/lit/ - Literature

>>18753282
A great and very funny book. Arguably the peak of prose.

>>18754016
>Arguably the peak of prose
McCarthy is great but his fanatics are incurably retarded

>>18754032
You have not read the book.

>>18754032
>Retard does not understand how subjective the argument is
You are probably whiteknighting for some 19th century writer (probably Melville) like there is some objective metric for measuring peak of prose. You are a dumb child then, who wants to validate his own opinion.
>inb4 high school tier analysis with buzzwords and fanboying.

made me cry near the end. emotional ride thats mostly comedy but will hit your heart string if you've ever had friends who were self destructive/stuck in a dead end.

>>18754160
>>18754091
Not Shakespeare's prose in the Henry plays. Not Joyce's in Ulysses. Not Melville's or Faulkner's or, hell, even Nabokov's. But Cormac McCarthy's? The peak of prose?
As stated above, incurably retarded.

>>18754257
>Nooooo only these writers can be the best. Science told me so!!!
Dumb child as I said.
>Nabokov
Lol. Only Melville and Joyce have a case. Shakespeare is too far removed from the time and aesthetic. You should try reading the books instead of posing here, retard.

>>18754257
>only dead man can be good
Teenager.

>>18754288
Mate you are simultaneously arguing for the subjectivity of aesthetic value judgements while also arguing for an objective ranking of stylists. Fully retarded.
Nobody except a handful of contrarian dorks here on this board even regard Suttree as McCarthy's best work. Every ready alive with a shred of honesty and more than eight braincells agrees that Blood Meridian is his stylistic zenith. Suttree is McCarthy aping Faulkner, the master and inventor of the style he employs. It's a shit take. Period.

>>18754315
>Suttree is McCarthy aping Faulkner, the master and inventor of the style he employs. It's a shit take. Period
Why do you wish to embarrass yourself so much? It couldn't be more obvious you haven't read the book. Suttree is a rejection of Faulkner not acceptance. You have to be a serious midwit to not notice it while reading the book.
>the style he employs
The fucking audacity of this poster! Lmao.
>arguing for an objective ranking of stylists. Fully retarded.
Did I? You are confusing two people for one. You are literally arguing that people adhere to your very narrow definition of prose as if it were a checklist and the writer with the most checks is the greatest. Be honest, you only read Nabokov on there didn't you?

>>18754332
>Did I? You are confusing two people for one.
Oh, so you aren't the person who said "only Melville and Joyce have a case"? Because that seems to imply you also agree on objective evaluation. The fact that you can't even recognize blatant contradictions in your sparse arguments is telling. Feel free to keep waking to one of Mr Southern Cowboy LARPer's minor novels.
>I actually think "The Crying of Lot 49" is the peak of prose! And you can't disagree because aesthetics are subjective.
This is what you sound like. The rest of your "argument" is so solipsistically generated and without foundation that there is no point in discussing further. A rejection of Faulkner? Give me a break.
I'll admit though, tacking on "you're a child" "you're embarrassing yourself" "you're a midwit" "the audacity of this poster" and other such insults is really making your case. You must be a very literate man and free-thinker to be able to generate such creative insults.

>>18754359
>only Melville and Joyce have a case
Oh that! That is a subjective reply to your hopelessly misinformed subjective opinion (before further misconstruing, with regards to your reading of these writers)
>Mr Southern Cowboy LARPer's minor novels.
Suttree is not a minor novel. Once again stop embarrassing yourself.
It's obvious you feel very strongly though I don't know why. You have a narrative in your head which is that 'McCarthy can't be the best' and it is obvious enough that you have zero idea of his literary reputation (Hell! it's not like I said that Jonathan Franzen is the peak of prose) and so it must be the case with everybody or it is scientifically wrong somehow. I am almost certain you haven't read a single one of his books (before further misconstruing, based on your, again, hopelessly misinformed opinions and not a passionate rebuttal on my part). You are sperging over some random anon's opinion on the peak of prose? How fucking pathetic is that?! You could simply disagree but no, other people are retarded for believing so. If you can't see your hypocrisy then what should I call you but a retard?
>A rejection of Faulkner? Give me a break.
Pretense pretense pretense pretense pretense.
None of this is convincing enough to justify your lack of reading the book, sorry.
>You must be a very literate man and free-thinker to be able to generate such creative insults.
Kek. You must be new if you think those are creative insults. Anyway, I am not the one getting mad at people liking some writers better than others. So yes, I am a free thinker.
Your way of arguing reminds me of children on /v/. Just an observation.

