any writer the respect of treating him with attention and impartially.

>>18534655
He had a pair of balls in his scrotum and he said he's better than Proust. That's how.

>>18537379
He actually never said he was better. He just said he doesn't like Proust when asked about his favourites.

lol @ all the 4chan keyboard warriors critiquing literary giants like Pynchon and Cormac.

>>18537461
>keyboard warriors
You do realize this is the literature board, right? Literature is the written word. It is fitting that here we discuss the written word with the written word.

>>18537461
Built for BBC

This post is Pynchon approved btw

>>18537197
>t. never read Suttree

>>18537525
no you're meant to go and break cormac mccarthy's neck with a german suplex to teach him a lesson

>>18534684
Get out of here stalker

>>18537461
god I want to sneed

>>18537662
r/gangstalker

>>18534818
Actual asperger's syndrome

>>18536276
But everybody IS on McCarthy's dick, despite half a dozen detractors here and there

>>18536981
>lit
>reading
newfag gtfo

I’ve read Blood Meridian 3 times and don’t really get the appeal. Any other Corncob books I should try or have I been filtered?

>>18538654
Why would you read it 3 times if you did not like it?

>>18537069
>very turgid and somewhat clumsy
looks like this guy's reading translations

>>18534655
easy: bigger balls than Proust

>>18538718
Are you a real girl?

>>18538728
no but my penis is remarkably feminine

>>18538748
Dropped.

>>18538778
unlike my delicate testicles

>>18536761
He said it's not literature. If he had just said "I don't like them", that would be OK.
But it's obvious that Proust and James are literature.

>>18538853
He said "To me that's not literature"

>>18537103
>His bourgeois are caricatures
This truly shows a bad reading of The Guermantes Way. The way he describes, with a precision even Balzac did not reach, the spirit of the french salons, the way he compares for over 50 pages the spirit of the Guermantes and the spirit of the Courvoisier, linking it to Saint-Simont's depiction of nobility, and how time and the end of monarchy destroyed its greatness, the relationship between Princess of Parma and Oriane, the evolutions of Saint-Loup between In the shadow of young girls in flower and The Fugitive, or of Bloch between Swann's way and Time regained, there is nothing comparing to it in French literature.
But, and hence Cormac's or Joyce's opinions on Proust, he is an author that cannot be utterly understood if you're not French. I can perfectly understand that he appears "strange" to anyone outside of France. A simple way to see that is that neither Saint-Simont's memoirs or Madame de Sévigné's letters has been translated, and it is impossible to understand a lot of characters (the grandmother, the Duc de Guermantes, and pretty much anyone in the salons) in In search of lost time if you haven't read them. I don't read any non-french literature except Latin and Greek lit, so I won't say that Cormac is worse but saying any of Proust's characters are caricatures is simply wrong.

americans always overrates themselves, even though their canon is pathetic by comparison, ireland alone produce something with more artistic worth than the entire history of the U.S

>>18534684
Hey there this thing where you can click those three dotes on the top of your post and select, "Search image on Google."

>>18534655
he never said that, he merely said that he personally doesn't care for proust solely on account of his themes

>>18540379
Stupid post. Sure Ireland has farty, but Whitman is worth Yeats twice over.

>>18534818
He said it was because he believes literary work should be about life and death.

>>18534748
BM is my favorite book but I think McCarthy is kind of a psued or maybe he is more an idiot savant. I don't understand why he didn't just become a scientist if he doesn't respect writing. Maybe be became disillusioned with it or was just shit at math.

>>18541260
Which are major themes in both the work of James and Proust, and most everything other then genre fiction.

>>18541266
I think it is just image, he knows such things will go over well with his audience and it helps set him apart from both genre fiction and literary fiction. The man is not stupid, he knows what he is doing.

>>18541284
You think so? It might just be about image. He works at a research institute lmao probably never even having taken calc. Idk man, McCarthys stuff is good, I just don't understand why he started to bash other writers and literature. He says he doesn't read. Very weird guy. I really hope the passenger isn't about a Jew scientist gone "crazy".

>>18541249
and here we GO

>>18541302
>I just don't understand why he started to bash other writers and literature.
Because he did it in his youth and it worked out well, so he continued to do it. While he may not read anymore, he has read a great deal in his life and his writing shows it. I think it is just image, he is playing the "outlaw" of literature.

>>18538853
It's just a stupid boomerism, you have to be deliberately playing dumb to miss his (admittedly silly) actual point in answering the question this way. That it maybe just ESL, unironically?

>>18541302
>>18541360
>bash other writers
This is like his only opinion in one of his few interviews given at age 60. It certainly wasn't his youth and he is certainly didn't make it a habit of bashing writers. The hell are you guys twisting it into?!

>>18540120
gay

>>18538662
Are you try to get one over? Difficult works require patience and sometimes re-readings. He gave BM a try and more. It didn't work out. Le manly rustic literature doesn't really mean anything from this writer who's aping this whole thing.

>>18544617
Why do you people have such victim complexes? If you are not enjoying a book then drop it, it's not fucking work that you need to complete.
>muh getting one over
Are you autistic by any chance? It's a fucking book.
>Le manly rustic literature doesn't really mean anything from this writer who's aping this whole thing.
Lmao what? Do you have some personal problem with him? If that anon wanted to respond he would do it himself, you don't have to get butthurt on his behalf.

>>18534687
xD

>all these retards shitting on Moby Dick in this thread
Jesus. Reread the book when you're older

>>18545881
Saying BM>MD is not shitting on it, dumbass. Literally nobody is shitting on it.