/lit/ - Literature

>>21971943
Where's your prose?

>>21971946
>NOOOOOOOOO YOU CAN'T CRITICIZE MY IDOL, WHERE IS YOUR NOVEL???
Logical fallacy #897

>>21971951
I have not read a single novel of McCarthy's. I don't idolize him or even particularly care for him. I'm just questioning the place from which you're coming (ho ho!). You seem unduly upset about him. Why?

>>21971943
Long past dark that night when the moon was already up a party of women that had been upriver drying fish returned to the village and wandered howling through the ruins. A few fires still smoldered on the ground and dogs slank off from among the corpses. An old woman knelt at the blackened stones before her door and poked brush into the coals and blew back a flame from the ashes and began to right the overturned pots. All about her the dead lay with their peeled skulls like polyps bluely wet or luminescent melons cooling on some mesa of the moon. In the days to come the frail black rebuses of blood in those sands would crack and break and drift away so that in the circuit of few suns all trace of the destruction of these people would be erased. The desert wind would salt their ruins and there would be nothing, nor ghost nor scribe, to tell to any pilgrim in his passing how it was that people had lived in this place and in this place died.

>>21971969
and the kid rode and spat and ate the beans and frijolitos and raped a prostitute and shot a child and scalped an indian and took his ears and wore a hat and spat again and wiped his mouth with the back of his hand and examined a leaf and shot a cat and watched it explode and genocided all the bison and burst forth like a berserker and threw the puppies into the river and gazed over the blood meridian that was the evening redness in the west

>>21971969
English is such a gratuitously ugly language, barely made passable by its Latin borrowings.

good book but he does seem to insert similes clunkily. especially in the last few chapters i kept noticing "one thing like some other thing" going on. it's not that they were bad on their own, but every two pages something almost like some repetitive metaphor added by a thoughtless author appeared. and it, like some car alarm that goes off randomly through the night, became jarring. so much so that i thought of making a note of it on paper like some government bureaucrat tasked with implementing a new simile tax proposed by the biden administration.

>>21972001
>but he does seem to insert similes clunkily.
He goes all in, like some rapist sniffing a young girl's asshole.
https://biblioklept.org/2017/09/18/probably-not-all-of-the-similes-in-blood-meridian/

>>21971943
Yeah sure if you simplify everything to the point where all artistry is lost its gonna sound like shit, but it's just your retarded brain perceiving it as that. You're a miserable loser and a retard to boot also stop fucking posting blood meridian even them fucking road would be passable at this point. Fucking fag

>>21972014
Woah there, motherfucker! That's a lot of words to say you're pissed the fuck off. Back away from the computer and be calm.

>>21972014
Fanboy detected.

>>21971977
Now come days of begging, days of theft. Days of riding where there rode no soul save he. He's left behind the pinewood country and the evening sun declines before him beyond an endless swale and dark falls here like a thunderclap and a cold wind sets the weeds to gnashing. The night sky lies so sprent with stars that there is scarcely space of black at all and they fall all night in bitter arcs and it is so that their numbers are no less.

one minor and sort of weird take away from reading bm that i got was that i no longer find that restaurant chain "playa bowls" as obnoxious. i used to think "playa bowls", really? a bowl for playas huh? always in super broey places like the shore or hoboken, but then there's a part where they go by a playa in the desert and i was like tf is that and it turns out its actually an endorheic basin which is of course somewhat bowl shaped. now i'm like well ok that's not so bad i guess.

>>21972001
They are called analogical similes, and yes McCarthy uses them a lot. However they have a significant purpose if you read Blood meridian as a philosophical disposition and not just a series of gory encounters. For one thing, these similes are what gives the images the uncanniness because often times they are dissociated with any harmonious narrative, but they do define the phenomena in an accurate, vivid sense. A good deal of that sweet imaginative transfiguration lies within the usage of these similes. That's partly the book's concern.
>The leader of these jackal warriors was a small dark man in cast-off Mexican military attire and he carried a sword and he carried in a torn and gaudy baldric one of the Whitneyville Colts that had belonged to the scouts. He sat his horse before Glanton and assessed the position of the other riders and then asked in good Spanish where were they bound. He’d no sooner spoken than Glanton’s horse leaned its jaw forward and seized the man’s horse by the ear. Blood flew. The horse screamed and reared and the Apache struggled to keep his seat and drew his sword and found himself staring into the black lemniscate that was the paired bores of Glanton’s doublerifle. Glanton slapped the muzzle of his horse twice hard and it tossed its head with one eye blinking and blood dripping from its mouth. The Apache wrenched his pony’s head around and when Glanton spun to look at his men he found them frozen in deadlock with the savages, they and their arms wired into a construction taut and fragile as those puzzles wherein the placement of each piece is predicated upon every other and they in turn so that none can move for bringing down the structure entire.
The spontaneous change in register at the end of the passage is the kind of unexpectedness I am referring to. The image makes sense, but the grander narrative behind the image is fugitive.

>>21971983
McCarthy shows it at its best in any case though.

>>21972081
Not really. But someone like Joyce does a good enough job.

>>21972084
Joyce and Shakespeare. Those are the only two who have written anything worth reading in English.

>>21972084
>>21972087
Disagree. McCarthy is up there with them. As are few others.

>>21972090
Oh, Melville. I forgot Melville. If you do insist on McCarthy I'm sure at some point I'll come to him. Thanks much.

>>21972090
>McCarthy is up there with them.
Are we talking prose? Not even close.
>>21972091
Melville is great and a better prose writer than McCarthy.

>>21972078
that one was fine but some of the ones near the end were too frequent and clumsily inserted like some knock off cable from alibaba being used to charging a last gen phone.

>>21971943
Fuck, we're going to have an influx of retarded /tv/ posters now, aren't we?

>>21972106
McCarthy is easily among the best. Maybe not to your taste but you hardly matter in the grander scheme, so....

And Blood Meridian's prose is as good as Moby Dick while being more unique and singular than Melville's Victorian fustian.


Please reply to me without getting emotionally offended.

>>21972124
Wrong. Melville doesn't have Victorian fustian. That's so absurd. His prose is so singular and Melvillean that I don't know what.

>>21972124
>McCarthy is easily among the best.
If you're a Redditor, sure. Your spacing indicates you're indeed one of them.
>Maybe not to your taste but you hardly matter in the grander scheme, so....
That's right. Reddit > anyone else
>And Blood Meridian's prose is as good as Moby Dick
It's nowhere near as good. It insists upon itself. Melville's prose is more robust and elegant.
> while being more unique and singular than Melville's Victorian fustian.
Singular =/= good.
>Please reply to me without getting emotionally offended.
Weird thing to write.

>>21972128
Both books have fustian. It's not a bad thing if done well. What I mean by singular is that you can't recognize Melville's writing reading just a singular passage unless you have already read the book. The writers around him at the time were writing in similar mode of ornate, dependent clause heavy sentences with lots of metaphors. Ahab is an exception, but his mode is Shakespearean.

>>21972136
Now please translate your reply without the emotional butthurt.

>>21972142
projection

>>21972138
I could recognize a passage written by Melville probably within a few seconds of the text hitting my eyes. He as an author has a prose as impossible to really explain as the phenomenon of a color like blue. He is as different from someone like Hawthorne's prose than Joyce is from Chaucer. Please don't insult me by saying I can't recognize his writing, babe.

>>21971943
>whoa, Corncob Memecarthy truly has the greatest prose in American letters.
almost as if Corncob Memecarthy was like he truely had the greatest prose. He walked down the hill side trying to hide his path. He turned back. He opened his mouth and breathed slowly. He listened. He turned around. He listened. He didn't hear anything. He ran sharp down the hill towards the stream flowing dry at the bottom of the fall. He slipped. He righted himself on the river rocks cast down and worn out and filled with the endless skeletons of vacant seas.

>>21972145
Butthurt

>>21972210
cope

>>21971960
>opinion bad!
>groupthink good!

>>21972227
To whom are you responding?

>>21971943
punctuation is for homos

>>21972136
Insecure Melvillecuck. Go back to r/literature. You seem to be obsessed with reddit.
>Melville's prose is more robust and elegant.
Elegant =/= best. Literally every run of the mill competent prose writer is said to have elegant prose. McCarthy's way of writing should not work but it works magnificently which is its draw and why your non-artistic perspective cannot see its value. You cannot think of prose writing beyond the categories that book reviewers, themselves no artists, use to define it.
>weird thing to write
Yet 100% true in your case.