>>18754456
>You are sperging over some random anon's opinion on the peak of prose
Anon says Suttree is the peak of prose. I say anon is retarded. Look at the tone and length of your last post and tell me who is sperging. Lol.
>You must be new if you think those are creative insults.
The inability to detect blatant sarcasm? You must be exactly as retarded as your opinions on aesthetics originally led me to suspect.

>>18754486
I am not one who is mad though, am I? I post long because so far you have shown an inability to understand the most basic of arguments. This looks short to you>>18754359
Sperg.
>The inability to detect blatant sarcasm?
Ever heard of playing along? Fucking retard.

>>18754501
You seem incredibly mad haha. I can see you clenching your pale little fists while imaging all the McCarthyesque violence you would wreak upon me if only you weren't such a shut-in weakling.
>Ever heard of playing along?
I have. And I am supremely confident that the sarcasm went over your head. You can see the slight change in tone for a few sentences. You felt genuinely complimented! Wonderful.

>>18754515
>y-you are mad haha
You remind me of pic related my retarded friend.. This is how you feel right now nigger, innit?
>And I am supremely confident that the sarcasm went over your head. You can see the slight change in tone for a few sentences.
creating narratives in your head is a special ability of yours. Waste of time.

>>18754535
You speak almost exclusively in meme phrases. You cite literal images instead of coming up with anything creative to say. This is the anon with whom I've been arguing about literary aesthetics? Laughable.
>aesthetics are subjective but also McCarthy is the best and maybe Joyce and Faulkner too. By best I mean subjectively the best, but still objectively, not like Jonathan Franzen. Child child child child! You remind me of a child! You remind me of a child on another 4chan board (this website is my only point of reference)! Nigger! You remind me of a meme!
Zoomers really are hopeless, eh?

gay ass thread

>>18754572
>Zoomers really are hopeless, eh?
You should know that better than others, my retarded friend.
>that greentext
That was why I was longposting but you are beyond hope it seems.
If you argue for objective ranking of stylists, why don't you make a case why Suttree can't be? So far you have said literally nothing beyond it can't be, even subjectively.
>Noooooo you must believe me even though I made no arguments whatsoever. Stop liking McCarthy. Somebody insulted me in a thread of his and now I want revenge :(((((:(((
Lmao embarrassing. I found you on the internet making your posts my retarded friend.

>>18754572
This nigger is a parody of a 4chan poster
>muh creative posts
AHahahahahahaha. How creative of you!!!

>>18754590
I don't know how you can type this out and not realize how entirely your thinking is dominated by this website and internet speak.
I am just as obligated to mount a defence of my position as the anon who claimed Suttree is the peak of prose. Arguably less obligated, given that it is an INCREDIBLY controversial opinion whom no one outside this board would entertain (not even McCarthy himself).
Faggots, minorities and women argue for the subjectivity of aesthetics because that's the only way their dreck will be accepted. 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. I can tell you don't write, either. As I stated in my first post, McCarthy is great. But earnestly calling him the greatest shows either ignorance of the literary tradition or some kind of cognitive incapacity. I suspect you suffer from both.
Go ahead. Post another image. Use the phrase "my retarded friend" or "embarrassing" one more time. Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are incapable of thinking.

a very good book but not as good as bm i don't think

>>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.

>>18754615
>"No no no. The writer must be dead 60 years; his wiki page must be decorated; critics must suck this book; the book should be in atleast 1 modern library greatest lists, before he can be considered objectively great. What's that? The content of the book is the same still? Doesn't matter. My criteria is above all and smart and objective."
Holy fuck! Could you be any more of a pseud NPC?

