/lit/ - Literature

because writing genre fiction require actual skill

>>19305851
Calm down Mr. Sparks

Because it's well-written.

>>19305828
It's all arbitrary. The right people read his work and liked it and realized they would lose social capital if they were caught reading "genre fiction" so they decided to make an exception and call it "literary fiction." If these arbiters of culture didn't stumble upon his work then it would still be referred to as "genre fiction" regardless of quality.

Because it's pretentiously written

>>19305875
Is pkd well-written?

>>19305828
It is, sans Suttree.

>>19305828
It's drama.

As an Amerimutt, I vehemently disagree.

>>19305948
Not really, no.

>>19305828
Is this why Josh Brolin was cast in No Country...because he IS Cormac McCarthy?

>>19305828
because big words

>>19305828
Because it's not. Writing about cowboys in the west is as much genre fiction as Ulysses is slice of life. These are necessities of realism; you can't write about the west and exclude cowboys. In addition, they really don't read like other genre westerns. What's genre about The Crossing? It is absolutely unimportant that Billy and Boyd were cowboys because their designation is never brought up. It is used right in the beginning to situate them in a place as characters. Once in Mexico, they are gueritos that can horseride, nothing more.
Blood meridian is obviously deconstruction but genre claims don't stick for one more reason, that it is structured primarily around historical facts. The genre cliches in these books are mannerisms and lives of the people who actually lived there, just like any other book in the realist tradition.
>>19306117
Funnily, Suttree is probably the most southern gothic among his early novels excluding The Orchard keeper. But southern gothic is now considered a respectable genre unlike westerns, even though poor Faulkner was dismissed as pulpy trash for the first two decades of his career. McCarthy has done for westerns what Faulkner did for southern gothic; hopefully we see more literary westerns like Meyer's 'The Son'.

>>19305948
Better than Mccarhsi

The dividing line between literary fiction and genre fiction is purely marketing

>>19306977
yeah dude Game of Thrones and Don Quixote are on the same level

>>19305948
Pkd is an idea guy but his ideas are also in the limits of genre fiction. His writing is horrible though.

>>19306982
He's right. Game of Thrones is better than or at least on par with a lot of "literary" fiction. It's certainly better than the works of literary darlings like Updike, Capote, Mailer, Vidal, etc. It all comes down to marketing. The writers I listed were schmoozers so they managed to get their garbage labeled "literary fiction" whereas G.R.R.M. is a fat neckbeard with no connections so he got stuck with the "genre" label. Simple as.

>>19306982
GOT would be in the literary fiction section if the publisher thought it would sell more copies. Look at how Ishiguro's fantasy novel was shelved for an example.

>>19307035
GOT's marketability as a literary fiction novel could only have been higher than it's marketability as a genre novel if it had had literary merit. It didn't though, so it got shelved in the genre landfill pile where it belonged.

>>19306967
It isn't genre fiction because of the subject it is genre fiction because it is camp (sans Suttree).

>>19307051
The problem with that is defining "literary merit" is an impossible task.

>>19307060
Please shut up if you haven't read the books.
>subject is genre fiction because it is camp
Literally wrong. And Suttree sticks closer to southern gothic hallmarks much closer anyway.

>>19307060
I hpoe it is ironic because you aren't even trying to look like you have any idea what you are talking about

>>19307070
no it isnt. this is a cope by midwits who read genre novels and can't make it past the first page of a real book.

>>19307260
T. nitwit

>>19307060
>>19307082
>>19307260
Cormac McCarthy's work has little literary merit sans Suttree. That is why it is genre fiction.

>>19307526
Your posts have little merit sans the points of ridicule. That's why you are a midwit.

>>19307526
>it's another retard acting like only a work playing close to "muh modernism" is literary
Nanedropping Ulysses or Virginia woolf won't magically make you well read, newfag.

>>19305828
My local independently owned bookstore does not have a genre fiction section, ergo nothing is genre fiction.

