/lit/ - Literature

>>22430087
Based
Obituaries are faggy

>>22430094
Not real literature- take yer girly books and stick em up yer keisters (collectively speaking to all Proust shutters).

>>22430087
><---OP when someone likes something that they don't like.

>>22430102
T. Girlie book enjoyer

Where’s the people getting sniped by sniper rifles in the middle of the desert while giving lectures on the inherent random violence of our world? That is what literature is about.

> ain’t real man’s books cuz it ain’t no cowboys innit

I famously hate McCarthy's shitty fever dream writing, he's also absolutely terrible at writing dialogues

>>22430163
Cowboys kick ass. They are part of our American heritage.

>>22430087
I wonder if he's mistaken. Proust is known for having written one of the great death scenes in literature (Bergotte). His writing definitely is preoccupied with death, sex, the human condition. It's just explored in the context of civilized 19th century high society, not in some barren desert landscape.

>>22430170
>famously hate
Nobody knows a basement dwelling vermin.

>>22430179
He’s some genre turd writer who hates cause it’s slow and doesn’t have action gore scenes. You are overthinking it.

>>22430170
SIR

>>22430087
McCuckthy is a just a brainlet who couldn’t make it further than 40 pages of Volume 1 like the typical woman

>>22430179
I also love taking massive cock in my ass if that matters

>>22430170
>>22430274
none of you have any chest hair

>>22430281
>none of you have any chest hair

>>22430087
this guy's final novel is literally a tranny book btw

>>22430087
McCarthy was a spoiled boomer brat who got lucky with everything in his life like the majority of baby boomers did. Fuck him. Long live Proust.

>>22430286
Yeah, we saw that thread too

>>22430282
>namefag is the one poster who mindlessly spams the same image for years
What a surprise

>>22430322
That’s not me. That is an anonymous poster trying to make me look bad (like a bigot chud neonazi). He is trying to sully the good name of Jon Kolner.

>He who pilfers my purse steals trash

>>22430322
Nay, ‘tis me. It is impossible, I dare say, to sully my own name, as I am quite —
Unequivocally, I mind you — the apogee of posters on this forsaken board, thus, regardless of the fact that I an a tranny and a faggot, I am a priori superior to you, as you are a dullard who will fall for this — >>22430326 — palpable red herring.

Reckon Proust and McCarthy would have a jolly good time together and shake hands over their joint dislike of the plebs ITT.

>>22430322
This was actually a ruse all along. I am the real Jon Kolner and these >>22430326
>>22430330 both are perverts who are obsessed with me because they wish to sleep with my wife Brooke. There are at least two or three of them and they wish to sully my name in the eyes of the Lord (praise be to him) by making atheist statements in my name and that way they will confuse him on judgment day into thinking I am a atheist heathen.

>>22430337
i would let both those dudes raw dog me with throbbing hard ons

>>22430087
Philip K Dick was a fan of Proust

>>22430182
Prout was a turd genre writer himself, braindead troon.

>>22430087
McCarthy literally never said this about Proust

>>22430281
That's where you'd be wrong

>>22430409
Can barely see the surgery scars. Who was your top surgeon?

>>22430412
I'm afraid its all natural, unlike with you

>>22430409
Gross

>>22430087
>The man who believes that the secrets of the world are forever hidden lives in mystery and fear. Superstition will drag him down.
*lowers fedora*
>There is no God and we are his prophets.
*unsheathes katana*
>It makes no difference what men think of war. War endures. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner.
*teleports behind you*
>Whatever in creation exists without my knowledge exists without my consent.
*exhales sharply*
>Men of God and men of war have strange affinities.
*slices you in two with a single stroke*
>This is the nature of war, whose stake is at once the game and the authority and the justification. Seen so, war is the truest form of divination. It is the testing of one's will and the will of another within that larger will which because it binds them is therefore forced to select. War is the ultimate game because war is at last a forcing of the unity of existence.War is god.
*leaves a single rose on your corpse*
>Nothing personel, The Kid

McCarthyfags can do nothing but seethe about this. There is no retort. These direct quotes are the final and ultimate cringe. This is irrefutable. Which is why that McCormac-fags react with such seething, impotent and malding rage at it.

>>22430476
>The manchild danish retard is still seething after getting destroyed yesterday.
Want to begin again? You'll be butthurt and malding again, I promise.

>>22430476
The retort is to actually read the book, but that requires literacy. You wouldn't get it.

>>22430489
>>22430503
>immediate malding
Probably the best pasta that's come out of /lit/ of late. At least the most effective one in month.

>>22430509
>praising himself for the most basic bitch reddit (((pasta))) that no one but he posts
Lol. So pathetic. Stick around for 2 years, you'll mature. Don't wanna do it. I can tell you are already fuming a bit.

>>22430476
Uhh the judge wasn’t supposed to be the good guy, friendo

>>22430529
meds, immediately

>>22430533
The best thing about arguing with manchildren is that they get emotionally butthurt whenever someone points them out accurately. This is why anti-Mccarthy fags never had any success.

>>22430544
>peak schizoposting

>>22430549
I will let you get away this time. You're praying for it and it's obvious.

>>22430402
>mccarthyfag can't into em-dash

>>22430635
He never said anything within the em dash, you retard.

McCarthy is uniquely American in his mediocrity.

Oh, you have mentioned religion and/or nature? Must be utterly profound I guess!

This really is all it takes, and mutts will think themselves collectively accomplished. The only thing McCarthy did well was in Blood Meridian, when he perfectly encapsulates American culture as a whole: racial violence, greed and desolate wilderness. They might as well print it on their money.

>>22431437
>all this babbling while defending homosexual bourgeois trash
Can say something equivalent about the French and the trash that Prout pumped out. Think it over when you stop seething like a little retard.

I said nothing in defence of the self indulgent Frenchman. Your reading comprehension is what I'd expect to find on that fetid raft you call a continent.

>>22430641
lel. Em-dash is not a quote mark.

>>22430087
>>Cormac McCarthy famously hated the novels of Marcel Proust—too many opera gloves, too many perfumed drapes, not enough elemental struggle with the forces of life and death—which makes it thorny to write McCarthy’s obituary.
Even though Proust was a far better writer. Lol, just another classic tale of a bad writer marring a good one.
Proust dealt with consciousness and unconsciousness better anyway.

>>22430529
lel he thinks being here for two years makes him an oldfriend.

>>22430087
reading is feminine as a whole

>>22430434
>unlike with you
what did he mean by this?

>>22430170
>he's also absolutely terrible at writing dialogues
That's just plain wrong, man

>>22430635
He never said he “hated” proust either

>>22430087
Christ, McCarthy was like a Reddit gamer personified. "It's not edgy, nihilistic, and with a wicked sense of humor so it's pathetic TRASH"

>>22431767
lmao filtered

>>22430380
No, he wasn’t. He isn’t what we usually refer to as genre fic. Cowboy man is though.

>>22430087
Corndog McCarthy is the biggest hack in modern literature. Dude wasn't even the dried smegma in Proust's underwear.

/lit/ continuing to be another extension of Reddit

>>22431595
>>22431767
>>22432494
>the butthurt manchild found the thread
Hope this consoles you bit after all the embarrassment and spanking you have taken in McCarthy threads.

>>22432462
You are just retarded namefag. Trashy society novels during turn of the 20th century france are as much genre fiction as any Western is. This is really telling that the people defending the trash homosexual are either illiterates or trannies with immense butthurt accumulated over years in McCarthy threads. So much misinformation.

>>22431734
He hasn't read him. He is mad that McCarthyfags were mean to him for being retarded and not knowing shit. All the other trannies (maybe just one very mentally ill tranny) ITT are the same.

>>22430087
Typical American imbecile saying typical imbecilic things. Why should we listen to him?
I do not dislike McCarthy but he's overrated and the whole force of his writing derives from cheap Shakespearean effects (Shakespeare is overrated too), which he got from the overrated Faulkner. It's either that or some random "anything's possible", just-do-it, sports-car-propaganda-tier cliché, he has no other literary resources.
Proust is much better, his prose is as dense and rich as McCarthy's (and way denser and way richer when it comes to actual intellectual content instead of mere visual descriptions and re-statements of age-old ideas), while being much clearer and quite simply well-written and structured.
I'd like to compare them, but people will accuse me of cherry-picking, so let's just go on Goodreads and take the most quoted paragraphs from Blood Meridian and that from the (French) Recherche. Just compare the vulgar Amerigoblin 'anything is possible' cliché-ridden style of McCarthy, and how he has to "populate" his sentences with Shakespearoid images and latinisms, but his imagery repertoire is not that good... He goes from "medicine show" to "fevered dream" to "trance" to "itinerant carnival" to "migratory tentshow"... Shakespeare is like that sometimes, specially monologues, but has better repertoire. And the substance of the sentence is banal.
Proust's sentence is just very clear, unpretentious yet aristocratic, in fact *too obviously aristocratic to even need to be pretentious*, pleasant to the ear, and reveals a truth which, though now it became banal after a century of psychology, was not so banal when he wrote his book, and contains furthermore, in that same truth, a hidden suggestion about the book itself, and the very idea of aesthetic inspiration, which Amerigoblins, upon reading it, would likely not even notice. His analogies can put so much in just one word, written as if in passing, that they are almost provocations... 'Comme des âmes'? This is true density, true concision. McCarthy is actually prolix, banal.

>“The truth about the world, he said, is that anything is possible. Had you not seen it all from birth and thereby bled it of its strangeness it would appear to you for what it is, a hat trick in a medicine show, a fevered dream, a trance bepopulate with chimeras having neither analogue nor precedent, an itinerant carnival, a migratory tentshow whose ultimate destination after many a pitch in many a mudded field is unspeakable and calamitous beyond reckoning.

>“Mais, quand d’un passé ancien rien ne subsiste, après la mort des êtres, après la destruction des choses, seules, plus frêles mais plus vivaces, plus immatérielles, plus persistantes, plus fidèles, l’odeur et la saveur restent encore longtemps, comme des âmes, à se rappeler, à attendre, à espérer, sur la ruine de tout le reste, à porter sans fléchir, sur leur gouttelette presque impalpable, l’édifice immense du souvenir.”

>>22431499
>so scared he didn't even quote
So you are another one of those butthurt trannies from the usual McCarthy threads? Show me on the doll where they hurt you, retardo?

>>22431595
>Proust dealt with consciousness and unconsciousness better anyway.
Poost is garbage for anyone and anybody who can't tell that has no taste whatsoever. He is the bad writer. Cope with that as you want.

>>22432585
You fell for a bait post. Sorry you wasted your time writing shit that literally no one will read.

>>22430087
amerimutt bait

What's your opinion on Expressionism in writing? I find so many younger people, when they try to get into writing, have a hard time trusting their own intuition. Whenever a really powerful vision/thought/scene whatever comes into your brain, the first reaction a lot of writers have is to rationalize it and find a way for it to connect itself to a sort of grounding, even if it's in sci-fi/fantasy or in literature. There seems to be this cultural fear of the unconscious holding truth and beauty and that the rational mind has to be the one to make sense of it and deconstruct it out of fear of it appearing as half-baked, underdeveloped etc.

This, I find, is why so much of modern fiction reads the same, from YA onwards. There's an overwhelming distrust in the unconscious, the Other, intuition etc.

David Lynch is a good example of somebody who only trusts his unconsciousness, and it's why I really respect him as a writer/director.

A side note, I would argue that this trend also explains the majority of people fearing psychedelics as a drug, and much preferring downers/disassociatives like weed and Xanax or shit like cocaine which gives them a sense of heightened rationality. People fear their own untamed minds too much.

What do you guys think?

>>22432585
I think it says a lot that you went on Goodreads. You are one of rhose illiterate teenagers who are up in arms against anything that do not sercvice their narrow view. So even though you have likely never read McCarthy he is getting all the heat for disliking proust because you have made a shrine to him. McCarthy is far more of a distinct stylist than Proust, and calling his influences as if Proust wasn't also just copying better writers in Flaubert and Pushkin reveals your shitty agenda.
>Just compare the vulgar Amerigoblin 'anything is possible' cliché-ridden style of McCarthy, and how he has to "populate" his sentences with Shakespearoid images and latinisms,
Literally a lie strung after a lie. Latinisms is the one thing that goes completely against McCarthy's style. He was famously prolific with anglo saxon vocabulary in the text. Further proof of your unfounded teenage butthurt over a writer you only know in passing.

You are so fucking retarded ypu are posting dialogues in comparison with descriptive prose. That's how retarded you are. McCarthy is simply better than any modern writer when it comes to imagery and far more prolific. But you picked what? A dialogue. If you don't find it utterly embarrassing, your blind dicksucking of an overrated fag like proust, over better writers you haven't even given a fair chance, then yry a different hobby. Your are too stupid for this business.

>>22430087
In "The Simple Art of Murder", Raymond Chandler says more or less similar things about the entire mystery establishment before him. He gets pretty vicious with some of the most respected mystery authors and makes solid points from a realism standpoint.
https://www.fadedpage.com/books/20140930/html.php

>>22432603
Proustfags are really mentally ill. This nigger clearly hasn't even read McCarthy but 'hates' him because he is an American who didn't like the homosexual's wankery.