>>21971943
Bruh I like this book but we really do not need 5 threads on this stuff it’s worse than /mu/‘s K-pop virus. That being said I wonder if McCarthy will still try to crank out a kpop one it could be interesting

>>21972204
Have you heard of this thing called "register" in prose, kid?
>It had snowed lightly in the night and her frozen hair was gold and crystalline and her eyes were frozen cold and hard as stones. One of her yellow boots had fallen off and stood in the snow beneath her. The shape of her coat lay dusted in the snow where she’d dropped it and she wore only a white dress and she hung among the bare gray poles of the winter trees with her head bowed and her hands turned slightly outward like those of certain ecumenical statues whose attitude asks that their history be considered. That the deep foundation of the world be considered where it has its being in the sorrow of her creatures.

>>21972078
>you're reading it wrong!

>>21972233
>McCarthy's way of writing should not work but it works magnificently which is its draw and why your non-artistic perspective cannot see its value.
I definitely see its value and understand his aesthetic approach. I still think it's inferior to Melville's prose. It's an objectively correct fact btw. Cope & seethe.
>You cannot think of prose writing beyond the categories that book reviewers, themselves no artists, use to define it.
Reviewers and redditors jerk off to Corncob's prose.

>>21972239
>Bruh I like this book but we really do not need 5 threads on this stuff
Do you have autism? This thread is not in favor of the book.

>>21972240
This actually is so turgid.
>like those of certain ecumenical statues whose attitude asks that their history be considered.
This clause alone is so overwritten that the entire passage suffers for it. The rest of it is passable but this line alone is unacceptable. "Certain ecumenical statues" is so tonally different from the rest of the passage and so blank as a phrase.
>whose attitude asks that their history be considered
Too long, too many clauses, such a weak use of the passive voice.

>>21972230
>contradictory opinion
>where's your prose? i haven't read the book but I'm going to interject because i want to fit in with /lit/
Pathetic.

>>21972244
>I still think it's inferior to Melville's prose. It's an objectively correct fact btw.
These illogical sentences prove you have no understanding of this.
>Reviewers and redditors jerk off to Corncob's prose.
Redditors frequently complain about it. But more power to you, you should know.

>>21972251
>overwritten
That's all of the book, really.

>>21972090
>>21972087
>>21972091
I do not even know where to begin with how many English writing authors you are missing. This must be a troll or you guys are saying best of the best but that’s not how you set the parameters. Just insane

>>21972258
Keats. I'll put Keats on there. There really are so few worth reading.
>>21972254
Nah, stay mad, though.

>>21972258
They're missing Thomas Browne. McCarthy's prose is simple child's play compared to Browne's masterful command of the English language. The mere comparison to the greats is blasphemous but this is /lit/ so here we are.

>>21972273
We'll add Thomas Browne. And on that note, let's put Robert Browning on there. Hip-hip for the Browns!

>>21972256
You have not read the book, retard. This book is at times as sparse as Ncfom.
>>21972251
As I said, do you understand what a register means, idiot? The passage is an example of shifting registers. This passage opens with one of the more important images in the narrative spanning two books. The subdued tone in the first few sentences mimics the sombre opening of the break of day and the sudden shift in poetic register coincides with the discovery of a hanged body in the even, beautiful snowy waste. The image itself is perfect. The hanged body in pose as if the victim died contemplating the cruelty of the world, which makes sense if you have read Stella maris.
What's weak about the voice beyond "i said it because i wanted something to criticize"? This isn't exactly a bombastic scene, the tones are sombre melancholic. It's perfect for the scene.

Now, what have you written? Your criticism is amateur, let's hope your writing is better.

>>21972280
>It's MEANT to suck! The descriptions are meant to be badly written!

>>21972273
Thomas Browne is among my favorites. He is the apex of how long Subordinate clauses should be written. McCarthy's long sentences are his syntactical opposite and the best in what they do. Your hyperbole is unfounded.

>>21972287
Retard. You can't even understand posts properly and you are criticizing published prose. How stupid is that

>>21971983
>English is such a gratuitously ugly language, barely made passable by its Latin borrowings.
This is such a laughably pretentious statement. Frankly, it's delusion like this that makes me keep coming back here. Have a good one, anon.

>>21972280
>You have not read the book, retard. This book is at times as sparse as Ncfom.
I actually have read the book, you pillow-biting faggot. The gimmick prose was nice for the first few chapters and then it gets more and more tedious to the point where the writer is pretty much satirizing himself. BM is at the very core a radical comedy.

I read the first page.

Personally, I am not into books that uses violent imagery, or that depends on violent themes, I consider it cheating unless they can convince me that it's not about sympathy seeking.

I do think the book capture the primal indecency of humans given if they don't care anymore.

A book meant to write ideas and to use violent themes is a risky move because it will always be controversial because it is in essence a controversial thing.

I haven't read the next pages but I feel like I know where this is going, violent, violence, more violence and narration of "how sick" these people are.

It does teach us something tho, violence is controversial and people who resort to it without sound reason is very sick.

Is it a good book? I don't know.

>>21972297
He's absolutely right, though. English is base ape-screeching without its Latin touch. The Latin part is what makes English human.

>>21972290
>hyperbole
There's no hyperbole here, pal.

>>21972301
>The gimmick prose was nice for the first few chapters and then it gets more and more tedious to the point where the writer is pretty much satirizing himself
Literally what? The descriptive prose in the Passenger is as straightforward as he gets with the exception of few sections. Are you including Thalidomide Kid's rambles too?

>>21972087
What else--outside of the English language obviously--do you regard as "worth reading?"

>>21972280
I don't care about the shifting registers. It's bad writing. It has too many nested clauses and it doesn't say anything:
>her hands turned slightly outward like those of certain ecumenical statues whose attitude asks that their history be considered. That the deep foundation of the world be considered where it has its being in the sorrow of her creatures.
This alone can be rewritten and made so much better (and McCarthy won't even have to pay me for it):
>and her hands bent slightly outward like those of statues grasping at the foundation of the world and the sorrow of her creatures.

>>21972327
Ovid. Homer. Virgil. Cervantes.
>>21972315
It quite is.
>>21972297
But it isn't delusional. The only good words in your post are from Latin.

>>21972330
That's actually an improvement from Corncob's nervous nonsense. Well done.

>>21972319
I was talking about BM. Apologies if I'm in a wrong thread.

>>21972316
Then you have very basic understanding of English prose. Browne's mastery shows in his ability to pile on clause and extend sentences without breaking the grammatical unit. McCarthy's ability lies in breaking grammatical rules yet still producing beautiful sentences. McCarthy has more displays of inventive word choices and freer grammatical structures in his work. Sometimes so free that they should be non-sensical sentences, but they aren't. The high wire act has its value and shows no less mastery with the language.

>>21972251
there's nothing blank about the phrase. if you're embarrassed you don't know what he's referring to just google it you fool. wow i just did and huh, a lot of these look like martyrs? oh wow now the next sentence makes more sense now, not that it didn't before. mccarthy was raised catholic and a significant amount of his lexicon is derived from that, should a writer contrive his writing to conform to what some secular millenial on the internet is familiar with, foregoing his style in the process?

>>21972330
>those of statues grasping at the foundation of the world and the sorrow of her creatures.
That's just bad poesy. Statues grasping at the foundation of the world? What non-sense. You didn't even preserve meaning and you are complaining about it as if you know anything.

There are two dependent clauses, neither is just stuffed there. They follow with the sentence.
>>21972340
Non-readers should leave the thread

>>21972349
>McCarthy's ability lies in breaking grammatical rules
All he does is replacing commas with 'and'. Hardly a prose innovator. It all makes sense once you actually read it. Mastery =/= quirkiness.

>>21972315
You're seriously going to contend that writers like Milton didn't employ the language beautifully.
>>21972337
Oh, okay, I see the game now. The same could be said for nearly every European language.

>>21972365
>You're seriously going to contend that writers like Milton didn't employ the language beautifully.
Lots of Latin words in Milton. Not sure what you mean.

>>21972340
Thank you.
>>21972354
That's fine and good. It still seems quite boring to me regardless, la?
>>21972359
I'm working with what I have. The foundation needs to be ripped up entirely, I know. There is nothing there really.
>>21972365
Not really. French is quite lovely, as are Spanish and Italian. What's your game?