>>18754665
>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"
This is absolute nonsense. You need to keep making exceptions for your so-called principles, realizing you've tangled yourself up in a position that's untenable. First aesthetics were subjective; now the canon is objective, but any comparison between works regarded as canonical (which Suttree is not) is purely subjective. At least you returning to the Franzen comment shows you've started to recognize how inconsistently you've argued.
McCarthy's best and most original work stylistically is Blood Meridian, which is also the only novel of his that people consistently regard as canonical. It is also only 18-22 year old internet addicts who would rank it (or any other McCarthy) above the likes of Joyce, Faulkner or Melville for substance or style. Period.
Your obsession with the idiocy of youth is genuinely intriguing. I wish I were more psychoanalytically inclined so I could make sense of it. Child, toddler, teenager, over and over. It seems almost compulsive. Was someone made to feel like a dummy when he was younger, so he read a dozen big important books to show mom and dad he was a smart boy after all? A dozen might be overgenerous, though, given your evident lexical limitations. Spergy retard embarrassing toddler child!

>>18754707
>pseud NPC
the fact that this irony will be lost on nearly all the people on this board depresses me immensely

>>18754715
>This is absolute nonsense. You need to keep making exceptions for your so-called principles, realizing you've tangled yourself up in a position that's untenable. First aesthetics were subjective; now the canon is objective, but any comparison between works regarded as canonical
That has been my position from the very start. Only you are too retarded to not have understood it. Who is the better stylist objectively? Flaubert or Proust?
Who is the better Stream of Consciousness writer? Faulkner or Beckett?
If you have an answer to any of these which you want to impose on other people then you are a dumb child. I do not say that out of spite, it is just how it is.
>McCarthy's best and most original work stylistically is Blood Meridian, which is also the only novel of his that people consistently regard as canonical. It is also only 18-22 year old internet addicts who would rank it (or any other McCarthy) above the likes of Joyce, Faulkner or Melville for substance or style. Period.
Your argument is exactly that of a teenager who insists on designating these works as if they were videogames with well defined parameters that can objectively gauge which was better done. In short you have read absolutely zilt nothing. You only argue from assumptions and safe opinions. In 60 years what they say of Joyce or Faulkner, they will say of McCarthy but his books will not change; but then it will be fine somehow. Only midwits can't see something so obvious.
And, once again, you have not read Suttree so don't act like you are any authority on his books.
>Child, toddler, teenager, over and over. It seems almost compulsive. Was someone made to feel like a dummy when he was younger, so he read a dozen big important books to show mom and dad he was a smart boy after all?
Oh, Like you are doing now? LMAO.
>"Look I praise Joyce, Melville, Faulkner. Oooooo look how obscure my taste is. Look how superior. No I haven't read that writer, but he can't be that good, so I am still objectively correct."
It depresses me immensely that you are unable to see how much of an NPC you are. All you write is nonsense.
The verbal peaks in Suttree are as great as Joyce's Ulysses. But since I am not Irish, I find it funnier and more fun.

>>18754778
Your ability to parrot phrases and words I've used without coming up with any of your own is astonishing. Also, that Ulysses looks quite fresh. One of multiple editions you own, I'm sure.

>>18754715
>I wish I were more psychoanalytically inclined so I could make sense of it
This place might help you. It's the first thing on google search for your kind of people

>>18754160
>>Retard does not understand how subjective the argument is

Ironic. Nice mate.
>Opinions

>>18754799
True enough. I could go there to hobnob with other intellectuals while we study the mentally disabled. I hear they have two libraries. One for the psychiatrists, filled with all sorts of books, and the other for the drooling students, filled exclusively with Cormac McCarthy novels.

>>18754787
>without coming up with any of your own is astonishing.
Half of your posts are just getting butthurt over my phrases, fucking retard kek. The irony is embarrassing.
>the edition looks fresh
Yes, my retarded friend. I don't waste money on books I don't like. Hard copies are for rereading and only special books need to be bought.
Pic related is my BM. Looks fresh, innit?

>>18754808
>he doesn't understand either

>>18754815
You really made me seethe Lmao. How will I ever recover? Congrats finally Lmao!