>>22430087
Different pretty horses for different courses. Proust as the insubstantive virtuoso naval gazing in his cork lined Paris flat has a point -- but he's still got the prose chops. Taste really is incommesurable, and one really ought to be able to appreciate both whatever one's disposition towards them.

>>22432611
Sometimes I think Proust is really on the mark and I get sentimental and emotional reading what he wrote and other times I am bored out of my wits. I try to switch up positive and negative threads depending how I feel at the time.

>>22432620
The worst thing about this thread is that most of the defense of the fag frog isn't even by people who like him, except one retard maybe. Most of the people seething in this thread are the resident trannies of McCarthy threads. You don't even need proust in the OP to make them anally sore (lol), a picture of Cormac would also have worked.

>>22432577
>Trashy society novels during turn of the 20th century france are as much genre fiction as any Western is.

Genre as a term means obvious genres- westerns/ adventures/ comedy. Proust is definitely not an overt genre writer.

>>22432656
>Genre as a term means obvious genres- westerns/ adventures/ comedy. Proust is definitely not an overt genre writer.
You don't even know how absurd you sound. Why of course it is. There's a whole genre of French society novel that was popular in the 19th century and Proust was aping for the backbone of his story.
>"but no no what proust focuses on is different"
So does McCarthy, but how is that a justification ITT?

>>22432665
Proust was influenced by people who came before him but the lack of a clear villain/ plot and the over realism clearly differentiate it from the genre shit of his day. You didn’t even bother to check the wiki page where it says this.

>it’s a cheesy romance genre book

No, the experimental structure of the book is what separates it from genre turds. If McCarthy books had no clear antagonist and were structured like present> past memory> further past memory of somebody else> slightly closer to present then they would maybe not be called genre shit.

>>22432617
>I think it says a lot that you went on Goodreads
I don't use Goodreads. Could have gone to Wikiquotes too but don't remember if they have copyrighted books.

>You are one of rhose illiterate teenagers
I am 27, can read in more than 5 languages, have read much more than you, though this latter part is not very important for me (but it is for you).

>because you have made a shrine to him.
I have read Blood Meridian, some of The Road (which I stopped because it was bad). I do not dislike McCarthy, I merely think he is second-rate, a follower of that Molly Bloom, Faulkner and Hemingway (really Gertrude Stein, as shown by Wyndham Lewis in Time and Western Man, part I) 'time-book' tradition, with some penchant for imitating the spirit of Conrad and Melville and Shakespearean technique.
I have not made a shrine to Proust. I have not even read the whole Recherche.

>McCarthy is far more of a distinct stylist than Proust
McCarthy is a second-rate Faulknerean.

>Proust wasn't also just copying better writers in Flaubert and Pushkin
Proust's main influence is certainly not Flaubert, and I do not think he knew Russian. Do you mean Ruskin? Anyway, you have to go further back in French literary history if you want to find the true roots of Proust. Flaubert is a very different writer, in fact.

>Latinisms is the one thing that goes completely against McCarthy's style
Do you know any Latin? Do you know any Romance language? Just reread the paragraph I posted.

>ypu are posting dialogues in comparison with descriptive prose
Both show their styles. You sound like a college student who learned about different "categories" of writing and wants to show it off. McCarthy is aping the overall style of Shakespeare's overrated monologues (filtered through the overrated Faulkner). It's not dialogue in the typical colloquial sense.

Amazing that even though I just chose the most quoted paragraphs of both I am still accused of cherry-picking by McCarthoid Amerimutts.

>>22432675
>but the lack of a clear villain/ plot and the over realism clearly differentiate it from the genre shit of his day. You didn’t even bother to check the wiki page where it says this.
Lmao, are you fucking retarded? Having an antagonist isn't what makes a book genre fiction you dumbass. None of the bourgeois society novels necessarily had a villain. What stupid criteria
>If McCarthy books had no clear antagonist and were structured like present> past memory> further past memory of somebody else> slightly closer to present then they would maybe not be called genre shit
I would keep my trap shut about things I don't know. McCarthy has written 12 books, not 2. Besides, having antagonists didn't make Shakespeare or Melville or Goethe or Milton any less literary so fuck off with that bullshit. The rest is just a teenager's opinion on what literary fiction should be
>present> past memory> further past memory of somebody else> slightly closer to present
Lol. It's always funny to see dumbasses give their opinion on what literature is without even realizing that literary fiction having no obligation to be written out of a blueprint is why it's lirerary fiction. Proustfags won't get it though. They still think that outdated garbage is groundbreaking in the present day when, even then, it was groundbreaking only to people who hadn't read the better writers he copied from.

does mccarthy have anything interesting to say

>>22432704
>groundbreaking
What is "groundbreaking" about McCarthy?
You know, it would be easy to refute us all by simply posting a really good paragraph of his and showing why it is "groundbreaking", specifically by describing the existing "ground" which Mr. McCarthy is supposed to be "breaking", and which tools and in which way he is "breaking" it in that paragraph.
We'll wait.

>>22432704
> None of the bourgeois society novels necessarily had a villain.

Yes, they did. The narrator of Swann’s Way even talks about how juvenile George Sand is because of the trite way he wrote romances and action. This could actually be seen as a more general attack on “genre literature” of the 19th century in general. The grandma or dad (I can’t remember) buys a George Sand genre shit novel for him because actual literary stuff and the philosophy of Rousseau he feels is too much.

Your genre shit claim would have more backing to it if there wasn’t a whole screed against genre shit within the first 37 pages of the book.

>>22432689
You are butthurt, lying out of your teeth and redditspacing.
>I have read Blood Meridian, some of The Road
Yeah we believe you lol. They all say this while spewing overtly retarded garbage like your teenage ass is.
>I merely think he is second-rate, a follower of that Molly Bloom, Faulkner and Hemingway (really Gertrude Stein, as shown by Wyndham Lewis in Time and Western Man, part I) 'time-book' tradition, with some penchant for imitating the spirit of Conrad and Melville and Shakespearean technique.
Your copy paste of his wiki section went haywire when you started conflating him shit he has nothing to do with. How can anyone who really has read the writer be convinced by this overly butthurt teenager's tantrum?
>McCarthy is a second-rate Faulknerean.
Said the butthurt teenager. It's Faulknerian btw. And he is still much more unique than the frog faggot and Blood meridian and books post it have little to do with Faulkner. A quick google search would immediately help with that.
>Proust's main influence is certainly not Flaubert, and I do not think he knew Russian. Do you mean Ruskin? Anyway, you have to go further back in French literary history if you want to find the true roots of Proust. Flaubert is a very different writer, in fact.
It seems you don't know shit about the frog either. One might question why you are even here. Proust owes as much to Flaubert as McCarthy does to Shakespeare by your own retarded estimation. His insecurity is visible in the letters he wrote. Russians were a big influence on Proust just as the French were on Tolstoy and Dosto. Be a little less illiterate. Pushkin was probably the fag's favorite writer.
>Just reread the paragraph I posted.
I read it and I really implore you to do something more suited to your mental level, like playing fallout, not reading books.
>McCarthy is aping the overall style of Shakespeare's overrated monologues (filtered through the overrated Faulkner). It's not dialogue in the typical colloquial sense.
Yet there is nobody who writes long sentences in McCarthy's syntax and style. Meanwhile Proust reads exactly like all the 100s of european writers just stringing together subordinate clause with romantic inagery. All so tiresome. Meanwhile McCarthy is being accused by a low IQ teenager who very surely hasn't even read Faulkner. This whole schtick is so utterly embarrassing.

>>22430402
"His list of those whom he calls the “good writers” — Melville, Dostoyevsky, Faulkner — precludes anyone who doesn’t “deal with issues of life and death.” Proust and Henry James don’t make the cut. 'I don’t understand them,' he says. 'To me, that’s not literature. A lot of writers who are considered good I consider strange.' ”

I mean he approaches saying something pretty close to this. OP is just being hyperbolic and silly

>>22432742
>Your genre shit claim would have more backing to it if there wasn’t a whole screed against genre shit within the first 37 pages of the book.
Dumbass retard. Blood meridian is an anti-western by that pogic and overtly criticizes the mythmaking that is the heart of western genre fiction. Don't be a hypocrite. Proust is as much a genre wtiter as McCarthy.

>>22432745
> Meanwhile Proust reads exactly like all the 100s of european writers just stringing together subordinate clause with romantic inagery.

Calling Proust bad is one thing but calling him unoriginal is just moronic. There is no one who writes like him.

>>22432738
You don't have the intelligence for it and I mean it in earnest.

>>22430087
To each his own. I'll take Proust over McCarthy any day.

>>22432747
It’s from here.

https://www.theringer.com/platform/amp/2023/6/14/23761468/cormac-mccarthy-novels-books-death-obituary-legacy-prose

>>22432751
Except everyone else who spam subordinate clauses sitting in their mother's room. I described like half of the European writers in 2nd half of the 19th century right there.

>Calling Proust bad is one thing but calling him unoriginal is just moronic. There is no one who writes like him.
It's more of a playful attack on the dumbass teenager and his opinions. I mean, who writes exactly like McCarthy? Disliking him is one thing but denying that he isn't one of the most unique stylists in any language would require illiteracy. That's the hill the teenager wants to die on though.

>>22432753
What would be an intelligence test for that? How much of a genius do I need to be to understand the mighty prose of the supreme "stylist" Cormac McCarthy?
My IQ is in the 120's, same range as Nobel-prize winning physicists Richard Feynman, Luis Alvarez and William Shockley, higher than James D. Watson, how high should it be? 150? 160? 200? I know around 5-8 languages, should I know ten? Should I also be a NASA astronaut?
Sorry, but everyone here will laugh at you until you simply post a McCarthy paragraph and tell what ground exactly he was breaking with it. Tell us what the ground was and how he broke it. Don't need to add a whole essay, just 150-300 words summarizing your view would give us an idea.
Feel free to do it. We'll wait.
If you think I am too dumb for it, no problem, maybe other posters will understand and be convinced, so... Just post it.
I will not even reply to your post. I am giving you the last word of the discussion. It's completely yours.
Tell us which literary/artistic ground McCarthy broke, post a paragraph of his that proves it, and describe succinctly how it is proven by that paragraph.

>>22432804
>My IQ is in the 120's, same range as Nobel-prize winning physicists Richard Feynman, Luis Alvarez and William Shockley, higher than James D. Watson, how high should it be? 150? 160? 200? I know around 5-8 languages, should I know ten? Should I also be a NASA astronaut?
This is exactly why nobody is replying to. You are embarrassingly cringe.

>>22432944
That is actually a cool post. I felt like a midwit when I got my test because it wasn’t super high but being at least around James Watson level is okay, I guess.

>>22432747
His judgment of Proust is strange to me because it is exactly life and death that Proust deals with, particularly with the death of his grandmother, the death of an era, the death of love. In fact, all of Proust's work could be considered a tribute to death, which is just this: the passage of time.

>>22432745
>Meanwhile Proust reads exactly like all the 100s of european writers just stringing together subordinate clause with romantic inagery.
He really doesn't. Say whatever you will of him but his style was supremely unique and original and prophetic and true. He is, alongside Joyce, the greatest novelist for all time. McCarthy does not even hold half a candle to him, fuckface.

>>22432948
It’s not one dimensional enough for him. He isn’t going to show his plebness but there isn’t a clear good guy and a clear bad guy and the characters don’t really represent common viewpoints or archetypes like in most stories. It is simply too high Iq for a pleb like McCarthy. I doubt he read anything besides the Swann in Love section if even that. McCarthy was filtered by a slow moving, experimental autobiography.

>>22432957
Cry and seethe some more, fag's rotten dick sucking homo.
>supremely unique and original and prophetic and true
Lol. So unique that if he wasn't dropping that turgid shit for 2 pages, nobody would be able to tell who wrote another of that womanish dependent clause string.

>>22432948
There’s no Anthony Chirugh or Judge in Proust and there’s no badass lines about the inherent violence of life. It is just that McCarthy was a dimwit.

>>22432963
Proust is zero dimensional. It's all homosexual moping with him. Cormac realized what he was. You relate woth that because you are low IQ yourself.
>there isn’t a clear good guy and a clear bad guy and the characters don’t really represent common viewpoints or archetypes like in most stories
Lmao. Better try reading books instead of opinions stitched together from impressions from reddit posts, nigger.

>>22432969
See >>22432965
McCarthy would’ve liked it more if De Charlus were some brooding antihero and he were giving Swann lectures on how life is meaningless and a woman’s fidelity is fleeting. Then throw in a gun fight or something.

>>22432965
>>22432974
Enough seething for today. You aren't even parroting the wiki well at this point. Say whatever, faggot proust was an immende bore. Only limp wristed retards who project their mental illness of overthinking biscuits would pretend otherwise.

>>22432944
If you knew how to interpret what you read you'd realize I actually do not give a shit about those metrics.
My point is: you don't need to be abnormally intelligent to understand McCarthy, or any great literary text. Average intelligence or slightly above average intelligence is enough 90% of the time.
So shut up and just explain what ground he broke, and post a paragraph where he is doing it.
It seems to me that you are insecure about your ability of actually explaining any of that in a clear and objective way, because secretly you know it's false.