>>21972364
Dumbass retard

>>21972330
>ecumenical
That word doesn't belong anywhere near literature. That retard's worst moment is when he called the darkness "autistic."

>>21972377
>I'm working with what I have
And what you have is a low IQ brain. You literally changed the entire meaning of it. No the statue isn't trying "to grasp sorrow" or shit. The pose is a lament at the way the world is. Are you ESL? Seems so.

>>21972380
That was in The Road btw*

>>21972371
That's my mistake. I meant to erase that when I understood the point you and that other anon were going for. Mea culpa.

>>21972380
Because he doesn't *get* it. He throws in words like "ecumenical" and "autistic" not understanding that there are limits to what literature is and what it can do.
>>21972385
>and her hands bent outward like those statues of martyrs beckoning towards the foundation of the world and the sorrow of all her creatures.
Here you go, asshole.

>>21972385
He wasn't translating. He was improving. The retarded ramblings of a senile man need to be polished. The editor didn't do her job (yea, it's clearly a she).

>>21971943
The ability to get away with similes in volume is apex prosody, violating every common sense prose convention.

>>21972410
See: >>21972013

>>21972405
What garbage! Don't pretend you understand anything about writing.
>He throws in words like "ecumenical" and "autistic" not understanding that there are limits to what literature is and what it can do.
And this is why you can't write.

>>21972407
Improving by turning it into a cliche? Are you 12?

>>21972407
It really probably is a woman. That passage needs to be trimmed. I tried to do it again with >>21972405 but if I were the writer I'd raze the whole paragraph entirely and start over. It's fucked from the start.
>>21972414
I am a writer and I do write. I don't have to read McCarthy to know I'm already a more talented writer on the basis of his overwritten turgid style that mesmerizes solely by its cadence but leaves nothing but a bland aftertaste once it's finally devoured.
>>21972418
If it's a cliche, it was already there from the get-go. "Deep foundation of the world" is so empty and meaningless and even when I take the word "deep" out it's still not redeemed.
>and her hands bent outward like those statues of martyrs beckoning towards the foundation of the world where the sorrow of her creatures is steeped.
Here's another improvement. Thank me later.

>>21972414
You cannot really defend his choice of "autistic" when defining the dark unless you jump through a dozen hoops and present a contrived answer that not even you can believe. In one of his non-fiction writings Pound talks about vague, imprecise writing like that. It's not even abstract. It's just an absurdly clumsy choice of words.

>>21972427
This. "Autistic darkness" (if that's the actual laughable phrase) is so stupid as to be incomprehensible. It literally means nothing. It's two words conjoined together in absolute disharmony and not even in a profound way. Writing can have jarring juxtapositions but it needs to reveal something inherent and truthful about the properties juxtaposed. "Autistic darkness" is as obscure a phrase as any I've heard and is almost disgusting to repeat.

>>21972424
>overwritten turgid style that mesmerizes solely by its cadence but leaves nothing but a bland aftertaste once it's finally devoured.
That's an apt description, yea. His words sound nice and edgy but upon closer inspection they're clearly shallow.

>>21972427
Who is talking about this? Make another thread.
>>21972424
Lmao. What have you published?
>deep foundation of the world is so empty and meaningless
Yet you have kept the phrases in all of your trashy rewrites. Do you follow yoyr own logic?
>and her hands bent outward like those statues of martyrs beckoning towards the foundation of the world where the sorrow of her creatures is steeped.
This a troll, right? The prosody here is fucked. It reads like a 12 year old tried his hand at writing. McCarthy's is well mannered.

>>21972429
>>21972434
Stop samefagging. You are not contributing besides your butthurt.

>>21972424
>overwritten turgid style that mesmerizes solely by its cadence but leaves nothing but a bland aftertaste once it's finally devoured.
>like those statues of martyrs beckoning towards the foundation of the world where the sorrow of her creatures is steeped.
Turgidly written (or rewritten) trash. Try something else with your life.

>>21972364
There is no way you have read Browne with such teenage tier opinions.

>>21972435
How is it fucked? I tried to keep McCarthy's gimmick of using no commas. Don't point the finger at me: if I were getting paid for it, I'd rewrite the whole goddamned book.
>>21972434
Shallow and full of gimmick. That's what he is.
>>21972436
Not the same anon.
>>21972437
Go back and compare what I've written to his. If mine is turgid, it's at least compressed and not fumbling around with dependent clauses and the passive voice.

>>21972435
>Who is talking about this? Make another thread.
We're talking about Corncob's prose.

>>21972441
>Go back and compare what I've written to his. If mine is turgid, it's at least compressed and not fumbling around with dependent clauses and the passive voice.
Compare for yourself
>her hands turned slightly outward like those of certain ecumenical statues whose attitude asks that their history be considered. That the deep foundation of the world be considered where it has its being in the sorrow of her creatures.
2 sentences. Flows well. Nice prosody. Strong image. Figuratve and literal separated nicely.

>and her hands bent outward like those statues of martyrs beckoning towards the foundation of the world where the sorrow of her creatures is steeped.
1 sentence with trashy prosody and stupid phrases like "sorrow is steeped". That's a retarded metaphor. McCarthy keeps the physical and figurative imagery free from one another. Your writing is what I imagine the bad high school students would write like after reading Great Gatsby once.

>>21972441
I think your rewriting is an improvement on Memecarthy's awkward bullshit. But none of those guys will admit it because they're fanatics. They'll try to attack you on a personal level instead because they can't refute you. Ask them to rewrite that original shitty sentence and they'll tell you it's already perfect (lol). In short, don't waste your time, brother.

>>21972448
>her hands turned slightly outward like those of certain ecumenical statues whose attitude asks that their history be considered. That the deep foundation of the world be considered where it has its being in the sorrow of her creatures.
"Certain ecumenical statues" completely disrupts the flow and is semantically obscene. No poetry in it whatsoever. "Whose attitude asks that their history be considered": horrifying, one clause after another in a roundabout, completely too long and dragging. "Deep foundation of the world" is stock, and again, "be considered" is needlessly indirect.
>>and her hands bent outward like those statues of martyrs beckoning towards the foundation of the world where the sorrow of her creatures is steeped.
No, I think I quite like mine. It's got a good ring to it, if cliched.
>>21972451
I'm done after this one. I appreciate your support. The original is awkward as fuck and I think they'd be more intellectually honest if they didn't know it was from McCarthy. I would not show that sentence to middle-schoolers.

>>21972446
You are talking about one phrase from a book nobody brought up. Pound isn't beyond non-sensical figures of speech either. No writer is. Disingenuous to say that all of it is like that when 99% isn't.

Let's not forget, half the value of the writer is in reading him. If you have made up your mind to make no attempt to understand the writer's perspective then that shit is on you, not the writer. You kids are acting as if McCarthy is some sekrit cult writer, when he is one of the most acclaimed living writers. Are all readers in the world retards except you two? The way the other guy writes, the contrary might be true.

>>21972451
This just sounds like butthurt. You are mad that more people don't side with you in hating McCarthy. How do you think that bad bs is a good rewrite is beyond me. Maybe you are just pretending for the sake of the thread but that's mental illness and obsession. You have invented this complete fantasy bullshit where you think that other people are only pretending in not liking the rewrite when it's genuinely terrible. I even made the posts pointing out its flaws but you are interested in that. Anything that doesn't fit your agenda of blind hate can't be reasonable it seems.

>>21972458
Acclaim means nothing to me. The mass of voices will shower with acclaim any POC or LGBTQ simply because it's fashionable to do so. Don't talk to me about popularity or acclaim. Are you that helpless that you have no discerning critical faculty to tell what good prose is and what belongs in the trash?

>>21972471
That's fine. I like my rewrite. And so does he. But you can keep reading your nested clauses and your polysyndetonic smorgasbord that is McCarthy.

I urge you to read more. Please read more and deeply.

>>21971983
ESL cope, holy moly

>>21972456
>Certain ecumenical statues" completely disrupts the flow and is semantically obscene. No poetry in it whatsoever. "Whose attitude asks that their history be considered": horrifying, one clause after another in a roundabout, completely too long and dragging. "Deep foundation of the world" is stock, and again, "be considered" is needlessly indirect
Anything more than "I dislike it, here are some vague statements saying 'i dislike it' in a little more sophisticated way"? Would you rather want each clause be 5 words long? Your justifications are stupid as hell. Ecumenical is a perfectly good word. You not liking it is not apt justification. It doesn't disrupt the flow whatsoever.
"Whose attitude asks that their history be considered." Nested clauses is not a technical flaw, and you have completely failed to show anything beyond your whining that you don't like it. Such a stupid thing to say.
>No, I think I quite like mine. It's got a good ring to it, if cliched.
Which is why you don't write.