>>18754827
I make fun of your embarrassing retard phrases because they are memes and suck. You read my posts and absorb my phrases because I actually know how to write. There's no irony there. It's actually flattering to see.
I like that you admit to not having read your copy of Ulysses. I also like that you can't afford books. How do you know you don't like them if you haven't bought them yet? (btw the only acceptable answer is that you frequent your local library. though I'm certain the truth is that you either download books and read them online while flicking back and forth between other tabs, or, likelier still, you merely read wiki pages to determine if you "like" a book or not ahead of time.)

>>18754843
I accept your unconditional surrender and formal admission of defeat. Great as always to see the best man win.

>>18754863
>You read my posts and absorb my phrases because I actually know how to write
The truth is that I know how to read not that you know how to write. You write exactly how a newfag should, with every sentence dipped in sly butthurtness. Kek. You are not even arguing about what we started with. You are seething over name calling, lmao. On fucking 4chan. Kek
>you are poor
Even if that was true, I don't see how it figures here. I have still read far more than you. I can completely embarrass you by simply asking you to post your edition. You can't because you don't own it.
More wasted posts in a single thread with not a single argument concerning the contested works there were never.
Creative enough for you le "creative 4chan officer"
You are a fucking cheapskate. Kek.

>>18754882
>>18754296

>>18754902
I can't help hearing your post in the voice of a literal reptile who lives in a sewer. An inadvertent stylistic triumph. Creative enough, indeed.

>>18754931
>reptile living in the sewer
And you are my shit, nigger.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>18754257
dude chill, let people have their opinions

>>18755274
let me have mine

>>18754315
>Suttree is McCarthy aping Faulkner
Is this true? I love Faulkner and Blood Meridian was good but mediocre. Should I try Suttree?

>>18755283
why not? it's a really good novel. if you're enjoying, keep going. If not, don't. If you like Faulkner you'll see a lot of his influence. this is McCarthy's only real foray into a Faulknerian style of interior monologue. Some loons even claim it's the peak of prose in English. They're wrong. But it's still a good read.

>>18755283
He doesn't use SoC like Faulkner does. It is southern gothic so there is some point of contact. However, most Faulkner homages are parodies. In that sense, he is working against Faulkner's attempt at a southern mythology best embodied in Thomas Sutpen.
Don't listen to retards who never even read the book and are too dumb to separate fact from opinions, but if you like southern gothic and modernism then it will right up your alley. The prose is simply astounding and better than most classics.
If you want his most Faulknerian work. Orchard keeper is closer than any other. No SoC again, but the multiple perspective style is similar. Similarly confusing as well but not to the same degree.

>>18755283
>Blood Meridian was good but mediocre.
Wat?

>>18754315
>Nobody except a handful of contrarian dorks here on this board even regard Suttree as McCarthy's best work. Every ready alive with a shred of honesty and more than eight braincells agrees that Blood Meridian is his stylistic zenith.
wow actually based

>>18754257
>>18754315
>>18754359
>>18754486
>>18754515
>>18754572
>>18754615
>>18754715
>>18754787
>>18754815
>>18754863
You are by some distance the most retarded non-reader I have seen post on the board. Read nothing and never denied it, yet still keep on going like an autistic manchild with a similarly autistic drive of forcing your opinion down people's throats. Very depressing and impressive at the same time.
All your opinions are hearsay in a typical npc fashion.

>>18757330
I'm sorry I was mean to you, bro. I was in a bad mood yesterday. I think you were, too. Hope you're doing well. McCarthy is awesome. And everyone is entitled to their opinion, even if I disagree with it!

>>18758930
Not him

>>18758930
He does this regularly and the threads all go the same way. He actually told me that discussing the objective qualities of prose would just be spamming the thread, this being after he made at least a dozen long posts where he conflated the subjective with the objective and insulted everyone who did not give him a hand job. McCarthy is one of the authors I would like to discuss the prose of, but it does not seem possible to do that here.

>>18759150
It's too bad. This place can really bring that out of people. I get a perverse enjoyment out of the banter and arguments at the time, but I always go to bed after felling icky. It's such low vibration, negative shit. Bad for the soul.

>>18755396
there's a bit of SoC in Suttree isn't there? Or at least something like it

>>18753282

It’s not. Sorry.