>>22433003
>your ability of actually explaining any of that in a clear and objective way, because secretly you know it's false.
I have already done it multiple times in McCarthy threads over the years. It's why I won't do it here. You think I will waste time explaining the goodness of a BOOK to people who are so immensely butthurt without even having read said BOOK. You are of average intelligence, that's correct, if you really think some 150 word essay can distill the vision of a work of art. But since you are desperate, I would say he is the writer who has broadest view of things, he can separate the absolute rock from the mental image that you have of a rock. This is what separates him from all the overly internal writers that followed since Shakespeare. Even the late modernists gestured at the inability of language to convey without the awareness that they were wallowing already in a symbolic world, especially that faggot Proust, who, without hyporbole, makes a semi decent philosopher. If writers were thinkers, McCarthy would be Kant or Hegel. I know I am throwing a bone to retards to misconstrue and distort, but that's what happens when you don't read. The response to this post will prove me right.

Here's an excerpt for you:
>He saw a pool of oil on a steel drumhead that lay shirred with the pounding of machinery. He saw the blood in his eyelids where he lay in a field in a summer noon and he saw young boys in a pond, pale nates and small bald cods shriveled with the cold and he saw an idiot in a yard in a leather harness chained to a clothesline and it leaned and swayed drooling and looked out upon the alley with eyes that fed the most rudimentary brain and yet seemed possessed of news in the universe denied right forms, like perhaps the eyes of squid whose simian depths seem to harbor some horrible intelligence. All down past the hedges a gibbering and howling in a hoarse frog’s voice, word perhaps of things known raw, unshaped by the constructions of a mind obsessed with form.

>>22433026
>The response to this post
I was not going to respond, but since you kindly allow me to...

>broadest view of things
How do you even measure something like that? How is his "view" "broader" than that of Stendhal or Tolstoy?

>he can separate the absolute rock from the mental image
By 'absolute rock' do you just mean 'rock', as in the objective rock which exists in the real world? I believe nearly all good writers are able to do that.
As far as my low intelligence allows me to interpret your post, what you are saying is that McCarthy is not, so to speak, a "wordcel" (to use a new word with an old meaning) but can play things as they are, unlike the man in the blue guitar, am I correct? Furthermore, he uses that ability of his to create a world of things in themselves, unobstructed by excessive psychological interpretation and "points of view", with long passages where all you have are the very objects, is this right?

>overly internal writers that followed since Shakespeare
'Objective' writing has been a thing for a long time, it's already present to a large extent in Flaubert and the realists, is in fact a part of realism, of which the paragraph you posted can even be taken as an example (filtered, as I said, through 'time-book' Steinish, pseudo-biblical syntax), and there are many other historical instances, including imagism, Marianne Moore, as well as in other languages like Portuguese (João Cabral), French (Robbe-Grillet and the nouveau roman crowd have books full of paragraphs of extreme, in fact highly autistic visual precision, though this is not their main goal and they vary a lot, but they do have it), and probably others, all before McCarthy.
Remy de Gourmont has a whole book about precisely that, in which he contrasts two types of mind and style, one abstract, the kind that reads the word 'sea' and thinks of the word itself, of the letters, the other concrete, which reads the same word and is reminded of the very sea, with its sounds, colors, smells etc., and is therefore interested in the images and the objects of the world as such, and de Gourmont recommends a writer should preferentially be of the latter type; and Joseph Conrad, as everyone knows, was already writing in order to "make you see"...

That paragraph you posted adds nothing new to what Conrad, Joyce, Faulkner and others had already done. It's a fine paragraph of realist prose. Pic related is some Conrad for comparison. McCarthy is the same, he just cuts more, in modernist fashion (others cut even more, including poets who refuse to, e.g., use any adjectives at all and write just concrete nouns, verbs, etc.), dresses it in some burdensome syntax in pastiche of The Bible/Gertrude Stein, and of course adds his own little idiosyncrasies such as scientific terms ('simian' in that paragraph, in other paragraphs many more), fever imagery etc. like Conrad with his sea stuff and Nabokov with his butterflies. It does not break any sort of new ground.

>>22431451
In order to judge Proust you need to have read more than just his wikipedia page, anon. Try picking up one of his books. It's okay if you take a long time to finish it, I know it's not an easy read. I believe in you!

>>22433201
But there aren’t any gunslingers or black and white morality. You expect him to read that???!!

>>22430087
I liked Cormac a lot Moore after I read he disliked Henry James. Fuck Henry James.

>>22433206
more*
fucking autocorrect

>>22432577
Unlike McCarthy, Proust talks exclusively or almost, about events he has experienced himself. If you think that is what people refer to as "genre fiction", you wo not actually know what that word means.

>>22430087
Proust represents the banality of life. If you can't accept that life can be boring at times then you aren't in the "elemental struggle with the forces of life"

>>22433224
nah bro you need to have babies getting skinned alive and used as fleshlights for your book to have any value but only very intelligent people can understand this

>>22430286
>Nooo how dare he write about being a tranny, he should've written about being a faggot like le good homo author!!!

>>22433233
embarrassing post lol

>>22433144
Your whole post is waffling. The fact that you confused what I was saying with objectivist prose shows that precisely. This wouldn't be a problem if you actually had read the book in question. You would be able to see what I am pointing out.
>Furthermore, he uses that ability of his to create a world of things in themselves, unobstructed by excessive psychological interpretation and "points of view", with long passages where all you have are the very objects, is this right?
No.
>Objective' writing has been a thing for a long time, it's already present to a large extent in Flaubert and the realists, is in fact a part of realism, of which the paragraph you posted can even be taken as an example (filtered, as I said, through 'time-book' Steinish, pseudo-biblical syntax), and there are many other historical instances, including imagism, Marianne Moore, as well as in other languages like Portuguese (João Cabral), French (Robbe-Grillet and the nouveau roman crowd have books full of paragraphs of extreme, in fact highly autistic visual precision, though this is not their main goal and they vary a lot, but they do have it), and probably others, all before McCarthy.
Alain Robbe Grillet is a perfect counterxample of an external style that serves the internal world. He is like a much more experimental Hemingway. Your impression is mistaken from the beginning. Flaubert's style served an internal world. I don't believe anyone who has actually read McCarthy thinks of him as a realist writer or in their tradition. The problem with you is that you only have outside impressions to go by. The same kind of person who would assume Kant and Hegel are talking about the same thing because all he has is an outside idea. There's a reason why despite writing in an objectivist mode McCarthy is not clubbed with any of the realists, but rather paradoxically with such incredibly internal writers such as Melville, Shakespeare, Joyce and Faulkner. You can't see the forest for the trees. I never even implied that McCarthy was the 1st to write an external style, but he is arguably the only one to write one that doesn't service human ponderings.

I did not post the passage to show a style that nobody uses. There is no writer or style not indebted to someone. It was more for the content and the philosophical implications. It was bound to go over your head because you are a liitle shithead who hasn't read the writer you are writing essays on, nor the intelligence to even see the novelty. You are what we call a volume reader. A prober of surface at best. Your love for Proust isn't surprising.

>>22433211
His life was genre fiction then because bourgeois society novel clearly is a thing.

>>22432585
How is Shakespeare overrated in your view? I am not at all looking to begin some kind of debate with you. I just want to hear your perspective because Shakespeare's ranking in the canon, as it were, is something I have given thought. Your perspective seems like it would interesting

Did he like Joyce?

>>22430170
>famously
bellykek

>>22432587
>quote

>>22430170
Just cause he doesn't put quotation marks doesn't mean he writes bad dialogues

>>22430182
McCarthy writes slow though. His biggest novels like Suttree, Blood Meridian and the Border Trilogy are all pretty meandering.

>not enough elemental struggle with the forces of life and death
>he didn't get to vol 5 and 6

>>22433274
You just objectively don’t know what words mean then if you think when people say “genre fiction” they mean Proust. It is technically a romance but the experimental structure and narrative is what separates it from genre fiction.

>>22433473
>It is technically a romance but the experimental structure and narrative is what separates it from genre fiction.
Oh the irony

>>22433329
He is fucking retarded that's how.
>>22433144
So much blabbering by a butthurt manchild. Why don't you go to French brothel and blowjob everyone there? Books are not your business, keep away.

>>22433144
>How is his "view" "broader" than that of Stendhal or Tolstoy?
Because McCarthy always has sight even of his own 'view' as an object. It's a Hegelian POV. If Tolstoy's winding down of War and Peace is anything to go by, he is a very biased thinker and relatively not broad at all. Dostoevsky was the greater thinker of the two for the same. It's part of Tolstoy's appeal though. Readers rarely want to go down so deep, most love Dosto for the invention and drama of his stories rather than the bare surface of his vision.

>>22430087
Uhhhh elemental struggle with the forces of life and death only translate to high art if its Faulkner, mccarthy was a toddler. Not read proust though

>>22433637
Faulkner is toilet paper

>>22430476
Please for the lovebof God tell me those aren’t real quotes? No one can possibly write this cringe.
t. I’ve never read mcCuck before

>>22430087
Was anyone able to find his blacktowhite account?

>>22433706
They're real and there are cormac stans on this very board, perhaps this very thread, who think they're based. I've seen them posted sincerely

>>22433706
>lovebof
>doesn't even know how to use t.
Back to school, kid.

>>22433773
There are weird only to retards who haven't read the book. Anyone with half the brain who read the book knows Holden is first and foremost a performer and a trickster. You guys are too teenage and emo to think otherwise is what's the problem here.

R.I.P Cormac, hope you get fucked by trannies in heaven just like you always wanted.

>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.

>>22433778
>teenage boys misunderstanding a work about the perils of trusting a flamboyant charismatic demagogue
Many such cases!

>>22433706
McCarthy actually wrote that but that was a characters monologue and retards who adore McCarthy genuinely post that shit on Facebook and Twitter or have it tattooed on themselves.

>>22433839
That was kinda the point of Holden. He's like Humbert from Lolita except instead of being the narrator everyone else is just too downbeaten to challenge him so he gets to paint the philosphy of the book

>>22434028
A character mologue by the closest equivalent in his world to God and who never feels fear or never loses. He's not making him say these things to be preachy about how le war or le nihilism is le bad

>>22434028
Those are just the casuals that wendigoon brought. Most of them literally haven't read the book yet.

>>22434055
>character mologue by the closest equivalent in his world to God
God you are dumb. Even the premium member of Holden groupie, Harold Bloom called him 'literature's greatest sophist'.

>>22434080
Who cares about what Bloom said? What matters is what happens in the novel. The judge is clearly sovrannatural and is the apex being in the book. He literally never loses, reality bends to accomodate to his wishes, and the actions of the people around him prove what he's spouting again and again

>>22434096
From some perspectives what he is saying is not wrong. It's just a case of emo teenagers selectively reading excerpts. But he is no stranger to irony.
>They posted guards atop the azotea and unsaddled the horses and drove them out to graze and the judge took one of the packanimals and emptied out the panniers and went off to explore the works. In the afternoon he sat in the compound breaking ore samples with a hammer, the feldspar rich in red oxide of copper and native nuggets in whose organic lobations he purported to read news of the earth’s origins, holding an extemporary lecture in geology to a small gathering who nodded and spat. A few would quote him scripture to confound his ordering up of eons out of the ancient chaos and other apostate supposings. The judge smiled.
>Books lie, he said.
>God dont lie.
>No, said the judge. He does not. And these are his words.
>He held up a chunk of rock.
>He speaks in stones and trees, the bones of things.
>The squatters in their rags nodded among themselves and were soon reckoning him correct, this man of learning, in all his speculations, and this the judge encouraged until they were right proselytes of the new order whereupon he laughed at them for fools.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAA IS THAT TEA AND CRUMPETS I'M GOING FUCKING INSAAAANE AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Proust fuckin blows. chuck this shit into the rue de fucking trash

>>22434096
Judge was mistaken about some stuff such as when he checks the Idiots brothers head under the assumption of phrenological beliefs. Theres also instances of the Judge slowly succumbing to nature, especially when he goes to the survivors of the Glanton gang after the massacre and tries to bargain his way to an upper hand, clearly at the mercy of them.

>>22433273
Why do you insist I have not read McCarthy?
As I said, I have very much read Blood Meridian, and you will notice *I did not say* say he is a realist writer, +but rather that the specific piece of prose you posted is very much indistinguishable from realist prose other than from laughable biblical (really Gertrude Steinian) syntactical pastiche. He does have, however, *many points in common with realism*, including the objective/visual style of writing, such as can be seen in that very paragraph I posted, when compared to the paragraphs of Conrad. So do authors like Joyce, etc. all springing from realism but with 'modernist' aspects of divergence.
Your other points are obscure and you do not define your terms. You use pseudo-philosophical babble about "the absolute". Most likely McCarthy himself, a materialist who strongly appreciated science (very much the same as I in terms of philosophical outlook, in fact), would probable be very confused by what you are saying.

>Grillet is a perfect counterxample of an external style that serves the internal world
What does it even mean for a style to *serve* something?
McCarthy is not a documentary filmmaker. There is nearly as much subjectivity in him as in any other author, and as much room for the reader's imagination to operate.