See>>21972280
I have already given apt reasons why it is written the way it is. You have turned a blind eye to it for some unfounded arrogance, which has no basis in any technical consideration either.

How the fuck are you not seeing how disingenuous you are being?

>>21972492
>Ecumenical is a perfectly good word.
Not him but it doesn't belong in literary fiction. God forbid it appears in poetry. It should be banished to the realm of non-fiction.

>>21972475
I do. But you two don't. That fact that you like his rewrite says all.
>lgbtq and poc
Again with disingenuous retardation? Do you really think this audience is why McCarthy is famous. Or you have some fantasy land where violent, unpunctuated fiction was the norm?

>>21972492
And you're being disingenuous for not considering my viewpoint that the original passage is obscene and clumsy. You are completely blinded by your fanaticism. It's bad writing. I'm not saying McCarthy is all bad writing. But those two sentences in particular are egregious in how empty and clumsy are. My rewrite is objectively an improvement and it's not disingenuous to say that.

"Ecumenical" is a good word but not in that context. It's bad. It's made even worse by "certain ecumenical statues." It's needlessly technical and specific and shows a lack of imagination and almost certainly was written during a pause in thought. A phrase like that could not have come out of the beautiful flow of the creative process. It's clumsy and nerdy.

>>21972480
The only guy reading deeply here is me. Your critiques are as shallow as they come. Literally all just " this doesn't work" without telling us how it doesn't. Yet you won't accept it. That's why you don't write or have any sense of it.

>>21972497
>Do you really think this audience is why McCarthy is famous.
Learn to read. He's talking about how something popular is not necessarily good. He's mentioning two popular things, not saying McCarhy is loved by faggots.

>>21972500
My problem is that you are saying absolutely nothing.
>Ecumenical" is a good word but not in that context. It's bad. It's made even worse by "certain ecumenical statues." It's needlessly technical and specific and shows a lack of imagination and almost certainly was written during a pause in thought. A phrase like that could not have come out of the beautiful flow of the creative process. It's clumsy and nerdy.
You ate incapable of elaborating the why. How the fuck does ecumenical shows a lack of imagination? You are telling us your response to the text but with no basis beyond an emotional one. How the fuck can anyone respond to that when their experience has been wholly different. Have you seen ecumenical statues? Would you rather have used the completely non-sensical and vague word such as "christian statues"? You replaced that with a travesty like "martyr:, no i am not being disingenuous you idiot. You just write badly and have a lot of unfounded ego.

>>21972509
He is implying that. If not everything popular is good that means mass audience has a bad measurement of goodness. Learn to follow logic. Aka he thinks only 2 people in this thread know anything about writing, which is bull crap not because that's an unreasonable number but because it is certainly not these two.

>>21972496
Give one reason beyond your subjective, emotional one.

>>21972514
>Have you seen ecumenical statues? Would you rather have used the completely non-sensical and vague word such as "christian statues"?
In any case, McCarthy is too much of a soulless atheist Redditor to reference the word 'Christian' that directly so instead he has to weasel out his way to find a clinical, secular, sterile term to use instead.

>>21972538
More blabbering. The fact that you are a christcuck is putting the thread into perspective.

>>21972542
>More blabbering.
Refute it, then.

>>21972514
I just did elaborate the why. Right in front of you. But you can't see it because you're incapable of comprehension. You're doing the exact same thing you're accusing me of, hypocrite.
>and her hands like those of the statues of martyred Christians turned outward in all their beckoning towards the foundation of the world where sorrow finally is.
At this rate, McCarthy needs to hire me for all the work I'm doing for him.

>>21971969
>a party of women that had been upriver drying fish returned to the village and wandered howling through the ruins
lmao. so bad.

>>21972558
Trash. You never elaborated the why beyond "my feefees didn't like this".

>>21972558
>and her hands like those of the statues of martyred Christians turned outward in all their beckoning towards the foundation of the world where sorrow finally is.
Lmao, and this is the idiot accusing McCarthy of needlessly extending sentences. Posting Joyce will not make you look more respectable. Your writing and sense of writing is still trash.
>"Where sorrow finally is"
Hahahaha

>>21972629
>>21972638
>and her hands turned outward like those of the statues of martyred Christians in reminder of the foundation of the world where the sorrow of her creatures is steeped.

>>21972622
ESL moment.

>>21972647
give up, dude. this is just sad.
>in reminder of the foundation of the world
piling prepositional phrases on top of one another won't get you anywhere.

>>21972647
Hahahahaha. Keep going. Made some improvements.
>steeped and turned outward like those of the statues of martyred Christians her hands in reminder of the world where the sorrow of the foundation of her creatures is.

>>21972649
Blind fanatic moment.

>while the vestibular calculations in his skull cranked out their reckonings
Don't you guys LOVE IT when the vestibular calculations in your skull crank out their reckonings?

>>21972655
>>21972659
>and her hands turned outward like those of the statues of martyred Christians in consideration of the foundation of the world where the sorrow of all her creatures has its being.

>>21971951
fags wouldn't get it

>>21972667
See, if he actually wrote this, this is horrific. That sentence is an affront to my intelligence and eyesight. Who LET that go through editing?

>>21972677
You're in luck! He actually wrote that same shit together with the "autistic dark" thing
>He rose and stood tottering in that cold autistic dark with his arms outheld for balance while the vestibular calculations in his skull cranked out their reckonings.
/lit/ will defend this, like the bootlicking dogs they are.

>>21972689
Holy fuck. That's abysmal.
>outheld for balance
So needless!
>cold autistic dark
LOL.
>vestibular calculations
How the fuck does this even make sense?

>>21972663
ESL cope

>>21972721
>t. woman who wanders howling through the ruins

>>21972240
>Have you heard of this thing called "register" in prose, kid?
I've studied it some.

>>21972737
kek

>>21972737
Howling has more than one meaning if that's what your implication, ESL idiot.

>>21972751
>"if that's what your implication"
>"ESL idiot"

>>21972770
>jumped at the typo like the redditor he is
Yeah, nothing to see here.

>>21972702
>How the fuck does this even make sense?
pot calling the kettle retarded

>>21972550
Self refuted. You are a trash writer who has made 30 posts not a single one of which elaborates why the original passage is bad. Except beyond subjective whining. Now you are waffling something about him being athiest or some shit, which you probably heard on r/literature by some idiot.

>>21972773
>"typo"
>half the sentence is wrong
>"redditor"
>loves Corncob Memecarthy
lol lmao even

>>21971969
>>21972025
based

>>21972782
>half the sentence is wrong
Yup, ESL retard.

i love the cold autistic dark line. i think you guys just think it's stupid because we call each other that every day. the real stinker is right at the beginning when he calls the morning fog a glaucoma.

>>21972022
Seething chud detected. Stay in your discord.

>>21972781
I'm not the guy who rewrote Corncob's garbage. You're yet to refute my observation. If you deflect again, you're a confirmed homosexual.

>>21972788
He didn't call the fog a glaucoma. He said everything was so blurry and indefinitive in the ash as if all eyes had glaucoma.

>>21972794
>deflect
Lmao. Your faggot ass thinks he is an atheist, so he is bad. That refutes itself, fucking retard.

>>21972798
Almost as if
Almost
As if
Could have been

>>21972786
Wrong has more than one meaning if that's what your implication.

>>21972791
Discord is for trannies. Like McCarthy.

>>21972798
>When he woke in the woods in the dark and the cold of the night he'd reach out to touch the child sleeping beside him. Nights dark beyond darkness and the days more gray each one than what had gone before. Like the onset of some cold glaucoma dimming away the world.
sounds like the graying itself is the glaucoma to me

>>21972802
>ass constructions
Gross! So you're a faggot AND a nigger? lol I had no idea Corncob's audience was composed of niggerfaggots. No wonder Reddit loves him so much.

>>21972807
>discord is for trannies
So stay there

>>21972808
nevermind, you're correct anon

>>21972811
Take your meds, christcuck. No, nobody is out to get you

>autistic
>glaucoma
>vestibular
>ecumenical
Disgusting. He should've written medical manuals or any other dull non-fiction.