-actual novelist

>>18759373
>-actual novelist

>>18754257
He is absolutely comparable to them you fucking moron

>>18755293
>>18755396
Well, if it's postmodern interpretation of Faulkner, it should be fun at least

>>18759571
Okay! My bad! I concede! As stated above I was being a bit grouchy and pugnacious. In my opinion he's below some of those masters, but even I never claimed McCarthy wasn't also a master of prose!

>>18758930
It's alright. I was having fun for the most part but you were too uptight.
>>18759150
>He does this regularly and threads all go the same way.
Serious gaslighting. I never told anyone that objective qualities of prose cannot be discussed. Don't make me someone I am not.

>>18759296
It is, but it is how McCarthy threads are in this place and have been for years.

>>18759341
McCarthy blurs the line some and at times the narration takes on a SoC quality, but I would not call it SoC. I attempted to go into this once but McCarthy anon spazed out when I suggested Cormac was not a complete original, perhaps after supper I will post some on it.

>>18759583
I do not know if I would call it post modern, it is fairly modern, pretty much The Light of August with a new plot.

>>18759628
Ok, then discuss it.

>>18759628
I was having fun too but also felt like a bully. I'm glad you weren't stressed my dude

>>18753282
>Heard it's better than Blood Meridian.
Blood Meridian uses prose to make the scenes and story beyond Earthly.
Suttree doesn't need to go beyond Earth
The best examples is BM describing a region as wild and elemental with mountains made of fear.
Suttree tells you about a train catching fire during a winter snowstorm and the light of the flame being shadowed by trees and there are dozens of similar vivid scenes that are equal to BM but for completely different reasons

>>18759675
It all fine, my man.
>>18759651
Prose imo should be elegant to read. It should both read and sound well; the best kind tends to roll down out of the tongue after you read a passage enough. Alliteration, assonance, rhythm are all desirable but to degree they don't become annoying like they sometimes do in Dylan Thomas. You can usually tell a gifted stylist apart because they, as expected, integrate all these into their style better than others. However, there are some subjective aspects to it as well. I have read prose that had little of anything above but still hit you hard (mostly in translations). I don't suppose that quality can be generalized and it is why people have a myriad different favourites.

>>18759777
You said nothing about McCarthy's prose and just parroted generic views, probably just googled "what is good prose." You claimed that I was gaslighting you by saying that his prose could not be discussed but I plainly said that you claimed it would be spamming the thread to do so, you are the one gaslighting. Either give an objective analysis of McCarthy's prose or fuck off already.

>>18759341
It is a kind of introspection. The narrator are blurred together but not in the confusing kind of way that Faulkner does it. The omniscient narrator, Sut and maybe Harrogate are blurred together in narration. When I say Faulknerian Soc, i mean something like this:
>Armstid says, thinking ‘But that’s the woman of it. Her own self one of the first ones to cut the ground from under a sister woman, she’ll walk the public country herself without shame because she knows that folks, menfolks, will take care of her. She dont care nothing about womenfolks. It wasn’t any woman that got her into what she dont even call trouble. Yes, sir. You just let one of them get married or get into trouble without being married, and right then and there is where she secedes from the woman race and species and spends the balance of her life trying to get joined up with the man race. That’s why they dip snuff and smoke and want to vote.’
>He looked down at her. Then it seemed an interminable while that he watched his tongue seek words, thinking quiet and swift, thought fleeing A man. All men. He will pass up a hundred chances to do good for one chance to meddle where meddling is not wanted. He will overlook and fail to see chances, opportunities, for riches and fame and welldoing, and even sometimes for evil. But he wont fail to see a chance to meddle Then his tongue found words, he listening, perhaps with the same astonishment that she did: “Only I wouldn’t set too much store by…….store in …” thinking She is not listening. If she could hear words like that she would not be getting down from this wagon, with that belly and that fan and that little bundle, alone, bound for a place she never saw before and hunting for a man she aint going to ever see again and that she has already seen one time too many as it is “—any time you are passing back this way, tomorrow or even tonight…….”
Iirc Suttree doesn't use narration like that, but the narration by Sut sometimes does have SoC qualities.

>>18753282

it's shit but there's some decent sex. coomers prefer it to blood meridian, that's all.