>but rather paradoxically with such incredibly internal writers such as Melville, Shakespeare, Joyce and Faulkner
And Conrad, who was writing "to make you see".
Anyway, there is no such fake distinction between "external" and "internal" writers.
As I said, you talk like a student who learned/invented some abstract categories yesterday and is now applying them to whatever they see. The writers you mention have countless passages of both "internal" and "external" prose, both very long monologues full of wild ramblings, sentimental passages etc. and very long, objective descriptions of rooms, actions, events, etc.
What "internality" are Shakespeare's plays are serving?
What about Cervantes? In one line of interpretation, D. Qujote is the very epitome of revolt against the "internal" world and praise for the objective life.
And Homer? Turoldus? Machiavelli as historian? Do they "serve the internal world" too? How?

>I never even implied that McCarthy was the 1st to write an external style, but he is arguably the only one to write one that doesn't service human ponderings.
Again, what does it mean to say a style doesn't *service* human ponderings? McCarthy's style very much invites you to ponder about, say, the nature of evil, the meaning of lawfulness, etc. Pic related. There is very much space for pondering in Blood Meridian, as in any other novel.
Anyway, you said he was groundbreaking. I still fail to see how.

>You are what we call a volume reader
You whom? The Confederation of Fedora Readers?

>>22434192
you're right. I was wrong. Still I don't think the Judge was written as a caricature or as the "look at him, his evil ideology!" moral lesson character

>>22434290
>written as a caricature or as the "look at him, his evil ideology!" moral lesson character
He's not, anymore than Humbert Humbert is. Lolita is not a cautionary tale about how raping kids is bad.

>>22433329
How is he not? Anglos seem to believe he is the greatest author to have ever existed, and upon asked to give you reasons always reply in the same way the McCarthy anon is doing, with random pseudo-philosophical babble -- in the anon's case, about Hegel and the absolute; in the case of bardolaters, usually more romantic and involving "forces of nature" at some point.
I believe Shakespeare is a very fine poet with a very fine talent for crafting memorable lines and metaphors, but I fail to see how he is responsible for such things as "inventing the human" and other such that are attributed to him by some of the most prominent and well-paid literary critics of our time. The structures of his plays are weak, many of his passages are nothing but cheap puns (in comedy) and empty rhetoric (in tragedy), many of his images and themes are commonplaces, and many of his characters are quite predictable, and most of his stories were taken from other authors to the point you sometimes don't know who exactly you are reading -- some of the best passages in Julius Caesar are imitations or mere reinventions of Thomas North's Plutarch. Pic related, and, if you want me to be really honest with you... I think Plutarch is better. He's clearer, less ridden with mediocre metaphors, and has none of that theatrical "Help-ho!" tier rhetoric which really annoys me. Everything comes at a price, and there are less memorable single lines in Plutarch, few if any great metaphors, and I wouldn't care to read a book of sonnets written by him, but overall the Lives, even in translation, are a better book for me to read than the First Folio. I enjoy Shakespeare and believe he is one of the foremost playwrights of his era, Macbeth and The Tempest in particular I often reread, but he is overrated by the likes of Bloom, Coleridge, T.S. Eliot and others.

>>22434282
>There is nearly as much subjectivity in him as in any other author, and as much room for the reader's imagination to operate.
I should not have to explain this if you had read the writer. You don't have to force your facade. There are things that are immediately visible while reading the writer and fucked them up. Your tantrum are also very childish and thrown out of an emotional infancy which is again very palpable. McCarthy's subjectivity is reader's projection. He is nowhere near a writer of internal worlds or subjectivity like a Conrad is.
>What does it even mean for a style to *serve* something?
You think the voyeur or in the labyrinth are about people moving their hands about. The narration's repetition and desperation changes with the focalizer and what is revealed is character. McCarthy's narratives are never focalized through his character's minds, or often not if we are including his newer works.
>As I said, you talk like a student who learned/invented some abstract categories yesterday and is now applying them to whatever they see. The writers you mention have countless passages of both "internal" and "external" prose, both very long monologues full of wild ramblings, sentimental passages etc. and very long, objective descriptions of rooms, actions, events, etc.
And you are illiterate, and as I accurately stated above, a reader of bare surfaces and nothing below. You think these writers are doing the same thing as McCarthy because they have descriptions of nature occasionally like him. That's the dumbest shit anyone has posted whole day, and reveals you for the midwit you are. If you had read the writer you would see what I meant. Conrrad's influence on McCarthy is noted in their attitudes towards colonialism and in the character of the Judge, maybe prose through Faulkner. They are distinctly different narratively and philosophically. You have nothing but the blandest name dropping to hold up in court, which is the story of this whole thread really.
>What about Cervantes? In one line of interpretation, D. Qujote is the very epitome of revolt against the "internal" world and praise for the objective life.
That's stupid interpretation of Don Quixote and anybody who can read how much it overlaps with McCarthy's mode. As I said previously, you are waffling to find books that can be interpreted to have the only impression of this writer that you are aware of. To me it looks absolutely absurd and laughable. No, Don Quixote isn't doing anything similar to work like Blood meridian, just like Hegel wasn't just rewritting Kant by also pondering on the absolute like Kant did. You are dumb as hell.

>>22434282
>>22434450
>McCarthy's style very much invites you to ponder about, say, the nature of evil, the meaning of lawfulness, etc. Pic related.
Once again what is posted is dialogue. There are nearly 200 pages of desert descriptions that if they ponder human world of human relations, then they are probably the most oblique metaphors imaginable. The problem with you is that you are throwing shit at the wall to compose any sort of counterargument while doing barest possible to glean anything from the text that you have seen posted online. Your whole argument is dishonest. I will repeat again what I said before, McCarthy takes the broadest view where his commentaries on the world which does include humanity cannot be argued against strictly within the parameters of argumentative logic. His descriptions stem from there. Now you can bend over backwards to force this narrative practice over any other writer in defiance but you are convincing no one who has actually read him. It's an aesthetic. I can go deeper that would pull in his specific use of similes and parataxis but, as I predicted already, it will be distorted and misconstrued by dumb retards not arguing out of logic or truth but butthurt such as yourself.
>You whom? The Confederation of Fedora Readers
No. Mature readers who weren't biologically damned to be on their periods at the trigger of a name.

>>22434412
>Anglos seem to believe he is the greatest author to have ever existed, and upon asked to give you reasons always reply in the same way the McCarthy anon is doing, with random pseudo-philosophical babble -- in the anon's case, about Hegel and the absolute; in the case of bardolaters, usually more romantic and involving "forces of nature" at some point
That's called reading and inference. You call it sucking homo dick and spamming the blandest possible readings that JSTOR sold you. Both are beyond the abilities of your little head.

>>22433786
>ear-drum shattering silence from the McCarthy-fags
You think he came up with the phrasing "cold autistic dark" after meeting his fans at a book-signing?

>>22432585
Good post Pierre.

>>22434478
>projection by the manchild
Testament to how no one but these idiots have a problem with it.

>>22434492
Of course he is your brethren in sucking off homosexuals and being perpetually mad about something you have no idea about.

>>22433144
>>22434282
With so much misinformed pedantry, it can easily be proven that Joyce is the most derivative writer of all time. So yes, he is not groundbreaking in the same way no writer ever since the invention of words has been groundbreaking. There are only 3 modes in writing: descriptive outward prose, dialogue, internal monologue. Everything falls within these 3 categories so if you are being enough of an ass no writer is different from any other.

Try to educate yourself, retard.

>>22434282
Your retarded ass is the epitome of this. Now suddenly McCarthy's syntax is Steinian because some ESL retard who read a single passage had that impression. Kill yourself.

Proust is bad Henry James for retards. His dependent clause spamming is even more annoying and a derivative version of James. His psychology is watered down version of the James brothers (William as well). He is unique to faggots basement dwellers because they need a hero they can identify with, but these vermin are usually NEET and hence even more pathetic.

>>22430170
>filtered by page 1 of Suttree

>>22432689
>can read in more than 5 languages
So 6?

>>22434622
He is lying. Any prolific reader wouldn't have these schoolboy tier arguments. But he could be really low IQ.

>>22430087
Is it true that he died hacked to pieces and scalped in his hacienda or just of old age?

>>22430409
Who's this ? Nassim Taleb

The Kite Runner #1

>>22434450
>if you had read the writer
>You don't have to force your facade
>tantrum
>very childish
>emotional infancy
>And you are illiterate
>a reader of bare surfaces
>dumbest shit
>midwit

Your posts are just ad hominem at this point, it's useless to keep arguing, but...

>McCarthy's subjectivity is reader's projection
Does the same statement not apply to, e.g., Tolstoy in Ivan Ilich or T's model Homer.

>The narration's repetition and desperation changes with the focalizer and what is revealed is character
Does McCarthy not reveal character?
Both him and RG reveal character.
Both him and RG have long objective descriptions too.
Whether the descriptions are in *service* of the subjective character or not is a matter of interpretation.
One could reasonably argue the descriptions in BM, trees of dead babies, decayed scenery, desert etc., *serve* to enhance the theme of *human* evil and are in a way the imagistic entourage of the Judge -- or one could argue the reverse. Up to interpretation.

>McCarthy's narratives are never focalized through his character's minds
Neither are Homer's.

>That's stupid interpretation of Don Quixote
It's one of the most straightforward ones and perhaps the one many of Cervantes's contemporaries had.

>No, Don Quixote isn't doing anything similar to work like Blood meridian
I don't think he is. Reread my post.
I merely think Cervantes is not *serving* any "internality".

>Once again what is posted is dialogue
Obviously.
If I post the descriptions of a writer it will all look very objective and devoid of human relations, specially if they have to do with landscapes, objects, etc.
Read Euclides de Cunha, The Backlands, parts I and II. It's famously full of that, complete with thermometrical tables. Botanic manuals and ethological tracts full of that also, as is Courant's What Is Mathematics? which I recommend if you're by any chance interested in more abstract landscapes. Knuth's The Art of Computer Programming pays very little service to human subjectivity -- it certainly cared very little for mine!

Every writer will have in his books parts which are subjective -- dialogue, monologue, free indirect speech, occasional subjective considerations by the narrator -- and objective -- descriptions of objects etc.
All you seem to be saying is that McCarthy produces objective parts at a higher percentage than other authors do.
That, and that he has some obscure, underlying "broad view" from which that stems, a view which contains commentaries (what is a commentary? is it not a collection of human opinions?) on the world which does not include humanity (do you really think I human being can comment on the world while ignoring humanity itself, or being in some way influenced by the fact he is a human? is this not a mere fantasy of yours?), and these commentaries cannot be argued against through logic.
Very obscure. But it's, like, an a e s t h e t i c, bro, you wouldn't get it!

>>22434492
>>22434499
I am not even French.

>>22434552
No, there are many innovations in Joyce, such as, e.g., the composition of a novel in which each chapter takes a different literary form, the virtuosistic satire of chapter XIV etc. Maybe there are precedents in which case he's not being original and my previous sentence is wrong.
But in a way you are right. Originality is very rare and much that is considered original in Joyce is not really so.
There are many masters, writers who take already existing forms and produce good books with them, following the well-established patterns. McCarthy is one of those. I do not dislike him. My problem is with people who overrate him in the way that anon is doing, call him groundbreaking when he isn't, etc. It's laughable.
Also, you should notice I do not consider originality the only, or even the best, criterion of judgement. My problem with McCarthy is not that he's not original but that he imitates authors who are themselves full of problems, including Stein, Faulkner and Shakespeare -- he is a master of a second-rate kind of literature. Had he imitated Homer directly, like Tolstoy does, or the Shakespeare of the better sonnets, he'd be a better writer in my opinion (which is ultimately subjective, of course, like all aesthetic judgement).

>>22434622
Not really. There is a shady area where you don't know if what you're reading is a language or a dialect, also different levels of reading -- I can read Latin, but will need dictionary, often bilingual trans. etc. if it's a classical author; and none of that if it's, say, just the Vulgata, Carmina Burana and other easier books. Do I then read Latin, Catalan, Occitan, German? Depends on what you mean by "read", "Latin", "Catalan"...

>>22434571
>Now suddenly McCarthy's syntax is Steinian
Read Wyndham Lewis's Time and Western Man, part I.
McCarthy's syntax springs from that tradition and is directly influenced by Wyndham's buddy James Joyce.

>dependent clause spamming
What's the problem? Is that supposed to be difficult or somehow complex? Maybe for people who don't learn syntactical analysis at school?

Anyway, I have spent too much time in this thread and have things to do. I will probably cease replying.