>>21972808
It's a metaphor. You can read the last sentence from the perspective of the father. Every is covered in ash, distances concealed by fog and ash. As if the world was hidden away. He just internalized the concealment of the world with an alternative word for blindness.

And who knows, the father was dying of ash cancer (?). It could be a literal statement written figuratively.

>>21972815
Oh, I thought I was a chud? Get it right, you poofs.

>>21972819
Idiot. Ecumenical is not a medical word

>>21972824
>or any other dull non-fiction.
Learn to read, Jamal.

>>21972822
You are both. Better hang

>>21972827
The bible is not non-fiction, ahmed.

>total words
117 999
>"and"
7691
>"like"
482
>"squatted"
37
>"spat"
62
>"rode"
282

>>21972831
Ecumenical is not a biblical word, tranny.

>>21972837
>like some
40
Unique words
10,000
Unique words used only once
5,000
>invented words including compound words
1000-2000
>coinages excluding compound words
300-500

>>21972829
Very transphobic of you. You should respect trannies, your idol Corncob loves them in his latest.

>>21972842
>being this retarded

>>21972805
nta, but frankly explain what's wrong with this (if you can)
>a party of women that had been upriver drying fish returned to the village and wandered howling through the ruins

>>21972848
It's not in the Bible like you said, tranny. It's used in theology and history. Bottom line is: He should've written medical manuals or any other dull non-fiction instead. YWNBAW

Someone spits in a fire every 3 or 4 pages.

>>21972843
prove it

>>21972878
>download epub
>search
As to the other two. Just google search some redditor did the breakdown 8-9 years ago. I wrote from memory.

>>21972936
>some redditor did the breakdown
Of course.

>>21972941
What have you produced for the board till date?

>>21972973
Organized a top 100 poll (with everything that entails: creating the poll, counting the votes, etc), answered a million questions (recs, translations, opinions), helping anons find books and texts they don't remember, a table comparing translations of an author across different languages, various images comparing different English-language translations of classics to help people decide their fav, recommending obscure and semi-obscure books to anons who later thanked me, etc. I am one of the leading tastemakers of this board.

>>21972982
Which poll?

Hello. Please read this guys

http://blogmeridian.com/hello-world/

>>21972001
Lol I noticed the same. A few were of the "like a forgotten ritual" type. And what the fuck is up with "luminiscent melons cooling on some mesa of the moon"
When he hits though, he hits hard

>>21971977
lmfao based

>>21971951
Your criticism is shit

>>21972297
Is he really wrong? English...kinda is a shit language if we're being real here.

I love using lots of "and" in one sentence

>>21974329
I bet you do

Are there genuinely such low IQ retards on this board who think they write better than published writers? With that prose too? Jesus, I thought it's a troll but some fags here may really be mentally ill.

>>21974433
>published = good

>>21974445
Sounds like cope. If you are good why aren't you published?

>>21974477
You're not making sense. Do you actually think EVERYTHING ever published is good and EVERYTHING non-published is bad? Because that would be of the most retarded things I've heard on this board.

>>21974542
Everything published by a published writer may not be better than everything non-published by a published writer, but it is better than anything non-published by a non-published writer. How about that?

>>21972230
>>21972264
>>21972020
>>21971960
>b-b-but you're just mad!
the absolute state of lit jesus christ

>>21974777
Stay fucking mad, bro. Managed to give me four (You)s in one go.

At least post the best Cormac stuff if you are going to attempt to eviscerate it.

From Suttree:
The courthouse clock tolled two. He raised his face. There you can see the illumined dial suspended above the town with not even a shadow to mark the tower. A Cheshire clock hung in the void like a strange hieroglyphic moon. Suttree palmed the water from his face. The smoky yellow windowlight in the houseboat of Abednego Jones went dark. Below he could make out the shape of his own place where he must go. High over the downriver land lightning quaked soundlessly and ceased. Far clouds rimlit. A brimstone light. Are there dragons in the wings of the world? The rain was falling harder, falling past him toward the river. Steep rain leaning in the lamplight, across the clock’s face. Hard weather, says the old man. So may it be. Wrap me in the weathers of the earth, I will be hard and hard. My face will turn rain like the stones.

The Road is his best book, btw.

>>21974590

>>21974802
>The Road is his best book, btw.
Do you love some cold autistic dark? Corncob is your man.

>>21974802
This is mediocre though.

>>21974542
Granted, but of all the shit that you could pick out McCarthy is hardly deserving of such scorn. I'll agree that he goes overboard with the purple prose on occasion, but he's still a good writer and storyteller. What do you actually like, by way of comparison?

>>21972857
The fact this got no reply sums up this thread. Bunch of 18 year old niggerfaggots. The guy was probably a beaner. That's the explanation really.

>>21974836
I like lateral/creative thinking, I enjoy that line.
>All of this like some ancient anointing. So be it. Evoke the forms. Where you've nothing else construct ceremonies out of the air and breathe upon them.
The Road is Cormac condensed. If you don't like the road none of his other work will vibe with you.
>>21974842
> Hard weather, says the old man. So may it be. Wrap me in the weathers of the earth, I will be hard and hard. My face will turn rain like the stones.
It really isn't.
I've found that the people who hate Cormac the most are turn of the 20th Anglo-lit dickriders. Always always always Melville/Joyce fanboys.
Cormac succeeded in distilling Faulkner/Joyce and creating something distinctly American. Lit purists hate this.
I'd say he did for prose what Whitman did for poetry - just completely disregarded the European rulebook and went his own way.

To be transparent, I'm a Cormac fanboy, but I have my gripes. I think his writing is grandiose to a fault. I think the only moral works he put out were The Road and All the Pretty Horses. The rest are unnecessary blackpilling that leave the reader feeling fucking atrocious. The Crossing and Blood Meridian are high on my list of books I wish I hadn't read. Trout Fishing in America being #1.

>>21974905
There's nothing creative about that line. It's clumsy writing.

>>21974905
>The rest are unnecessary blackpilling that leave the reader feeling fucking atrocious.
They are satanic and Jewish.

>>21974925
I dont disagree with you.
I don't think he disagrees with you.
The Road is his answer to this.

>>21974911
You have autism if you cant the purpose of that line.

>>21974911
Not that anon, but swearing by one line in a 300 page book seems completely disingenuous. There are great Transcendent lines in the book too (the ending for a famous example), much more often than anything polarizing. What's the issue then?

>>21972857
Unnecessarily grandiose.
>that
Should be "who" since the antecedent, though grammatically "party," is really referring to "women," who are people (allegedly). That this passed through editing is already egregious.
>returned to the village
Filler that gets in the way of the actual main idea he wants to convey in the next clause.
>wandered howling through the ruins
Clumsy and overwritten in all honesty, which is why that other anon and I were laughing at it all last night. It's melodramatic to a fault and loses value by trying to assert itself so much. The line should just be:
>The women who had been drying fish upriver came and wandered through the ruins.
Here there's no need for "howling" or the effusive drama of it. Their desolation is absolute and implied by "wandered" and "ruins." Their grief and howling is contained in "ruins."

>>21974940
>You have autism if you cant the purpose of that line.
McCarthyfags have an argument for every occasion.
"What? You're a plotfag? The plot is irrelevant what really matters is the prose, the writing"
"What? The prose? The prose is irrelevant, what matters is the purpose"

>>21974948
It's really sad watching people punch up. Are you just salty BM took Moby Dick's place as the great American novel?

Give us your opinions of this passage so we can laugh at you.
>No one moved. In that cold stable the shutting of the door may have evoked in some hearts other hostels and not of their choosing. The mare sniffed uneasily and the young colt stepped about. Then one by one they began to divest themselves of their outer clothes, the hide slickers and raw wool serapes and vests, and one by one they propagated about themselves a great crackling of sparks and each man was seen to wear a shroud of palest fire. Their arms aloft pulling at their clothes were luminous and each obscure soul was enveloped in audible shapes of light as if it had always been so. The mare at the far end of the stable snorted and shied at this luminosity in beings so endarkened and the little horse turned and hid his face in the web of his dam’s flank.