>>19306974
Your chud ass has been so badly blasted this past week, your fingers still won't fall right.

>>19305828
He was a handsome lad. Wonder if he would walk the road...

>>19307022
Capote was a journalist...

>>19307762
and a novelist...and a playwright...and a screenwriter....

>>19307652
I haven't nanedropped anyone anon but I can if you like. There are plenty of living writers with little connection to modernism with literary merit just not Comarc McCarthy (or the extent of his merit is equal to someone like Margret Atwood). J. H. Prynne for example.

>>19307785
>I can if you like
No, we are done i guess. I have a good idea of just how stupid you are now.
You don't have to pretend that you read Suttree either. At least keep it honest.

>>19307812
I like Suttree. I even enjoyed Blood Meridian and All the Pretty Horses. I read The Road in high school but didn't think much of it. You can like and enjoy genre or commercial fiction, no one is going to bully you, anon.

McCarthy apologists continue to embarrass themselves...

>>19307821
You didn't read them nearly as well or at all if you think they lack literary merit.
Let's see it then, why do you think Suttree has literary merit while the others don't? Thankfully I have read those books atleast twice and can prove just how stupid and myopic you are.

>>19307824
Use this, chud.

>>19307836
I've explained why Blood Merdian and The Road have no literary merit in various McCarthy threads. Check the archives. Justifying something as having literary merit, like Suttree, over his other work would take more effort than I care to people that think McCarthy is comparable to Prynne or Hill. If you were a woman you would be same all the same things about Atwood as you do about Mcarthy now.

>>19307845
I actually do have haemorrhoids, so good guess.

Serious question though (I'm presuming you're the same guy that makes like 20 posts in every McCarthy related thread) what do you get out of white knighting a geriatric author on the internet?

>>19307860
I visit every McCarthy thread. Lying through your fucking teeth, nigger. I knew it. As usual, deflecting, making excuses etc. You will post paragraphs to bark why you wouldn't explain yourself when you could simply explain yourself. Fucking dumb as hell.
Hiding behind Geoffrey hill, are we? Alright, tell me why you liked mercian hymns? There is no way you know shit about Hill's merit if you can't see it in fucking prose.

>>19307862
You might be conflating me with multiple people, but I do it for the same reason that you chuds do. You hate McCarthy because somebody kicked your ass in his name, and I just fucking hate falseflagging and dishonest attempts at looking well read. And the consistency is 100%, you get specific about his work and all you chuds run away. To hate a writer, however "geriatric", without ever reading him, needs for the poster to be mentally ill. It isn't even a question of 'if', rather of 'how many'.

>>19307903
>You might be conflating me with multiple people
No. I'm not. There's a number at the bottom of the page that shows how many posters there are. That lets us all know when you're samefagging. Your posts also have the same style, format, and diction every time. What's your endgame?

>>19307885
>I visit every McCarthy thread.
As most McCarthy fanatics do. Check the archive. It was only last month.
>Hiding behind Geoffrey hill, are we? Alright, tell me why you liked mercian hymns?
For a similar reason as some of Prynne's early work (though Prynne is much more subtle): the anachronistic tension between myth & land; history & location. How much would you like me to explain? Do you want an example?

>>19307903
epic schizobabble vomitpost

>>19307918
I did not mean for this thread.
>>19306967
>>19307082
>>19307652
>>19307812
>>19307836
>>19307885
All this is me, which is extremely obvious if your brain is not pozzed as to not be able to follow a single string of posts.
>What's your endgame?
Should I repeat myself?
I will send back the same question. I visit every thread, i can almost always tell the resident seethers, so what keeps your seethe going for months on end?

>>19305828
For me it is, but it is genre fiction in it's own category. My primary reason is that his work has the rereadability of genre fiction, it does not grow change as I grow and change, I get nothing new out of subsequent reading, it is mostly reread for enjoyment/nostalgia.

>>19307960
lol youre insane. that would be fine except people here on /lit/ know youre insane. youve earned a reputation for yourself boy. now go walk the road.