>>22434681
You are hopeless. Read the Author before throwing a tantrum. This is why I never wanted to effortpost in threads like this. It becomes a cat and mouse chase to make the retard admit he was wrong. You won't do it though, arguing on nothing but mistaken impressions and out of context passages.
>One could reasonably argue the descriptions in BM, trees of dead babies, decayed scenery, desert etc., *serve* to enhance the theme of *human* evil and are in a way the imagistic entourage of the Judge -- or one could argue the reverse. Up to interpretation.
This whole shit up is bullshit. They are doing things very differently. I don't know what to tell you except to read the writer.
>Neither are Homer's.
They are. There is no internal monologue but Odyssey and Iliad are character works in a way Blood meridian simply isn't. Like all the other bullshitters you bring up Holden, who is the most potent character but also the biggest enigma. We can't even be sure of his true philosophy, let alone characterization.
>All you seem to be saying is that McCarthy produces objective parts at a higher percentage than other authors do.
>That, and that he has some obscure, underlying "broad view" from which that stems, a view which contains commentaries (what is a commentary? is it not a collection of human opinions?) on the world which does not include humanity (do you really think I human being can comment on the world while ignoring humanity itself, or being in some way influenced by the fact he is a human? is this not a mere fantasy of yours?), and these commentaries cannot be argued against through logic.
It's obscure to non-readers yes. For the discerning reader it is very visible. You have constipation accepting it because it doesn't suit your agenda that's all. As far as Aesthetuc goes, yes Awsthetic is supreme. All knowledge is finally words. Different combinations that produce different textures produce different perspectives which can be novel, and are in McCarthy if you aren't a little shithead arguing about nothing but geberalizations which you are.
>Does the same statement not apply to, e.g., Tolstoy in Ivan Ilich or T's model Homer.
The fact that you have cycled through nearly 20 authors with completely different aesthetic, narrative practices and philosophies just to try and pin down this one writer who isn't even spamming different styles in his work already vindicates my perspective. If you were an actual reader you'd understand. But an actual reader would have atleast read the writer he seems hellbent arguing against.

>>22434763
>There are many masters, writers who take already existing forms and produce good books with them, following the well-established patterns. McCarthy is one of those. I do not dislike him. My problem is with people who overrate him in the way that anon is doing, call him groundbreaking when he isn't, etc. It's laughable.
>Also, you should notice I do not consider originality the only, or even the best, criterion of judgement. My problem with McCarthy is not that he's not original but that he imitates authors who are themselves full of problems, including Stein, Faulkner and Shakespeare -- he is a master of a second-rate kind of literature. Had he imitated Homer directly, like Tolstoy does, or the Shakespeare of the better sonnets, he'd be a better writer in my opinion (which is ultimately subjective, of course, like all aesthetic judgement).
Then what's the whole point of your needless blabbering? If your whole criteria is that nobody is groundbreaking then why even ask? I don't agree. Literature can be groundbreaking but it's groundbreaking in subtle ways rather than this child's fantasy of some writer bursting onto the scene and completely inventing a new language and grammar, which even Joyce didn't do in Finnegans wake as it's whole stylistic premise is lifted from jabberwocky and that in turn is lifted from medieval joke books.

I have posted enough evidence how McCarthy is so different from everybody that came before him. And his aesthetic/style whatever you want to call it services a personal vision. That's groundbreaking. Writers who imitate McCarthy sound very different from who are imitating Joyce and Faulkner and Shakespeare. He has at least given a unique idiom to his native language. That's groundbreaking. I have already presented my argument why he is more groundbreaking than that. But perspective and cognition seem to completely escape your abilities. Next you will tell me that he used a word that had existed before in the dictionary and therefore can't be groundbreaking, which is, in some ways, what you are arguing with listing off writers as useless in this discussion as Flaubert and Robbe Grillet as if they share something with McCarthy. It's sophistry of the worst kind. Failing to acknowledge that writing objective prose isn't the invention but rather how it is used. Your arguments on Blood Meridian's language are so rudimentary that I can immediately break your whole narrative by showing how McCarthy uses similes in the text and how different it is to even guys like Faulkner and Joyce who you keep bringing in because wikipedia told you so that they are the lowest hanging fruits in discusssion like this. But I won't give you anymore to pass through your shitter. You have shat up enough.

As for your opinions on guys he is apparently "imitating", quoted because it's coming from a guy who clearly hasn't read him but is parroting what he heard on Reddit, it's likely as misinformed as it is on McCarthy.

For me, its McCarthy. Simple as.

If either of you have actually read either Proust or McCarthy I will be bitterly disappointed. The longer this goes on the greater the amusement that neither if you have read the two authors under discussion

>>22434763
>Read Wyndham Lewis's Time and Western Man, part I.
>McCarthy's syntax springs from that tradition and is directly influenced by Wyndham's buddy James Joyce.
There is little of Stein in McCarthy. McCarthy's syntax springs from the Bible and not all polysyndeton is Biblical. This should be obvious to anyone who isn't tonally deaf but I have zero confidence in you after watching you all day. Joyce exists in him largely as a generality in their word drunkenness and a mind for neologisms. You are again only throwing shit at the wall hoping something sticks. Moreover, what is achieved by trying to gesture at these apparent influences? You are trying to demean him for something that is intrinsic in writing? Is Joyce's prose his own invention? Does he have no influences? I think it's ridiculous to try to give McCarthy shit for this when he is syntactically, grammatically, diction wise among the most eccentric and unique writers in the language, at least in modern times. He is more distinctive and recognizable than Joyce or Faulkner in individual passages, whatever echoes of them they might hold.

Formally and structurally, those two aren't even visible in him, but your problem with him is that he "imitated" second rate literature. What retardation. I think your examples proved how little you speak of any substance despite waffling the whole day.

Someday pick him up once you progress past this infantile behaviour.

>>22434763
>the composition of a novel in which each chapter takes a different literary form, the virtuosistic satire of chapter XIV etc.
There's absolutely nothing original about either of those if we follow your retarded criteria of just listing various books that vary styles or have satire in it.
>There are many masters, writers who take already existing forms and produce good books with them, following the well-established patterns.
According to your pedantic shithousing, there are not "many masters" but literally all good writers without exception. Nobody is original or innovative. They are only innovative if some butthurt retard isn't butthurt about them. You are almost reaching 2000 words and you haven't said one thing anyone who has actually read a Cormac McCarthy novel would identify with. Except the very 5th grade reading of the tree of babies as evil.... durrrr

Be honest. You just got butthurt that McCarthy is seen as a unique writer and couldn't live with it. This is the diarrhea you have produced. Ironically enough, Proust comes out looking like a derivative, moping bourgeois fiction writer from the turn of the century with cliche commentaries on human mind compared to McCarthy after all these posts about his narrative habits, which was the original concern of the thread.

>>22434942
I think a lot of his challenges stem from the fact that he is an ESL, and also that he might not have read the author under discussion. They have trouble telling modes apart. Some ESL thought that Moby Dick is a Victorian novel because the prose was dense and laden with ornate, very mannered constructions. This guy seems to struggle with that too. He can't understand that words being similar but the effect completely different is the norm in all English novels of great import.

>>22434681
>the descriptions in BM, trees of dead babies, decayed scenery, desert etc., *serve* to enhance the theme of *human* evil and are in a way the imagistic entourage of the Judge -- or one could argue the reverse. Up to interpretation.
But that's precisely the argument. They are reader's projected interpretations. If you had read the book you would notice that the scene of dead babies is presented as matter of fact as a stone on the ground is. It unironically gives the whole thing an absurd comic vibe. That's the way violence throughout is treated, with a poker face. I think McCarthy used the descriptor optical democracy through the Judge somewhere in the book. It's a good description of his style. Please don't spam bad essays after misreading that one passage though.

>>22434763
Are you the favela monkey with a hard on for mediocrities like Hackett? I remember that being much too assblasted about McCarthy as well.

>>22434763
>Originality is very rare and much that is considered original in Joyce is not really so.
>you should notice I do not consider originality the only, or even the best, criterion of judgement.
Originality doesn't even exist by your criterion. But you have turned a blind eye to it because it really bothers you to give a writer his due. Imagine thinking a writer is overrated without even reading him. That guy has got you right figured out. You are a child with a child's attitude towards writing.

>>22434936
I have read both for real. Nobody can possibly give that impression of McCarthy's nuances without having read him. Which is why the ESL was so easy to figure out.

Proust doesn't write like bim bim bim bim bim

I have no idea why Robbe Grillet was even brought in into the discussion. His prose reads like stage directions or script handed over to actors for their part but without the dialogue. McCarthy never reads similar even in an actual screenplay like Ncfom. Apart from that, Grillet's books are kafkaesque in their presentation. To say they are not internal would be a straight up lie. It's literally titled jealousy, what the hell do you think they are talking about?

Flaubert also doesn't make much sense. Sure he has flights of imagery and stretches of plain descriptive prose, but you have to be really stupid to argue that a book entirely made up of just those two things would be in anyway similar to Flaubert, who is so deeply cerebral. It's like arguing that a whole book made up of just similes in every sentence would be conventional or just like any other book because all writers use similes to some degree. I mean, that's such a shit and dishonest argument.

>>22434412

Thanks for sharing.

> "Help-ho!" tier rhetoric

That's a pretty funny way to put it. The excessive theatricality found in many lines of Shakespeare's dialogue was always something I found detracted from his work. It was something I always kept to myself because I assumed that my disliking of it must be based in my preconceived notions of what serious literature should sound like ( that I picked up from all the modernist novels I was reading). But no amount of formal study of literature has ever been able to shake my gut feeling that this "help-ho" rhetoric is goofy shit that diminishes Shakespeare's, supposedly unsurpassable, treatment of the human condition, forces of nature, etc.

The only part of your presentation that puzzles me is your including Eliot in your list of scholars that have overrated Shakespeare. My impression was he that was one of the few English speaking critics who dared to put Shakespeare's preeminence into question, though my impression is shaped almost entirely by "Hamlet and His Problems" and not the wider body of Eliot's critical work.

Can't comment on the argument. But I can say The Road and Blood Meridian are the best books I've ever read. But then it's really a matter of taste.

>>22435297
How many books have you read?

>>22435262
>implying goofy shit is bad

>>22432761
time to stop posting

>>22434867
>>22435066
>This whole shit up is bullshit. They are doing things very differently. I don't know what to tell you except to read the writer.
>But that's precisely the argument. They are reader's projected interpretations. If you had read the book you would notice that the scene of dead babies is presented as matter of fact as a stone on the ground is. It unironically gives the whole thing an absurd comic vibe. That's the way violence throughout is treated, with a poker face. I think McCarthy used the descriptor optical democracy through the Judge somewhere in the book. It's a good description of his style.

Nta and not saying his method is the same as Robbe-Grillet's, but why do you think McCarthy chose (what an average person might consider) particularly gruesome objective realities to describe? Why did he choose to set the entire book in such a harsh place and time, rather than in a setting of peace and prosperity? Do you think he used aleatoric divination to make these choices, or do you think he made them with some purpose in mind? To say nothing of the *way* he goes about describing things in terms of style, which is very distinctive and thus obviously not somehow completely neutral. I think I talked to (one of) you before in a favorites thread and had a pretty interesting discussion stemming from my skepticism about McCarthy when I had admired your other choices (incl. Bely's Petersburg). I was interested by your arguments but not convinced, and the thread ended up dying. I'd love to be able to enjoy him because I like bombastic, portentous, highflown style but I find that style to be particularly odious and ill-mannered in combination with his philosophical outlook - Beckett's is an example of a style that has some of those elements but is (closer to being, at least) rigorous and self-policing enough to satisfy the standards of seriousness to which I hold any author trying to make serious philosophical claims. Basically I think he was just a bit lazy in terms of wanting to be very serious and deal with pure realities but also to benefit from a stylized aesthetic that has little in common with reality. I understand how tempting the KJV style is, it's incredibly potent, but it is only so because it carries an implied belief in the incredible weight of what is being said - and I get that he thinks his objective realities are the weightiest thing there is, but without putting his money where his mouth is and using actual divination to determine where he aims his figurative camera, he is still on the pedestrian, human side of the objective/subjective gulf.

>>22434412
I mean, I agree that Bloom is a goofball, that goes without saying. But it seems like you are highly indexed into purity in terms of your critical standards. The thing people like about Shakespeare is his multiplicity and the heights that he reaches. Most/all of the sins you enumerate are endemic to the Elizabethan drama, and are only significant through (1/2)

>>22435938
>>22434412
particular critical lenses which are foreign to his time. The point is that whatever flaws he may have had, his bounty and freedom were exceptional. You just have a more classical aesthetic taste, which is perfectly valid, but it says nothing about how Shakespeare is rated because it is rather beside the point when it comes to what most educated readers have ever actually praised about him. As for his wordplay, I would bet you could find many, many expostulations of its deeper thematic significances, though I'm not prepared at the moment to offer such a thing myself.

>>22435262
This part, I think, is particularly flawed. We all have different thresholds for what we feel rings false in terms of a writer's stylistic pitch, and Shakespeare himself of course made fun of such excesses in contemporaries. But tragedy is a genre with conventions, and that sort of thing must exist in some degree. You can condemn tragedy as a whole, but it knows what it is, and knows what purpose it serves to its audience. If you are not among that audience, so be it; I'm sure many of the late Greek philosophers turned their backs on tragedy, but I'm not so sure they really gained by doing so in the end.

Proust novels have always been a deliberate joke on his readers.

Fiction is for women.

>>22435940
huh?

>>22436033
Just a continuation of my preceding post. Forgot to add the (2/2), sorry.