>>21974958
I never said any of that. Describing the dark wastes of a post-apocalypse as autistic and unfeeling is hardly reached. You have autism

>>21971977
checked and decent

>>21974965
>escribing the dark wastes of a post-apocalypse as autistic and unfeeling is hardly reached.
He didn't say unfeeling. And no, autistic is a retarded choice of words. See: >>21972427

>>21974948
>Here there's no need for "howling" or the effusive drama of it. Their desolation is absolute and implied by "wandered" and "ruins." Their grief and howling is contained in "ruins."
The passage comes as the final statement after a brutal massacre. All rulebooks say that it must be expressive. The word howling conveys the unexpectedness of the carnage they found at every turn in the village.
>clumsy and overwritten
Placeholder critique when you have nothing to say.
>Filler that gets in the way of the actual main idea he wants to convey in the next clause.
Nabokov's main criticism of non-artistic writers was that they never treat their world as if it is lived in. No context, no details. You'd fit his paradigm
>unnecessarily grandiose
This is what happens when you form a critique from a posted passage instead of reading the book. The passage has to be grandiose. Same with your criticism of details. It weakens the drama that he is trying to convey.

Please don't repeat your illiterate bullshit again, posting a dozen posts saying nothing. Consider what I have said without getting emotionally offended.

>>21974965
>Are you just salty BM took Moby Dick's place as the great American novel?
I love the unprompted delusion in reddit's opinions. Next thing you'll tell me a woman has a penis.

>>21974977
Are you really going to use Pound to rail on Cormac in the same breath?
Vague and imprecise language? The Cantos exists. The Cantos are utterly indefensible trash.

>>21974948
Solid and sober observations.

>>21974977
The fact that you cant understand that Autistic = unfeeling speaks volumes about your midwit level take-everything-literally reading comprehension.

>>21974991
>the entourage tranny is back
I am beginning to think this is the same guy but from his phone or some shit.

>>21974985
Did I strike a nerve? Melville dickriders steady taking Ls.

>>21974948
Except that their howling absolutely lends to what is happening there and the expression of grief at having your whole tribe brutally murdered and mutilated. You are masquerading your (misplaced) pedantry as a desire for economy of expression. This is especially bad when you are actually removing part of the spirit of that passage.

>>21974987
I wasn't talking about Pound's poetry. I'm talking about what he said about the craft of writing in a non-fiction book.
>>21974993
I understand what the word means. It's still a retarded and ugly choice of words. Do you understand what niggers say, don't you? It doesn't make it any less ugly and retarded.

>>21974976
That's a very old pasta, newshit.

>>21974905
Because Melville and Joyce did it better. McCarthy is all-in-all a redundant addition to the canon. He's Melvillean and Faulknerian with a strain of Whitman, except that strain has been injected the wrong way.
>>21974948
>may have evoked
Unnecessarily wordy and tonally flat. "Evoked" is a throwaway linking word saying nothing. Should be: "in that cold stable the shutting of the door felt like other hostels for some and not of their choosing."
>divest themselves of their outer clothes
Holy shit. Just say "then they took off their clothes." So fucking overwritten.
>propagated about themselves
What the fuck. Just say "one by one they each made a great crackling of sparks as if shrouded in palest fire." So unnecessarily turgid and wordy.
>each obscure soul was enveloped in audible
I'm done. This is bad writing. It's inexcusably bad.

>>21974948
>t.first year English lit student

>>21974999
Meds. Not everyone sucks Corncob's dick as hard as redditors like you.

>>21975001
>taking Ls.
Confirmed twitter tranny.

>>21975011
Huge exaggeration. This nigger probably wrote bad essays in high school. That's what he is drawing on.
>>21975009
The fact that you literally said that McCarthy has Whitman in him tells all how much you are careening on spontaneous made up bullshit lmao. The only writer there who had visible stylistic influence on McCarthy is Faulkner. And no, they are very different writers.

>>21975012
Now show your phone.

>>21975015
Better than being an illiterate discord tranny such as yourself.

>>21975012
The only thing I respect about you is that you were brave enough to chop your dick off

>>21975027
Your taste is reddit lol imagine having the SAME taste as a Redditor. /lit/ has fallen.

>>21975031
Odd projection. If you want to troon out, go ahead. Corncob loves and respects trannies in his latest book.

>>21975033
Better than sharing tastes with a tranny
>/lit/ has fallen
Blood Meridian is/was/will be /lit/'s favorite book, newshit retard.

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

>>21975033
Have you seen the reddit top 100 next to the /lit/ top 100? 90% the same.

>>21975038
Then you should like him. But I saw a few trannies on twitter with their reddit profiles linked who were screeching at him. Few just like you two faggots out here (unless there is only one). Maybe there's overlap.

>>21975041
>Better than sharing tastes with a tranny
Cormac loves trannies. Cormac is a pro-tranny author.
>Blood Meridian is/was/will be /lit/'s favorite book, newshit retard.
Been here for years, and no, it's not. It's a meme inherited from tourist Redditors.

>>21975047
>Then you should like him.
I don't read reddit authors. I'll leave that to the tastelet suckers on /lit/. You "guys" are the perfect goyim.

>>21975042
>expression of grief
Wtf? Even as a singular passage you have to be tonally deaf if you think the passage conveys grief. It's not a sombre passage in the slightest. It IS a dramatic passage you fucking retard.
>McCarthy is Whitman basically on amphetamines.
Lol. You have possibly not a single writer there. More power to your gimmick however. You seem hellbent on being a complete embarrassment.

>>21975042

There is no sorrow nor moral consideration in the violence of Blood Meridian. You are viewing the violence through the lens of the kid. There's a reason the Judge kills the kid in the end. Did you read it? Did you understand it? You are attempting to correct the passage by injecting something that was never intended to be there.

>>21975056
>Lol. You have possibly not a single writer there. More power to your gimmick however. You seem hellbent on being a complete embarrassment.
You want me to post a Whitman excerpt?

>>21975048
>Been here for years, and no, it's not. It's a meme inherited from tourist Redditors.
Delusional fantasy is a tranny disease. Like this is common knowledge. Your proving me objectively right, tranny.
>>21975054
Yup, the trannies are seething so much they are bumping McCarthy threads to massive draws lol.

>>21975038
I wouldn't really call that depiction a "loving" one.
It was a caricature.

>>21975056
>>21975057
I have not read Blood Meridian nor do I understand the context of that passage. Is the whole book this melodramatic? It's not Shakespearean in its writing so I don't see what business it has being this bombastic about howling women. It's like Shakespeare stripped of all his artifice and power with a parasitic strain of Whitman and Faulkner. I again concede I have not read the passage but I'm only analyzing it on the basis of what's there, which is simply not good writing.

>>21975066
No, better just show your low IQ dealing with prose. God forbid your retardation with poetry.

>>21975073
Trannies are a caricature of women. Meaning his depiction is accurate. Meaning that he did his research. Meaning that McCarthy had a close interest in trannies.

>>21975057
He has not read it. Has this not been obvious?

>>21971951
>LE LOGICAL FALLACY!!
Yeah, you were never cut out for McCarthy.

>>21975042
>Silent desolation will always be a stronger expression of sorrow
They're women from an Indian tribe mate, not some white family from a novel set in the suburbs of new England. If you can't see the image of a group of grief stricken and totally fucked tribeswomen screaming and tearing their clothes in pain and sorrow then I don't know what to say to you. On top of that, why do you assume that there is literally one way to convey grief full stop?

>>21975078
>N-no!
So you're afraid of the truth? I can post it if you like just to every tastelet here can see how derivative memecarthy is.

>>21975066
By all means, PLEASE post a Whitman excerpt that proves your point.

>>21975079
So... he is based?

>>21975077
The book isn't melodramatic in any way. That passage is not melodramatic, just descriptive.

>>21975089
>So... he is based?
If you are pro-tranny, sure.

why does getting filtered by a book completely mind-break people

>>21975077
I really implore reading books by these writers instead of reading their names, illiterate faggot.

Blood Meridian is somewhat Shakespearean though. The biggest Shakespeare fanboy believed so:
https://lithub.com/harold-bloom-on-cormac-mccarthy-true-heir-to-melville-and-faulkner/

>>21975094
If he depicts trannies as grotesque caricatures wouldn't that mean he is at best tranny-neutral?

>>21975086
"Howling women" as an expression of grief is one of the weaker ways to convey it simply because women are histrionic and theatrical about their desolation to the extent that they pull all attention to them like gravity. It's so easy to convey pain through their howling but it's also the blandest and most superficial. This is why I say real grief and horror is expressed through the paradigm of silent desolation: the griever so grief-stricken that they are incapable of all expression.
>>21975089
Well, it certainly is very descriptive in a forgettable way.
>>>21975098
Everything is Shakespearean. We don't need another play by McCarthy.