>>19307966
>it's
Classic ESL McCarthy hater. Learn English before attempting to analyze one of the greatest artists of all time.

>>19307937
>the anachronistic tension between myth & land; history & location. How much would you like me to explain? Do you want an example?
Kek. My impressions are correct. What review did you copy that from? I also have a sneaking suspicion you are that "muh mccarthyfag" retard trying something new to get his seethe out since you already admitted you never read him last thread.
>check the archives. It was last month
Why don't you link it yourself? You are clearly lying because there hasn't been any such post in a McCarthy thread since time immemorial and I visit all of them.

>>19307974
seriously lad go book yourself a psych test. youre genuinely mental.

>>19307970
>you made a minor typo!
>that proves I am right!
Classic midwit rebuttal.

>>19307979
>typo
That's not what typo means. Now go back to reading your Harry Potter books.

>>19307967
Yes, run away chud. Like you all do. My reputation is only among you and your chudkind because I don't let your retardation breathe, I will gladly take it. Only autists visit 4chan but it takes special kind of insanity to irrationally hate a writer because his fans pulverized your ass into the ground.
6 months...seethe....still not a single book....still hating....still mad....no chance they ever read him.

>>19307987
you have a few screws loose my friend

>>19307977
>says the mental case
I will rather be psycho but read books with passion than some random loser who can't read beyond the surface and then has to pretend because he is too assblasted to understand a writer's work.
If you gather enough articles to patch together a post, I will be waiting.

>>19307974
It was the subject of my thesis, along with Olson's similar use of anachronistic history & land in the Maximus poems. Would you like me to write you an essay on my favorite Prynne poem or something? You have to promise to give me good feedback in the margins.
>Why don't you link it yourself?
It really isn't as important to me as you seem to think. You can larp around shouting and screaming "you haven't read him!" all you want, don't let me stop your monkey dance. I think Suttree is great but there is nothing in McCarthy that can't be found in a writer before him that was greater.

>>19307986
It was a typographical error, aka typo, typing an incorrect but similar word is a common typographical error. It is also one of the most common to get by the proof readers since it is an actual word spelled correctly.

>>19307994
As do you. I am hitting too close to home, ain't I? Be honest, you have been here for months and visit all McCarthy threads yourself. Be honest, every effortpost in a McCarthy thread puts a lump of seethe in your throat.

>>19308007
>ain't I?
LMAOOOOOO
yecarthy readers actually pretend to talk like his characters thats crazy

>>19308007
>every effortpost in a McCarthy thread
Not him, but I do not think I have seen a real effortpost in a McCarthy thread, just people validating their own views. Hell, recently saw McCarthy fag say that effort posts are a waste of time in McCarthy threads.

>>19308000
I asked for Hill, which you are pretending to read or understand.
I am very simply asking to link your post, if it was last month it will take no time at all. I can't find any so do it yourself. Your degree is wasted on you if you can't even explain why somebody doesn't have literary merit, a canonical writer no less. Please go ahead, if you have dabbled in academia then Harold Bloom is 100 times better at your own work. Show us how he is so retarded to see the merit in McCarthy's work.

>>19308027
>Harold Bloom
you never disappoint

>>19308027
>a canonical writer
>Harold Bloom says...
So you do think Margret Atwood and Cormac McCarthy are on the same level.

>>19308025
>Hell, recently saw McCarthy fag say that effort posts are a waste of time in McCarthy threads.
And literally effortposted right after. And then the other retard proved it right. There was another one just a few posts down again. How do you intend to complain about effortposts if your minds don't even register them? Is it wrong then to say you have an agenda? Literally yesterday, there was an anon asking about a paragraph in BM and nearly 10 posters came in and gave their diverging views. They don't exist?
This is the fundamental problem here. You guys don't read these posts because you have no compass to understand them without reading the books. And then here you come complaining about effortposts when you dismiss them without even trying to understand them. They are a waste exactly because of this attitude.