>>22435938
>Beckett's is an example of a style that has some of those elements but is (closer to being, at least) rigorous and self-policing enough to satisfy the standards of seriousness to which I hold any author trying to make serious philosophical claims.
Beckett doesn't have that style and his constant self awareness is very difficult to take seriously if you aren't a schoolboy in love with schopenhauer. Combine that with his somewhat slapstick humor and the effect is the opposite of what you are describing.
> I get that he thinks his objective realities are the weightiest thing there is, but without putting his money where his mouth is and using actual divination to determine where he aims his figurative camera, he is still on the pedestrian, human side of the objective/subjective gulf.
See I think this is completely false. I remember DFW praising McCarthy precisely for that fact that prose that is written in such a manner as to appear alien to most ears but with 100% sincerity. I think what you don't agree with is the inherent profundity in the style and your inability to see the profundity in what is being written. I also think your implication with objective realities is pedestrian. It's another symbol to begin with. You're viewing McCarthy's choice of writing about violence and hardship as an example of his dealing with objective reality when that's completely wrong. McCarthy's descriptions of desert are what's closer to objective reality, but transfigured by language. There's the problem. You are expecting him to point out something obvious about the human condition in this harsh landscape, as you have learned from reading writers like Beckett who write thinly veiled opinion pieces in some ways, instead of seeing what his attempts at writing the physical world might imply phenomenologically. I think you have begun on the wrong foot altogether, even the meaning of objective reality that you are using is entirely wrong. If I remember correctly you have only read ATPH, and you didn't give a very believable account of reading even that one properly, I would suggest that you atleast go through Blood meridian once before making up an opinion.

>>22436415
Ok so your assertion is that the judge stuff is all a sort of tongue-in-cheek framing for this aesthetic presentation, one possible interpretation that he is attempting to juxtapose against the unadulterated reality? I don't have any reason to call that interpretation necessarily invalid, and it's interesting enough. But then why choose to set it in a part of the natural world whose connotations align so closely with Holden's worldview (and which is also very beautiful in a suitably important-seeming way)? Just to further contrast the appearance of hostility in the desert to what he sees as its more fundamental objective neutrality? Do you have any examples of passages where he hints toward this interpretation? If worthwhile you can clarify how I'm using objective reality as a symbol, I don't entirely see what you mean there.

P.S. I opened up BM and the first descriptive paragraph I found used three highly emotionally charged metaphors which seems to belie what you say about his style. Maybe this fits into your schema somehow but if so I'm misinterpreting you worse than I thought.

Charmed that you remembered me too btw. Not trying to be combative at all, I find that boring, you just present much more interesting arguments that the average McCarthy fan and I know for a fact that you have good taste so I'm eager to get your input on these questions since obviously I'm curious about him and I would be happy to be able to like/enjoy him.

>>22433144
>>22434282
>>22434412
>>22434681
>>22434763
So much subterfuge and dishonesty in these posts. Your knowledge on McCarthy is so general and basic as if cribbled from wikipedia, yet you find it "laughable that he could be groundbreaking" despite having likely never read the writer. How did you even pass high school with such intelligence?
>I do not dislike McCarthy
That would require reading the author. This thread is proof enough of your "infantile" attitude.

I wasn't sure about posting this, but there are some glaring dismissals of logic for pure hypocrisy that I couldn't stop myself. I want to focus on three writers that you brought up in your mad careen to stitch together this horribly argued argument: Conrad, Robbe-Grillet and Cervantes. Let's begin with Conrad.

Now Conrad does have influence on McCarthy, primarily through Faulkner. But it is your argument that makes no sense whatsoever. You are trying to argue that a book narrated by Marlowe, a narration impressed upon by Marlowe's psyche, is objective and non-human. The evidence? A description of nature. Are writers like J.A. Baker or Richard Jefferies also 'Conradian' because they wrote Landscape prose? These descriptions can be found in Cervantes too, is he Conradian as well keeping with your absurd flights of logic? This is from Ulysses:
>He watched her pour into the measure and thence into the jug rich white milk, not hers. Old shrunken paps. She poured again a measureful and a tilly. Old and secret she had entered from a morning world, maybe a messenger. She praised the goodness of the milk, pouring it out. Crouching by a patient cow at daybreak in the lush field, a witch on her toadstool, her wrinkled fingers quick at the squirting dugs.
You are implying, through your argument, that Joyce was basically the same as Conrad and Ulysses the same as Heart of Darkness. Utter bonkers. Equally ridiculous is your assumption that it was being implied that McCarthy is the first writer to write naturalistic prose, which never was, to my understanding. Perhaps this problem stems from skimming a text rather than reading it. It's difficult to say anything true about a book when singular passages are all you have to go by. In the same line of argument, a similarly naive reader may assume that landscape writers such as Richard Jefferies and J.A. Baker were doing nothing but rewriting Heart or Darkness or Ulysses, an impression that can be easily dismissed by picking up their books (for reading, not skimming). If McCarthy's outward natural writing has any cousins, it's in writers like Jefferies and Baker who are still very distant because their books are written with a very different intent and flavor, and ofc language. They are a rare breed themselves, and mostly writers of non-fiction. McCarthy bringing that mode of writing to a novelist's narrative effectively can itself be called an innovation. There is further point in this thread which will tied up in discussing Robbe-Grillet.

1/?

>>22437429
NTA
There are two styles in Blood meridian: one very grandiloquent and the second very objective and dry. The Grandiloquent style delineates the objectivity of the world through dissociation of what is described from the narrative implied through the language of its describing. Read the full thing, I imagine you will notice it. Here's an example:
>It was the judge and the imbecile. They were both of them naked and they neared through the desert dawn like beings of a mode little more than tangential to the world at large, their figures now quick with clarity and now fugitive in the strangeness of that same light. Like things whose very portent renders them ambiguous. Like things so charged with meaning that their forms are dimmed. The three at the well watched mutely this transit out of the breaking day and even though there was no longer any question as to what it was that approached yet none would name it. They lumbered on, the judge a pale pink beneath his talc of dust like something newly born, the imbecile much the darker, lurching together across the pan at the very extremes of exile like some scurrilous king stripped of his vestiture and driven together with his fool into the wilderness to die.
This, imo, is a highly ironic passage. The narrator's transformation of a scene on the desert is loaded with a portentous narrative, while in the very next line it is observed that such narration dims the object as itself, turning it into something else that is better cooked for myths. It's like the deconstruction of metaphors and similes. We see again The Judge and the idiot being turned into allusions for King Lear and his fool, but good luck to anyone trying to find a meaningful narrative where that is useful. This is why Blood meridian is considered hard to interpret. It IS about interpretation itself, but delivered fundamentally through desert imagery, rather than philosophical monologues (which are also there, mind you). Even the absurd analogical similes make much more sense once you realize that they are self reflexive.

>>22437515
Passages like that remind us that McCarthy has more in common with PJ Wodehouse than is commonly supposed.
There's the same rather dreamy world in which the 20th century isn't happening and nobody gets married, the love of biblical cadence and a willingness to write things like
>at long last came a day when Love wound his silken fetters about Hugo Carmody

>>22437636
Never read Wodehouse. Where to start?

>>22437657
I assume lovers of Blood Meridian enjoy novels involving a seemingly supernatural entity familar with all human knowledge, who anticipates all outcomes and guides his hapless followers through a series of bizarre entanglements, so you might try pic related

>>22430087
https://youtu.be/hEtR49ntj3U

>>22430280
Should've taken out your name, tripfag moron.

>>22431767
This is actually very much true.

>>22430087
>MemeCarthy antecedently, preemptively pwned by Oakley Hall....

How can MemeCarthy trannies even cope with being superseded in 1959? More than a quarter century before Blood Memeridian.

>>22430172
They are also fake, manufactured by Hollywood, and largely ahistorical. There was not all that much difference between a cowboy and any run-of-the-mill agricultural worker.

>>22438120
That's because cowboys were agricultural workers, anon. I'm amazed at how pretentious you retards can be. What do you think the word "cowboy" means?

>Charles Joseph McCarthy Jr.
>Cormac
Cringe LARP. Pass

>>22437494
How could you pass middle school (I assume you haven't passed high school) with such stupidity?
Reread the whole discussion and you will find that any obscurity in my posts is derived solely from my interlocutor's refusal to define his terms. I asked for clarity, and received no clarity.

For instance, you say;
>You are trying to argue that a book narrated by Marlowe, a narration impressed upon by Marlowe's psyche, is objective and non-human
Notice two things:
1) my interlocutor did not even seem to deny that those books (Conrad's, Flaubert's etc.) are objective; rather, he seems to have said, from what I could gather from an incoherent, rambling stream of curses in post >>22434900, that the quality he admires in McCarthy's style, namely the lack of "service to the internal", is different from objectiveness, because it has to do with how objectiveness is used.
2) notice that I had simply to **guess** what on Earth my interlocutor meant by "non-human", and simply assumed that a description of nature which in which no human interference is to be found qualifies (no human interference other than the writing itself, that is, which is arguably already *very much human*, assuming it's not ChatGPT writing, and even then).
I am educated in grammar, rhetoric, the sciences etc. I know the meaning of "alexandrine", "polysyndeton", "feet", "syllable", "sapphic", "sonnet", "accusative", even terms such as "negative capability", "death of the author" and whatnot, but such novel distinctions as the "internal" vs. the "external" and the "human" vs. "non-human" are ones I am not fully familiar with in the context of literature, and which must therefore be defined in such a way as to avoid confusion, and in such a way that we may clarify, through rigorous analysis, what constitutes a piece of "non-human prose" (???) vs. a piece of "human prose", so that we may then find out whether McCarthy really is a groundbreaking writer due to his mastery and creation of "non-human prose".

Anyway, if I did not read Blood Meridian (I did) then you certainly did not read my posts, because if you had done so you'd know I compare McCarthy with Conrad because Conrad was writing to "make you see" -- his focus was on the object, even if that object was a man named Marlow.
Also, he could write in the third-person when he so wished.

>that Joyce was basically the same as Conrad and Ulysses the same as Heart of Darkness
I am not. Reread the discussion.

>This is why Blood meridian is considered hard to interpret. It IS about interpretation itself, but delivered fundamentally through desert imagery, rather than philosophical monologues (which are also there, mind you). Even the absurd analogical similes make much more sense once you realize that they are self reflexive.
I more or less agree, but then how is it "non-human" and gives no "service" to the "internal"?
Reread the discussion.
Anyway, the whole discussion was useless because the terms were not well-defined.

>>22430087
ol maccies books are goodern tortilla
ye

>>22430170
Based famous anon.

>>22433233
Being a faggot was le being a tranny of the 19th century. MCarthy ends validating Proust.

>>22439368
What ever happened to the corncob tortilla yecarthy video?

>>22432745
this guy thinks you need to be smart to read books, what a retard

>>22439593
i am unaware of this video but i really enjoyed some of the yecarthy memes. i've read most of his work and only really cared for the border trilogy. i'm probably too retarded to get anything out of suttree and blood meridian for example. i've never read proust and i have nothing to contribute to this thread but i do appreciate adobe buildings and mexican food. ye

>>22434450
all your posts are corny as hell
muh you haven't read him ad infinitum
that other anon embarrassed your ass honestly

>>22430476
lmfaooo oh no no no cormac sisters..

>>22439279
The discussion was useless because you hadn't read the book. It's obvious.
>that the quality he admires in McCarthy's style, namely the lack of "service to the internal", is different from objectiveness, because it has to do with how objectiveness is used.
If Alain Robbe-Grillet is an objective writer like McCarthy yet is completely different from McCarthy, then yes it has to do with how objective prose is used. Unless you are suggesting Proust and Joyce are the same because both are heavily internal and use internal monologues. This shouldn't be difficult to understand if you have read the book.
>I am not fully familiar with in the context of literature, and which must therefore be defined in such a way as to avoid confusion, and in such a way that we may clarify, through rigorous analysis, what constitutes a piece of "non-human prose" (???) vs. a piece of "human prose", so that we may then find out whether McCarthy really is a groundbreaking writer due to his mastery and creation of "non-human prose"
Goddamn you are a retard. You aren't familiar because you don't read books. Assuming you had read Heart of Darkness, why don't just read Blood meridian and see how the intent and context of the prose differs. It wouldn't need so much explaining here.
>but then how is it "non-human" and gives no "service" to the "internal"?
Because the narrator's diction is eccentric and doesn't follow hierarchies that sound more normal to the human ear. The narrration is cold and detached and doesn't narrate fron the pOV of any character's personal impressions. James wood found it greatly problematic how McCarthy does free indirect speech, without realizing that McCarthy very occasionally does free indirect speech. So the narration isn't internal, it isn't free indirect speech, it is much more focused on delivering the natural world rather than the character's internal impressions and even the diction isn't mimicking exactly how anybody talks or thinks, external is a good description of it. But here you are unable to even discern how it is different from such internal writers such as Flaubert and Conrad. Dumb as shit. I guess it shouldn't be out of imaginative bounds that there can be two visual writers who are different in being external and internal. Someone like Nabokob is a perfect example of a very internal writer who is also trying to make you see. But I don't imagine anybody confused what I was implying with him. Besides, interpreting interpretation itself isn't internal. It takes an objective view of arguably a human endeavour. I still think you are gonna twist it into something stupid out of your goddamn stupidity.
>>22440234
You are probably another ones of those idiots that shit up these threads without knowing anything. Feeling vindicted second hand?

>>22439619
And you are faggot who sucks dick 24/7 so it's not like you would know.