>>18759823
what gives it SoC qualities?

>>18759817
>You claimed that I was gaslighting you by saying that his prose could not be discussed but I plainly said that you claimed it would be spamming the thread to do so
Motherfucker, i said you are confusing me for somebody else who bodied you in some other thread. Nigger, you think I told you there were no objective qualities to prose when I have never told anyone that. Where the hell did I say that I am going to analyze his prose? Don't confuse your boogeyman with me.
you should reflect for a momenr that maybe your autistic fervor brings out the worst in people and not the other way around.

>>18759840
Sometimes Sut's narration is feverish and there is one major flashback that I remember

>>18759852
If you had more than a basic understanding of English you would know that your posting style is very obvious.

>>18759858
Case in point. All you did was parrot my answer (I asked that question you just responded too) and add in a excerpt, the difference is that I can actually articulate how he blurs that line and also go into details in the Faulkner influence, in the case of Suttree the primary influence in not the prose but structure.

>>18759879
Mental illness.
I am not who you think I am. I don't know how to convince you. If this isn't gaslighting, what is?

>>18759879
>the difference is that I can actually articulate how he blurs that line and also go into details in the Faulkner influence,
Want a medal for that?

>>18759885
>I don't know how to convince you.
Just give an objective analysis of his prose and stop playing these tiresome games.
>>18759891
No, just want to have an actual discussion for a change.

>>18759900
>objective analysis of his prose and stop playing these tiresome games.
But why do you want it from me? Why don't you harrass the guy who got you seething?

>>18759904
I am not seething in the slightest, just proving a point.

>>18759919
>just proving a point.
That you see that guy everywhere?
Why don't you post your SoC analysis? Let's see if you are more than talk.

>>18759923
Because I asked first. He (You) just parroted my post and added in an excerpt that is generic enough to apply to most anything from the modernist on. I will happily respond in kind once my question is answered.

>>18759948
TL;DR "I don't want to do it or I can't so here's an excuse"
I get the feeling you gonna pump out the most high school tier analysis. You scared?

>>18759953
Nope, just need you to show the willingness to actually discuss. Address a single point I have made, how exactly does McCarthy blur the line between narration and stream of consciousness or how does the structure of Suttree reflect The Light of August, or how are these views bullshit.

>>18760002
>>18759953
Guys can't we all get along :(

>>18760002
I have no willingness to discuss with you. All talk no show. You will just keep labelling anything I say with "generic", "parrot" or "google" or some other bullshit like that. Autists like you ruin these threads.

>>18760019
Just address the point I made instead of attacking and insulting and I will respond in kind.

>>18760022
No. Find your boogeyman to do that.

>>18760032
All it will take to prove your point is too address what I said and prove me to be everything you make me out to be. Should be simple for you to do if you are everything you make yourself out to be.

>>18760046
>if you are everything you make yourself out to be.
I can't reply then. I don't talk to autists.

>>18760054
Don't need too, I am sure everyone was fooled by your masterful subterfuge.

>>18760064
Subterfuge is all you know. You have proven that better than me itt.

>>18760070
I just keep asking you to address the points I made, how is that subterfuge?

>>18760092
>patronize others for not discussing
>gloat of his analyzing prowess
>seethe about some dude who is probably not even here
>gaslight completely unrelated people.
>chicken out when the time for posting the analysis comes.
Are you this dumb? You act all high and knowing but nothing to show for it.
If you were interested in discussion, you would have already started it.
Spare me the time and annoyance. You are a huge reason why McCarthy threads are shit and your boogeyman was probably correct but your mind has twisted it into something else.

>>18760130
>still does not address the points made
>still ignores the progression of the thread
>still insults instead of discusses
>still strawmans
I can green text too. Just address the points.

>>18760180
>>18760019 already addressed.
Can't you read?

>>18754257
Well, anon? Have you read the book?

>>18760193
So the points I had been talking about before that were prescient of that post? Can you make a post without insult? Anyways, 4chan time is done for the day.

>>18754257
holy pseud

>>18760212
Unrelated, but why are you guys so bothered about insults? It is simply a part of 4chan discourse.