>>21971943
Go back to Wendigoon. Reading is for big boys.

>>21975096
>disliking something means you're le filtered
So there aren't bad books? Bad writing is a myth?

>>21975088
Post it then. Will just give us more ammunition. The Americans are waking up too.

Boys, aside from all else, if Reddit lives so rent free in your heads as to make whether or not redditors like something the basis for your hatred or love for it then ye are complete pseuds

>>21975104
>This is why I say real grief and horror is expressed through the paradigm of silent desolation: the griever so grief-stricken that they are incapable of all expression.

The glanton gang, save for the kid and like 1 other character, don't give a fuck what the women feel. That's the point of the description being so distant and unfeeling.

>>21975113
Who is the Glanton gang? Again, if someone could provide an actual summary of this book, that'd be quite useful.

>>21975104
>We don't need another play by McCarthy
First correct thing you've posted the entire thread. McCarthy's stage/screen treatments are absolute tripe. The Counselor is probably the least moral film I've ever seen.

>>21975117
Scalp hunters who didn't really care whose scalps they were turning in as long as they were brown.
You should really stop attempting to discuss something you know nothing about.

>>21975104
The point isn't "how to convey grief and horror in the most efficient way", the point is that that is absolutely how such women would express grief. The story isn't some equation where you plug in variables for "the most real effect/story". I also disagree on your concept of silent grief, but that's a different discussion

>>21975104
>Howling women" as an expression of grief is one of the weaker ways to convey it simply because women are histrionic and theatrical about their desolation to the extent that they pull all attention to them like gravity. It's so easy to convey pain through their howling but it's also the blandest and most superficial. This is why I say real grief and horror is expressed through the paradigm of silent desolation: the griever so grief-stricken that they are incapable of all expression.
Tonally deaf retard, it's an expressive scene. Subtle bullshit doesn't work. Rest of your post is just meaningless blanket statements. I refute them thus:
>Howling women" as an expression of grief is one of the weaker ways to convey it simply because women are histrionic and theatrical about their desolation to the extent that they pull all attention to them like gravity.
Meaningless bullshit. It's not weak. It's perfectly apt. Captures the anguish and the vividness of the scene. The women were left howling as they discovered the ruins of their home and dead bodies.
>It's so easy to convey pain through their howling but it's also the blandest and most superficial. This is why I say real grief and horror is expressed through the paradigm of silent desolation: the griever so grief-stricken that they are incapable of all expression.
Your criticism is bland and superficial. This previous statement has as much weight of fact as your bullshit claims. It's provably not bland because it caught all your attention. And I have already shown your rewrite is complete tonally deaf and inconsistent with the scene.

This niggerfaggot is literally changing the scene instead of actually critiquing the writing. If you think a woman's (fuck even a man's, probably also a tranny's but this guy probably knows better) first reaction in coming across this carnage would be to be silently grief stricken then I just want to remind you that real life is not a Christopher Nolan movie. People literally go mad with screaming on just finding about their loved one's death, let alone on coming across a literal massacre of your entire village home. You are also as illiterate in psychology just as you are in writing.

>>21975123
>McCarthy's stage/screen treatments are absolute tripe. The Counselor is probably the least moral film I've ever seen.
I meant in the sense that we don't need a Shakespearean-like play authored by someone like McCarthy in the form of his fiction, his novels. We already have enough from Shakespeare himself. But okay.
>You should really stop attempting to discuss something you know nothing about.
But you don't know what literary criticism is and yet here you are, mouthing away.
>>21975124
And McCarthy as the creator/God of his story is capable of suspending our disbelief and making the women act differently than how we would expect them to. But he didn't, and so the writing suffers.
>>21975129
You whine a lot, don't you? You love that phrase "tonally deaf," don't you? You just basically attached a negative to everything I said instead of actually refuting me. This is fucking sad. How much does McCarthy pay you to defend his overwritten turgid novels?
>>21975155
Again, I did not have the context of the fucking passage. I'm analyzing what was presented before me, which was that egregious line that didn't even know it needed to use "who," not "that," for antecedents who are human. So much for McCarthy's sense of psychology if grammatically he doesn't know what's what.

> t.me here for more discussion on the intricacies of "howling"

>>21975163
>You just basically attached a negative to everything I said instead of actually refuting me. This is fucking sad. How much does McCarthy pay you to defend his overwritten turgid novels?
How much are you getting paid for showing us how low IQ you are and why not even shitty community colleges would take you in their literature course? Zero. Nada. Sad as hell.
Don't comment on things you have never read, retard.

>>21975163
>I'm analyzing what was presented before me, which was that egregious line that didn't even know it needed to use "who," not "that," for antecedents who are human. So much for McCarthy's sense of psychology if grammatically he doesn't know what's what.
Both are valid you illiterate retard. You don't understand basic grammar and trying to offer critiques? Fuck off

>>21975163
>literary criticism
Part of the work of literary critique is actually, you know, reading the work you are critiquing.
You have one avenue through which you could make a case for dismissing Cormac and you haven't taken it.

>>21975163
>instead of actually refuting me. This is fucking sad
It refuted everything you said. There was very little to refute. You are some whiner. You said that you write. Please post something you have written. As much as it hurts you, you are very bad at this.

>>21975123
The Stonemason is fucking A grade closet play. This vanilla niggerfaggot in the thread would tear his hair over it though. It breaks all paradigms but is still good

>>21975183
who = people
that = objects

anything else is ebonics tier.

>>21975208
It was a concession. I saw it on a very, very small stage and walked away feeling like John Grady walking away from watching his mom in All the Pretty Horses.

>>21975220
Post the grammartical rule that prohibits this.

>>21975180
I *majored* in English, you fuck. I don't need to read it to decide for myself that it's not worth reading. You've already shown me enough to warrant its dismissal from any consideration of its being read.
>>21975183
"A party of women" should be followed by "who," not "that." The women, who are human, compose the party, meaning the antecedent should be "who."
>>21975194
He dismisses himself on the basis of using lines like "enveloped in the audible" and "autistic darkness." No writer worth his salt would ever write those lines. Fundamentally they are unacceptable on the basis of their obscurantism and illegibility.
>>21975199
Here you go:
>He was above her and felt her chilled breath upon his neck and, when he kissed her lips, felt their pale, trembling chill, gelid and frigid as winter—her breath was short and stertorous upon a promenade of ecstasy and he moved inside of her with the weight of his being and, moving, felt the fullness and entirety of being inside of her. It was fall and autumnal weather had swept the brown and orange leaves off the oak trees and scraped them bare of all their chestnuts and acorns for the squirrels to forage—the courtyards now were vacant of students and all that remained were their echoes of when they played volleyball together on the court and laughed in the sun lying on blankets and throwing their picnics. And all this he heard and felt peripherally in the distance as he lay with her, warm and content, upon a peak in Darien and taking in the whole world and existence itself, conqueror and explorer of his race, father of all creation. And yet a prick in his vision: she got up after she was done to clear the tears from her eyes and he remembered then the anxious fear he had had in preliminary thought of the deed upon which he was about to embark, sweeping it away as the wind had the leaves in the force and direction of
the moment.

McCarthy wishes he could write as good as me.

>>21975226
>"A party of women" should be followed by "who," not "that." The women, who are human, compose the party, meaning the antecedent should be "who."

Oh my god.

>>21975226
>I majored in English
Lol. My condolences to you, your professor and whatever shitty ass college you graduated from.

>>21975226
I think it's odd that you're accusing McCarthy of turgid prose when you're quite purple yourself. It's not bad in terms of phrasing etc., but it reads like something from someone who wants to write but doesn't really have a story to tell. Fair play for posting it anyway, cos it takes balls

>>21975226
>her chilled breath upon his neck and, when he kissed her lips, felt their pale, trembling chill, gelid and frigid as winter
Hypocrisy anyone? This shit is redundant as fuck and even I though I haven't even made it to the 2nd line, I can already tell this cliched description of lovers' meeting would be a complete filler by the end. Chill,chill, chill.... oh use another word.
>her breath was short and stertorous upon a promenade of ecstasy and he moved inside of her with the weight of his being and, moving, felt the fullness and entirety of being inside of her
Just write they liked the sex. Overwritten turgid bs. Did i mention redundancy? Why the repeated "inside her"? Use something else. "Promenade of ecstasy" lol.

I give up. I can't even read half of this shit. This flows badly. This is everything you are criticizing McCarthy for but this time it is actually bad.