>>22439279
>>22440482
I forgot to add this. Third person speech doesn't instantly make something objective prose, that's goddamn stupid. Conrad's third person POV uses free indirect speech extensively, as do writers like Tolstoy in War and Peace. Tolstoy's narration of events in War and Peace also avoids any immediate moralizing but it isn't free of human perspective as we dio into their minds quite often. I would reckon Tolstoy is more objective here than Conrad or Falubert, but in a different way than Grillet or McCarthy. Now I can only hope you have read War and Peace to finally get what I am trying to say. You call yourself well educated but it seems you never educated yourself in these differences.

>>22437494
I should get back to finishing this. Got side-tracked with work.
>>22439279
I will respond sometime today. Just wait. It's really fraudulent though that you are trying to get everything out of a book through these posts rather than reading it.
>Anyway, if I did not read Blood Meridian (I did)
Let's not even question this. It's not very difficult to figure out who knows what he is talking about and who doesn't. Hell, I don't even get the impression you have read Heart of Darkness after what you just said about Marlowe lol. I wish we could discuss McCarthy's writing without constantly having to defend him against baboons who are always anally sore about him but know as much about his work as an ant does. This is the the kind of anon we need more of>>22437515

>>22440596
Oops, quoted myself lol.

This is the the kind of anon we need more of>>22437429

>>22440482
>The discussion was useless because you hadn't read the book. It's obvious.
For the nth time, I have read it. Don't you get tired of repeating yourself?

>If Alain Robbe-Grillet is an objective writer like McCarthy yet is completely different from McCarthy, then yes it has to do with how objective prose is used
No, it can be because of many reasons, including diff. subject matter, and so on. There are many paragraphs in RG which do not show many stylistic differences when compared to many paragraphs in McCarthy, other than, as I said, for the Biblical/Steinian (call it what you will) use of certain devices typical of what Wyndham Lewis used to call "time-books" (call it what you will).
I agree that the overall use of those paragraphs in the context of the whole work is quite different. But I did not (still do not) know what you meant by "internal" vs. "external", nor if you meant it in terms of the whole work or simply of the isolated style (now I know you mean in terms of the whole), because you did not define your terms.

>You aren't familiar because you don't read books
I read hundreds of books in 5+ languages, but that's besides the point.
Why do you repeat yourself so much, parrot?

>Assuming you had read Heart of Darkness, why don't just read Blood meridian and see how the intent and context of the prose differs
What is the intent? What is the context?
There are many possible interpretations for that.
As I said before, one could interpret the descriptions in function of the Judge, and vice-versa, there is *no law whatsoever* preventing anyone from interpreting it like that. You seem to assume your own interp. is a scientific truth. It's not.

>The narrration is cold and detached and doesn't narrate fron the pOV of any character's personal impressions
What does it mean to narrate from the pOV of any character's impressions?
What would a narration from the pOV of a cold and detached character look like?
What is the pOV and personal impressions of the narrator in Ivan Ilich or in Homer?

>it is much more focused on delivering the natural world rather than the character's internal impressions
Same can be said for many writers, including many of those already discussed.
Again, what is the metric here?
How do you define the percentage of "internality" vs. "externality" in a literary text?

>But here you are unable to even discern how it is different from such internal writers such as Flaubert and Conrad. Dumb as shit
Your only argument is repeating, over and over again, that I: 1) have not read the book; 2) am dumb.
Yet you never give proper definitions.
You never give the proper standards through which we can analyze externality vs. internality in a piece of literary text.

Honestly, either you give straightforward definitions of what you mean the following four terms, or else you shut up:
1) externality;
2) internality;
3) human prose;
4) non-human prose.

And stop repeating yourself so much.

>>22430476
Holy Reddit

>>22440831
At this point you are asking me to explain why water is wet. You are arguing that stone feels the same because they are both tactile. I am not wasting anymore time. Just read the book, everything I have posted will make immediate sense. It will be immediately visible how it is different from ivan illyich and Homer. You only brought in Homer because you heard BM was an epic. I have read nearly everything by Stein, there is nothing remotely similar to McCarthy in her except for the generality of their weird positional syntax (which doesn't match either). If you want I can post and analyse passages from TMoA, but you feel like a waste to me. You are only going by an impression you assume is similar to what is your only map.
>What does it mean to narrate from the pOV of any character's impressions?
What would a narration from the pOV of a cold and detached character look like?
Free indirect speech or any 1st person 'pOV'.
The opposite will be... the earth shattering opposite of that. Can you separate the narration style between say War and Peace and Brothers Karamazov? If you can't then I can explain nothing to you. So much sound signifying nothing.
>As I said before, one could interpret the descriptions in function of the Judge, and vice-versa, there is *no law whatsoever* preventing anyone from interpreting it like that. You seem to assume your own interp. is a scientific truth. It's not.
You cannot interpret the book to be stream of consciousness or internal monologue. There is no law preventing it, except common sense and general intelligence. Further, you cannot possibly interpret the desert descriptions as the function of The Judge. Prove it, nobody has ever argued for this and i have read a lot of discussion regarding BM. Will also put to test how much shit you really know. If ypu are willing to stretch the book so fucking much only to keep fixed your retarded agenda against it then reading 100 books didn't save you from being a manchild.

>>22441031
You won't give the definitions, then. OK.

>Prove it
Just read the book, everything I have posted will make immediate sense.
Amazing that you shill so much for a book you haven't read.

>>22441105
>Amazing that you shill so much for a book you haven't read.
Lmao. After everything I have written about the book, only someone who hasn't read the book could possibly get to this conclusion. Thank you for validating me after all this bullshit. Thread should have ended at my visionary prophecy desu
>I know I am throwing a bone to retards to misconstrue and distort, but that's what happens when you don't read. The response to this post will prove me right.
Everything you have posted has proven me 100% right. Notice when I asked you back up your stupidity with evidence from the text, you immediately packed up. Lol.

Why are you all so nasty ? are your dicks 3 inches?

>>22441128
Lmao. After everything I have written about the book, only someone who hasn't read the book could possibly get to this conclusion. Thank you for validating me after all this bullshit. Thread should have ended at the point you refused to define your terms.

>Everything you have posted has proven me 100% right. Notice when I asked you back up your stupidity with evidence from the text, you immediately packed up. Lol.
I refuse to discuss with someone who is not willing to define such novel rhetorical terms as "human" and "non-human", and give a standard through which we can measure how much a text is "human" or "non-human", yet highly praises an author (I don't care if it's McCarthy, could be any other) as groundbreaking because he is one of the first since Shakespeare to rebel against the "internal", presumably "human", writing which supposedly characterizes most literature.

>Notice when I asked you back up your stupidity
I will not write a 4000 page essay showing how the landscape of Blood Meridian is essentially a background where the characters operate, and where the details are chosen in such a way as to enhance shall we say the 'borders' of an atmosphere which is given its central substance by the psychological element of the characters . Firstly, because I am not sure that I believe that; secondly, because I don't care all that much for the book; thirdly, because I have no patience to write 4000 words on it; **fourthly, and most importantly, because any such work of interpretation, in my experience, is essentially the result of picking and choosing, I could very well pick and choose 50 passages which "prove" that, and 50 passages which "prove" the opposite**, there simply is no point, and anyone who's read a lot of "interpretations" of famous novels will know what I'm talking about. It is, however, a perfectly doable work, and could be some random "English lit" idiot's graduation paper or whatever. There is nothing preventing one from interpreting BM as that and you know it.
I could even argue that there essentially is no separation between the two and both landscape and character, "human" and "non-human", operate in a deep symbiosis which composes the substance of the book, and argue against the possibility of separation by selecting passages where, e.g., landscape seems adequate to this or that psychological state being represented in the character either through words or situation. It's only a matter of picking and choosing.
As for me, my way of approaching literature is much more based on rigorous definitions, analysis of rhetorical devices, stylistics, analysis of the sentence and structure, etc. and has little to do with grand-statements like "McCarthy represents the external" and the "absolute object" and other pseudo-philosophical BS.

>>22441105
You are embarrassing. You have been embarrassing for the last 2 days. That must be a record.

>>22441156
>writes essays completely misrepresenting the book
>throws a hissy fit
Lol. Still spamming useless essays. This is some next level shit. Writing so much without knowing absolutely anything.
>will not write a 4000 page essay showing how the landscape of Blood Meridian is essentially a background where the characters operate, and where the details are chosen in such a way as to enhance shall we say the 'borders' of an atmosphere which is given its central substance by the psychological element of the characters.
This gives you away over and over again. Don't wanna listen to me? Literally the introduction by philip meyer in the 25th anniversary edition kills this agenda. You are so fucking retarded and dishonest that you are literally arguing against what is COMMONLY acknowledged about the work. And this retard is then throwing a hissy fit because people will not accept his retardation. It's incredible. When idiots try to concince you that Don Quixote is not satire at all, it is reaching those levels. If only waffling could change reality, but sucks for you.
>As for me, my way of approaching literature is much more based on rigorous definitions, analysis of rhetorical devices, stylistics, analysis of the sentence and structure, etc. and has little to do with grand-statements like "McCarthy represents the external" and the "absolute object" and other pseudo-philosophical BS.
Your approach to literature involves being butthurt about writers from only an impression then trying to convince people who have read the book that red is actually blue. Lol at the sentence structure, you have shown repeated incapablility of even skimming syntax by trying to fit in Gertrude fucking Stein somehow in this discussion. Stop embarrassing yourself. Spamming essays about zilch nothing won't convince anyone.
>he is one of the first since Shakespeare to rebel against the "internal", presumably "human", writing which supposedly characterizes most literature.
Quote from another critical essay on the book. Try a different hobby. This book business isn't for you. I can only bear so much. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if you told me that Ulysses is a rewrite of Hamlet because they both are internal novels and there are allusions to it in Joyce's book.

>>22441136
oh i wish, i hate having a 12 inch dick SO much.

>>22441234
>you are literally arguing against what is COMMONLY acknowledged about the work
Oh, what heresy! I am saying it's possible to disagree with what's COMMONLY acknowledged by the famously infallible McCarthy interpreters! The mighty Philip Meyer! Oh, no!

>When idiots try to concince you that Don Quixote is not satire at all
The idea of satire as also having a moral or philosophical content is very common.

>trying to fit in Gertrude fucking Stein
Read Lewis's Time and Western Man, part I and II. Joyce (Molly), Hemingway etc. spring ultimately from that and Hemingway secretly knew it and became quite enraged when Lewis pointed out that he was aping a girl.
I do not claim there was an influence on McCarthy, merely that the style and syntax are typical of a certain kind of modernist lit which was floating around when he begun writing, as is all of McCarthy to be honest, at least in Blood Meridian, which is Sam Peckinpah for poseurs (and so is Sam Peckinpah).

Anyway, you didn't define your terms rigorously because you knew if you defined them you would be opening yourself to the possibility of counterexamples that disprove your thesis about the uniqueness or at least the "groundbreaking" quality of McCarthy's writing.

>>22441289
More waffling by the retard who hasn't read the book and only going by agenda.
>what heresy! I am saying it's possible to disagree with what's COMMONLY acknowledged by the famously infallible McCarthy interpreters! The mighty Philip Meyer! Oh, no!
I agree. Blood meridian is a period romance for girls. Fucking retard.
>I do not claim there was an influence on McCarthy, merely that the style and syntax are typical of a certain kind of modernist lit which was floating around when he begun writing, as is all of McCarthy to be honest, at least in Blood Meridian, which is Sam Peckinpah for poseurs (and so is Sam Peckinpah).
You have a lot of opinions. I wish even one of them was well informed. I wish you had atleast read the writers you claim to hate so much. You are ben shapiro for retards (which is saying something). This guy nailed you in one post lol>>22434571
>Anyway, you didn't define your terms rigorously because you knew if you defined them you would be opening yourself to the possibility of counterexamples that disprove your thesis about the uniqueness or at least the "groundbreaking" quality of McCarthy's writing.
Anyway, you haven't even read the book. And even if you had it seems you simply lack the intelligence to analyze books whatsoever because I defined my terms already for non-retards. We have come full circle, vindicated what originally said. Incredible.

>>22441328
>I defined my terms already for non-retards
No, you did not. All you do is repeat the same things over and over again while refusing to define the terms through which we could come to an actual verification of your claim about McCarthy.

>>22441289
You are not arguing against a theme or alternate interpretation, retard. You are saying the equivalent of claiming Lolita doesn't have unreliable narration. Open to interpretation does not mean that you are allowed to literally rewrite a book to coincide with your fantasy. Yet you will still insist that you have read it. I hope you are only doing this ironincally or only pretending to be retarded.

>>22441400
Well it seems you are illiterate too. I have defined my terms already, all you need to do is read the book to see it (at the very least, having the intelligence for analysis is whole other ball game altogether). I keep telling you to read the book because every post that you make makes more and more clear that you have no idea what you are talking about. When I asked to verify your retarded claims through the text you threw a hissy fit, so much so that you aren't even talking about books anymore. Afraid of being found out for all to see.

>>22441409
>I have defined my terms already, all you need to do is read the book to see it
No, you didn't, and I have read the book.