>>19308046
This is a non argument.

>>19308051
kek. All he (you?) did was spout his opinion.
>Is it wrong then to say you have an agenda?
I have agendas but none of them have anything to do with McCarthy or this place.

>>19308046
Why do you keep bringing Margaret Atwood?
Harold Bloom also wrote the book on Beckett, so now Beckett is on Atwood's level as well.
You are definitely lying about writing a thesis as well. No way you spent any amount of years there and come out so fucking stupid about criticism.
>>19308034
No intention to answer I take it. Show us how he lacks literary merit and shut me up. I ain't even asking you to type, simply link the post from the archive.

>>19308067
Your agenda is very obvious "muh McCarthyfag" retard. You are always blind to effortposts because they don't say what you want to hear; the great irony being you yourself can't say what you want to hear. I don't understand in the least why you even visit McCarthy threads.

>>19308074
I mostly just stop in to kill some time while waiting for responses in other threads, they can be entertaining. Is "McCarthy fag" not how you are referred to on this board? I am somewhat a tourist here but it seems to be in fairly common use. I am still assuming it is you, you never answered my question of it directly.

>>19308103
>Pretending again
Please don't bless us with as bad an attempt as the last thread, kek.>>19308025 whenever you go past 10 words, you are easy to pick out.

>>19308105
I only said McCarthy fag so I could get accused of being him. Anyways, honest question, why do you expend so much time and effort into this? You are not going to convince the world to love McCarthy, you are not going to change anything with this, who cares if some people talk shit about him.

>>19308133
I am not convincing anybody. I don't even reply to people who shit on him aside from a snide remark sometimes. I just hate the massive pseud midwits who want to look smart while clearly talking out of their asses. Nothing gets me going more than that. It isn't just Mccarthy either, I also do it in Borges and Faulkner threads albeit not anymore and not to the same degree. You see it more here because there is more opportunity here, and it is easier because detractors are new and retarded.

>>19305948
Yes.

>>19305828
Cormac is a genius. Don’t let any retarded contrarians on this board convince you otherwise.

>>19307942
Typical chud post.

>>19308262
>I don't even reply to people who shit on him aside from a snide remark sometimes.
Even if that is true, you take over the thread with a pointless battle with the few you do respond to. Almost every McCarthy thread I have been in has been filled with you and some other anon going at it for hours. Who cares, anyone who is swayed by some anon saying shit or your bickering with that anon is probably never going to read McCarthy anyways. You are probably the single easiest person on this board to troll, this is your legacy.

>>19308314
I wish they were trolling.
It is what it is. I don't care. If you are here you absolutely have some order of autism. Besides, I don't get into it as frequently. There are more people with similar issues.

>>19308344
Most of them are trolling. Move on.

>>19308284
Please dilate, fren.

>>19308416
Nice selfie, chud.

>>19307903
Look at this fucking schizo lmao

>>19308568
>no increase in poster count
Imagine the amount of asshurt that you had to divide it lmao.

>>19308568
Found the said chud, kek.

>>19308574
>>19308585
>schizo still seething
Take your meds

>>19308598
Use it>>19307845. Your hole is leaking

>>19305948
absolutely not

>>19308046
>such logic
>this nigger wants us to believe he wrote a thesis
If you aren't being ironic, you are legit the most retarded person posting on this board currently.

>>19307022
>Updike, Capote, Mailer, Vidal
what genre would they be though? I guess Vidal would be historical fiction, but the others are literary because they don't very neatly fit into other categories I think

>>19305828
is moby dick genre fiction?

>>19308001
That's not a typo. It's an ignorant mistake.

>>19308046
He never said Atwood was canonical, though.

>>19309729
For its time, it was.

>>19309754
He included Surfacing in his Western Canon?

Hardlt anyone has even attempted to state what genre of genre fiction McCarthy allegedly writes.
Only say western if you have actually read plenty of western genre fiction and therefore know what makes western genre fiction what it is. I bet a million fucking dollars none of you have.