>>21971943
> anon doesn't understand what literary style is
many such cases

>>21975249
It has horrible phrasing. Trembling chill? Promenade of ecstasy? What bullshit

>>21975263
>it's good because it's le unique and le quirky!

>>21975230
Grammar's a bitch, ain't it?
>>>21975231
You should be offering the condolences to me for having suffered through the shitty college I went to with indifferent professors.
>>>21975249
McCarthy's prose is turgid because it's his only mode. Whatever "purple prose" I have is for the aesthetic of it, to show the development of the artist and his naive depiction of his sexual experience.
>>21975258
So you just don't get it. Got it. Why don't you read the rest of it and really think hard about everything going on in it.
>>21975264
You don't understand indirect discourse, do you?

>>21975226
>He was above her and his cock was inside her and he thought about how there used to be kids in the playground outside as he busted a fat one deep in her fleshy tunnel. Her tears assured him that he still had it as he wiped his cock on the bedsheets

>>21975269
it's good because it's pared down and evocative, he's choosing words out of the primordial ooze and not some ideological purpose and it was so and it will be so an and not some other way

>>21975226
lol they're dog piling you. what did you say to make them seethe so much? it must've been something very hurtful to get this much attention.

>>21975272
You are so nasty and vulgar. I bet that gave you a giddy rush to write that. Hooray for you.
>>21975283
I insulted McCarthy and then made them go into overdrive when I posted my own sample of writing, which is superior to what I've seen posted of his. Many such cases.

>>21975271
>you don't get it
How much self awareness does a faggot have to lack to not see their bullshit? There is nothing to see. Your ideas are cliched. Your expression is stilted. You are throwing bad, non-sensical phrases in the name of poetry. It's downright terrible. Only redeeming quality is that you posted it. But that's because you are too dumb to actually see your own flaws.

>>21975283
>>21975287
Stop using your phone to reply to yourself.

>>21975271
Just wanted to let you know that watching you embarrass yourself with lower-midwit take after lower-midwit take has convinced me to stop reading altogether. I don't want to share a hobby with you.
Alice in Stella Maris is right. Everything artifice, math, language, myth, etc leads only to the great artificer himself, Yaldabaoth.

>>21975278
You're delusional if you don't think McCarthy doesn't have an ideological purpose.

>>21975290
It isn't stilted. The cadence and the flow are the best thing about it. Any cliches are because of free indirect discourse, which aims to show the naivete of the artist as he develops his self-consciousness as an artist. Don't blame me, blame the project.
>>21975295
I'm not that desperate.
>>21975296
That's fine by me!

>>21975271
>McCarthy's prose is turgid because it's his only mode.
This is like a factually wrong statement.
>aesthetic of it, to show the development of the artist and his naive depiction of his sexual experience.
It's very badly written and turgid.

>>21975287
>I insulted McCarthy and then made them go into overdrive when I posted my own sample of writing, which is superior to what I've seen posted of his. Many such cases.
Based.

>>21975299
of course, he's a cowboy after all. But his prose stands out because it seems like he doesn't say enough even after packing 300 pages of history and intense description. I think thats why he wrote ATPH afterwards, to show he has a lighter side

>>21975304
>Don't blame me, blame the project
You ask of us to make concessions for you that you have yet to make for McCarthy.

You are a pseud.

>>21975304
>The cadence and the flow are the best thing about it. Any cliches are because of free indirect discourse, which aims to show the naivete of the artist as he develops his self-consciousness as an artist. Don't blame me, blame the project
It's stilted as fuck. Chock full of redundancy and filler sections. You were criticizing the use of howling and also criticized Nabokov when you have the same artistic aspirations in your prose. Except you have no talent for writing. The only naviete here is yours and tyere is no attist in sight. I genuinely mean it, if you are looking for a career in this give up the idea of literary fiction and get to polishing your plot. You think I am only saying this out of anger but no, you might actually get published for one.

>>21975315
>, he's a cowboy after all
He dresses like a cowboy*. He has never milked a cow, never been a cattle herder.

>>21974911
>It's clumsy writing.
Why is it clumsy? What's clumsy about it?

>>21975334
He has a ranch.

>>21975334
that sir is a matter for others to answer, I have never sat a horse nor do I pretend it

>>21975310
So it's badly written and turgid. And yet I'd rather read my writing than McCarthy's, whose turgidity is my malignity.
>>21975313
Indeed.
>>21975321
I don't see your writing anywhere. I don't need to make concessions for McCarthy: McCarthy can concede to me by getting me in touch with his editor and, better, his publisher.
>>21975330
Sure thing, Humphrey. I'm going to listen to you to determine how I'll be published. Please.

>>21972405
The word ecumenical is perfect for that fragment. It’s there for a reason, and it has to do with statues, history, religion, and sorrow.

>>21975334
in ATPH he is basically deifying horses and horse riding. so I mean if he's a fake cowboy then where do any of us stand

>>21975355
>how I'll be published.
With that arrogance and lack of talent, never. Also, hopefully never.

>>21975340
He only bought it after he got Hollywood money. When he was young he couldn't even support his wife. They ate from trashcans and they bathed in the river. She divorced him. He was never an actual cowboy.

>>21975355
>And yet I'd rather read my writing than McCarthy's, whose turgidity is my malignity.
And millions would rather read McCarthy than whatever you have posted or whoever your influences are. Such travesty!

>>21975357
"Ecumenical" is too French and Latinate; it clashes harshly with McCarthy's insistence on propagating the ugly mess of Germanic-rooted English words. It simply does not work. It does not fit. It is ugly.
>>21975365
I will be; however, you're certainly free in not reading me. You have McCarthy and that for you is enough.

>>21975375
>it clashes harshly with McCarthy's insistence on propagating the ugly mess of Germanic-rooted English words. It simply does not work. It does not fit. It is ugly.
Pretty much my thoughts.

>>21975375
Lol

>>21975373
By all means, please enjoy the "autistic darkness" and "howling women" that McCarthy writes about. I'll be writing what I write and trying to avoid such inanities. Fuck you and your thread, which has now (thankfully) hit its bump limit.

>>21975388
Too illiterate to articulate them yourself, entourage tranny?

Bunch of weirdos. Complain about how ugly English is in every thread and yet post on an English website.

>>21975395
You'd seethe, anyway. Articulate opinion or not. I hope Random House pays you well, tranny shill.

>>21975394
>I'll be writing what I write and trying to avoid such inanities.
No instead of that you are hellbent on being the biggest affront to English prose with retarded metaphors, turgid constructions and a brain so smooth you can skate over it. All the best! He said chilly chill trembly chill! Lol.

>>21975407
You better pray this guy gets published (never happening). You sound like a trainwreck of a person lol. Better suck his dick some more.

>>21975397
It's only moral to help the disabled.

>>21975413
A Corncob simp talking about sucking dicks. Have some shame. This is embarrassing, faggot.

>>21975375
>it clashes harshly with McCarthy's insistence on propagating the ugly mess of Germanic-rooted English words. It simply does not work. It does not fit. It is ugly
Modern English is a mix of both already. Seems a complete whine to me. It sounds great in the passage. Besides, almost all prose writers shift to a more latinate syntax whenever they are shifting into a more poetic register. McCarthy's writing is pretty consistent with that. The first few sentences are different from the later few but never break the cadence. By all technical parameters it is great writing. There is even meter emerging somewhat by the end of it. But then again you think what you have written is good.... maybe some people are just that way. Maybe you're just putti g on this persona out of personal dignity after already having shot yourself in the foot.

>>21975420
You are sucking some high schooler's dick. Have bigger shame, tranny

>>21975414
be quiet spaniard

>>21975439
Ghfghfghfgh.
>>21975413
Srtrtyfh.
>>21975408
Frigelichillicet.

>>21975452
>you're [boogeyman]
meds

>>21975447
You're sucking a senile man's cock. Leave some for the Redditors.

>>21975471
Shouldn't have cut yours if you like them so much, redditranny.

>>21975476
I'm not a goyim. My cock is not mutilated, thank you very much.

>>21975536
There is no cock for you to mutilate anymore, tranny. Don't fool us.

>>21975550
lol why are you so obsessed with my cock? Go fuck a faggot, you gigantic poof.

>>21972250
>>21972250
it's about the book being discussed so many times, why are you this thick.

>>21971946
Fpwp

>>21975572
No cock for anyone to obsess. Shouldn't have cut it tranny.

>>21976539
Keep saying it.