>>18760236
I have no problems with insults themselves, the problem is they were just ad hom. If he had addressed the points made I would have either ignored the insults or admitted they were accurate if he showed me in error.

>>18754257
I hate to use the word, but people like you are pretentious. I'm not even a McCarthy fag/fanboy, but i hate retards who pretend that writers alive can't be better than the old ones.
>Shakespeare
really, retard? The goat of literature?
>Joyce's in Ulysses.
Get the fuck out of here. Because Ulysses is more hard to read doesn't make it better than anything McCarthy has written, i will put Blood Meridian, although slighly difficult, on the same level as Ulysses, or maybe even higher since it wasn't written to cause a headache. Also, tell me a character from the authors you stated (Besides Shakespeare) who wrote a character comparable to Judge Holden? pseud
>Melville
Greatest american writer, before McCarthy surpassed him. I bet you haven't even read his other books. Moby Dick is his materpiece, his other books aren't that great. McCarthy has 2 masterpieces (Blood Meridian and Suttree). Why is Melville better, besides muh "He came before him"?
>Faulkner
Obviously he was McCarthy's influence. But in this case the student overtook the master.
>Nabokov
Now you exposed yourself as either trolling, or you haven't read the books and you are does throwing out talking points you read on /lit/. You think Lolita, Pnin, and Pale Fire, which are Nabokov's masterpieces are greater than Blood Meridian, or Suttree? Hell, even "The Crossing" is better than Lolita
Nice b8 tho!

>>18754615
>Muh tradition
>Muh canon
>Muh aesthetics
>Muh literary tradition
Stop embarrassing yourself. You strike me as one of those retards larpers that dress like they are in the Victorian era, in the 21st century. Go to reddit, it would be easier to fool people that you are well read, or know what you are talking about. Dumbass. lol

>>18754590
>>18754665
>>18754827
>>18757330
>>18761365
>>18761409

Nobody is even arguing with you, yet you still keep spazzing alone in this thread. The number of posters don't go up, so we know it's you. Get over it.
>>18759150
This poster is right. Your style is distinctive. Your reliance on certain words, phrases and styles of "argument" and "explanation" are very idiosyncratic. For instance, anyone can tell that this:
>>18755211
is the same person who wrote this:
>>18759777
Lighten up my dude! Life is too short to spend a whole weekend picking fights on /lit/.

>>18761433
MENTAL FUCKING ILLNESS LMAO.

>>18761433
>This poster is right. Your style is distinctive.
Lol, i'm not him. I just read your post. I'm 100% certain you are a samefag. You know how i know you are? you say "My dude" like a faggot:
>>18759675
Similar to how Anton Chigurh says "friendo". This anon was right >>18754799. You are mentally ill. Seek help.
>Your style is distinctive
This anon was right again. >>18754902, if you weren't a pretentious newfag, you would know that is how anons speak on 4chan, Seething tranny. Why did i call you pretentious? Read your post again >>18754615. You definitely don't even know the canon, if you did you would know that your idol, Harold Bloom, considers McCarthy to be part of the canon.
Also, you didn't even refute what i said here:
>>18761365

>>18753282
Read it and find out.

>>18762741
Or don’t read it. Probably the superior choice given how many greater works exist. Look at McCarthy’s fans. Do you really want to end up like them? It’s like Rick and Morty. Even though the show is clever, it’s better not to associate yourself with it because of how many lunatics and freaks it attracts.

>>18762750
>poster counts goes from 24 to 25
The only autistic freak here is you, dumb retard. Imagine being so fucking butthurt about fans that you are still going on after 48 hours. Like give up dude. You are worse than McCarthy fans will ever be, focus on curing your mental illness.

>>18762809
Lol what? I’m just poking fun. In all seriousness tho you guys are lunatics, as you’re demonstrating this very moment

>>18762819
Sure you are. All the conspiracy about multiple posters being a single guy is also just 'poking fun' right? You are mentally ill dude. Don't play it up, you know you meant it. It's good people are burning you, we don't want a complete maniac among us. Loons are enough already

>>18762848
I think you’re confusing me with someone else. But real talk you’re acting kinda insane

>>18762858
Just jk fag

>>18762914
:/ you got issues anon

>>18762946
Less than you :)