>>22441403
>You are saying the equivalent of claiming Lolita doesn't have unreliable narration
Claiming Lolita doesn't have unreliable narration is certainly not the same as claiming McCarthy's style in BM is "non-human" and pays no service to the "internal".

>>22441500
>Claiming Lolita doesn't have unreliable narration is certainly not the same as claiming McCarthy's style in BM is "non-human" and pays no service to the "internal".
It's the same. As easy to know that as picking up and reading the book. In fact, it's a common complaint among many readers who don't take to the book.

Proust is out here talking sucking and fucking while McCartney is calling his novels things like "all the pretty horses" and "the orchard keeper". Pathetic and an affront to the coarse masculinity Proust recognizes but is intelligent enough to codify

>>22441500
>No, you didn't, and I have read the book.
In your dreams, retard. I don't give a shit what you think. You have proven beyond a doubt that your understanding of literature is worse than 5th graders. An absurdity exacerbated by your blind hate of things that you have no idea about because you are still a console warrior /v/ manchild at heart. You don't think he is groundbreaking? Good for you, I have no further interest in breaking your delusion. It's useless to reason with helpless idiots who are beyond reasoning. I don't think even actually reading the book would help you at this point because the only thing you have convinced people here is that you genuinely lack any sort of critical intelligence. You can go on sucking that french garbage or Cervantes, I don't think you can reasonably enjoy anything that you haven't convinced your feeble mind to not be butthurt about. That would be all the ESL trash that you shill like no tomorrow. It's insane how much trash a guy can post, and all of it from the one excerpt he read on some basket weaving forum.
Fuck off.

>>22441672
You seem to consider yourself very special for having read one of Reddit's favorite books. It's probably the hardest intellectual feat you've ever achieved, judging by how inept and confused your ideas are.

>>22441703
Back to the gay bar with you

>>22441714
This post is the hardest intellectual feat you have achieved because you have written 3000 words telling everyone in a windy, douchy way that you can't read. I maybe all of that but I am 10 times better than you lol.
>confused
Lol. You should go back to reading Mr. alain gertrude wyndham tolstoyvich homer stein joyce cuthbert Conrad Wiiliam.S. Only you can read him because he has written nothing whatsoever.

>>22441709
>>22441723
I really touched a nerve, didn't I? Looks like the Americanoid McCarthy fanboy gets really really mad, just like the little girl his daddy could never write, when he meets someone who isn't fooled by pseudo-philosophical babble about "non-human" prose and demands rigorous definitions from his interlocutors.
Go cry to your daddy's cadaver, imbecile.

>>22441726
>Assblasted for two whole days over a book he never opened the first page of.
You must be drinking all that preserved rotten cum of Proust to be throwing such sissy fits over McCarthy being a superior writer lol.
>when he meets someone who isn't fooled by pseudo-philosophical babble about "non-human" prose and demands rigorous definitions from his interlocutors.
Lol. Anything more Sire? Thou seem backwards hurt. Thou seemt unable to read.
>rigorous definitions
While posting shit that invalidates any claim there could be of any intelligent conversation. The writer famed for not psychologizing his characters has been suddenly turned into a intense psychologist because a butthurt retard with no idea about him threw a hissy fit. Lol. You can't even read and you are demanding shit from people. Lol.

>>22441735
>Thou seem
>Thou seemt
So, which one is it, my Lord?

>The writer famed for not psychologizing his characters
Who? McCarthy? Camoens? So many...

>>22441726
>I touched a nerve
>seethes for 2 days continuously

>>22441761
>throwing even more names with no business here
Makes you look an even bigger clown than you already are. You spam them as if they prove anything. You misunderstand literature on the fundamental level. Besides, acknowledging that proves you a phony poser because you were the only person arguing that the landscape was somehow representatice of character psychology. Your brain is scattered and ideas so confused it's absurd.

>>22441761
You haven't read camões either....

>Want to write and post my well read and researched follow up
>Don't want to it sully it on some dumbass with the most arbitrary, emotional arguments.
Welp, looks like the world will have to do without my post on Cervantes.

>>22430170
Moron

>>22441846
>Besides, acknowledging that proves you a phony poser because you were the only person arguing that the landscape was somehow representatice of character psychology
You cannot interpret text at all. I have never argued that, and if I did it would be easy to refute.
Reread my posts, imbecile.
Seriously, you have brain damage. Just read what I wrote.

>>22441856
Complete works, twice. Os Lusíadas... Don't know. Six times? Seven? Ten? Camões famously does not psychologize his characters, and no, he does not do it either in the Inês de Castro episode, or does so only barely. Only the gods, maybe, specially Bacchus and Venus, contain some psychological depth, but then again it's still much less than the characters of McCarthy, mostly because Camões wasn't wasn't really interested in the psychology of the individuals as much as in the historical importance of their actions.

>>22442516
You have nothing of value to say about Cervantes.

I encourage serious readers or Proust enthusiasts to read his article "Contre l'obscurité". McCarthy will eternally seethe because it exposes (bad) symbolism for what it is

>>22442576
You wouldn't know cause you don't read whatsoever.

>>22442576
>the landscape of Blood Meridian is essentially a background where the characters operate, and where the details are chosen in such a way as to enhance shall we say the 'borders' of an atmosphere which is given its central substance by the psychological element of the characters .
Long winded way of saying that landscape reveals character psychology. Forget the landscape, even the actions don't reveal any psychology after a point when the gang is basically going through motions. A fundamental part of the book is how the protagonist and gang are thrown to the side in favor of the desrt and your retarded ass thinks that it is only a background where some sort of Shakespearean character drama is being staged. Dumbass retard who doesn't know shit. You are retarded and haven't even read the book or writer that you dislike. The only thing preventing you from admitting is that you are butthurt at being made to look like a fool.

>>22442601
huh

>>22442581
One non-reader at a time, bud. Wait in line.

>>22442576
>Os Lusíadas... Don't know. Six times? Seven? Ten?
Dude, how can't you know if its six or ten? Just say 6 times and it wouldn't look like your lying.

>>22442615
He is lying. He has been doing nothing but lying. How can anyone read his opinions and the batch of writers he has picked up time and again in this thread and think "this is a well read man". It is absolutely absurd. I am not even sure he has read anything. He seems to me a reader of excerpts, and his only analysis is comparing random excerpts to see how similar they appeared to him. Look at his response to the post. He didn't respond to the accusation of his poser attitude in implying psychoanalysis on the part of a writer who is famous for avoiding it wholesale; he started posting some poet from the 16th century who "doesn't psychologize" lest McCarthy appears too unique and his agenda be damned. As if anyone was arguing for that with that comment in the first place. How much is Lusiads similar to Blood meridian? only God knows, perhaps not even of this world. This whole thread is him feeling anally raped about a writer he never read because said writer didn't agree with rimming gays in a bar or whatever it's equivalent in 19th century france.

>>22442610
Huh what, Retarded nigger?

>>22442576
>you have nothing of value to say about Cervantes
I am very certainly not like you, so that's false. It's good that you realized by yourself who the idiot with arbitrary argument was though.

>>22442615
I am in my late 20's, have been reading Camões since barely out of childhood. I hadn't bothered to count, because why would I?, but it seems to have been seven. 2010 twice, 2011, somewhere between 2012 and 2016 undoubtedly, 2017, early 2019?, during the pandemic, plus often listening to it in audibook form during bus rides, etc. Maybe I have forgotten one? Quite possible. I don't attach as much value as you do to... Reading a book.
Why does it look so special to you to... Have read a book? Do you think it's difficult or something? If it's a mathematical textbook that asks you to do proofs, might be or not, depending on the level. Otherwise easy (at least the reading, the interpretation can be difficult depending on several factors).

>>22442660
>How much is Lusiads similar to Blood meridian?
You are committing a very basic logical mistake, let me clearly explain.
1. You said McCarthy is "the [sic -- you say "the" as if he's the only one] writer famed for not psychologizing his characters", thus choosing to highlight *the (supposed) non-psychologizing aspect* of McCarthy's work;
2. I mentioned Camões, due to the fact he is similar to McCarthy in terms of *precisely that aspect*, even though it might be very dissimilar in many others, even all the others -- many in fact criticize Camões for it, and he has been accused of making "cardboard" characters with no real psychology, and on the other hand praised for his lack of preoccupation with psychology/ideas and his focus on telling the story itself (by Pound);
3. You now make a strawman out of my post, as if I had compared The Lusiads with Blood Meridian other than in one single aspect, which is the aspect you had highlighted, by asking "How **much** is Lusiads similar to Blood Meridian" as if my statement had been about quantity -- as if I had said they are **very** similar -- rather than about that one quality which they share.

>He didn't respond to the accusation of his poser attitude in implying psychoanalysis
Anon... Do you know what psychoanalysis is?
Where on earth did I even mention it?
Or do you mean... Psychological analysis? Lol.

>>22442769
You have the mind of a 12 year old. You struggle with things any 20 year old reader would intuitively make sense of and understand.

>>22442601
Read what was written immediately after the part you quoted:

>Firstly, because I am not sure that I believe that; secondly, because I don't care all that much for the book; thirdly, because I have no patience to write 4000 words on it; **fourthly, and most importantly, because any such work of interpretation, in my experience, is essentially the result of picking and choosing, I could very well pick and choose 50 passages which "prove" that, and 50 passages which "prove" the opposite**, there simply is no point, and anyone who's read a lot of "interpretations" of famous novels will know what I'm talking about. It is, however, a perfectly doable work, and could be some random "English lit" idiot's graduation paper or whatever. There is nothing preventing one from interpreting BM as that and you know it.
>I could even argue that there essentially is no separation between the two and both landscape and character, "human" and "non-human", operate in a deep symbiosis which composes the substance of the book, and argue against the possibility of separation by selecting passages where, e.g., landscape seems adequate to this or that psychological state being represented in the character either through words or situation. It's only a matter of picking and choosing.

Seriously, can't you read?

Whats the point of discussing Proust with you if no one here even read the full novel. No one here knows what it is about, exactly
>>22432704
show me another writer, spending 100 pages on describing single party, Proust is modernism

>>22430380
>>22431451
>Prout

>>22443054
>show me another writer, spending 100 pages on describing single party

Guess the book:

And then they rode to this place and this happened, and then they rode to this place and this happened, and then they rode to this place and this happened, and then they rode to this place and this happened, and then they rode to this place and this happened, and then they rode to this place and this happened, and then they rode to this place and this happened, and then they rode to this place and this happened, and then they rode to this place and this happened, and then they rode to this place and this happened, and then they rode to this place and this happened, and then they rode to this place and this happened, and then they rode to this place and this happened.

>>22442769
>late 20s
I NEED to get a gf and forget Hamlet.

>>22442852
You can't spin this shit, retard.
>I could even argue that there essentially is no separation between the two and both landscape and character, "human" and "non-human", operate in a deep symbiosis which composes the substance of the book
There is no argument, you have no idea about the book and your incredibly confused impressions in every other post prove it. You can't read your own post. It refutes you even harder so I don't know why you would even implore to read further. If there is no character psychology how could there be any symbiosis? Only a retard throwing shit at the wall could think that, that's what you are.

>>22444291
>If there is no character psychology
Do you seriously think there is NO character psychology in Blood Meridian?
Do you indeed believe that?

>>22444367
Now you want to change your argument. Just stop posting clown.
>Do you seriously think there is NO character psychology in Blood Meridian?
There is only one sustained passage on Glanton. The narration even dipping into what someone felt happens very occasionally. 995-98% is wholly external. The Landscapes are like 60% of the book. But our resident liar thinks otherwise. What trash.

>>22444367
>speak bullshit
>deny you spoke bullshit
>given proof you spoke bullshit
>"hey, doesn't my bullshit have any value?"
There is less character psychology in BM than Lusiads, not that you would know. Even if the psychological aspect in the Lusiads exists only for the Gods, it would comfortably outdo BM in abject psychology.

>>22443054
>spending 100 pages on describing single party
I can't. There is no serious writer who is dumb enough to do it and I don't read shitty french romance novels.

>>22444385
>>22444398
How exactly do you define psychology?
I do not think it is a commonly accepted point at all that there is no character psychology in Blood Meridian.

>Now you want to change your argument
Isn't your point about the "non-humanity" of the book based ultimately on that, the lack of psychology?
Then I believe I may have arrived at your definition of "non-human" prose, i.e., lack of psychology, so we are very much within the argument, and perhaps progressing.
But then how do we define psychology?

Would you not say that the series of actions and reactions of the characters as well as their dialogues are enough to provide some rather rich psychological constructions?

>>22444412
Also, if there is no psychology, is that not a failure on the part of the book?
Why use human characters if they will simply lack any kind of humanity, i.e., psychology?
Why not employ animals, such as Jack London did?
I am honestly baffled that someone thinks McCarthy wrote a 300 page novel and gave the characters no sort of psychological existence whatsoever.

>>22444412
Read the book, retarded donkey. Your arguments aren't even stable.
>Would you not say that the series of actions and reactions of the characters as well as their dialogues are enough to provide some rather rich psychological constructions?
That's the reader's projection. You can analyze everything to shit that way. Nobody's stopping you. If the writer's intent is to only reveal the event rather than what is the motivation behind the event then it is not the writer who is psychologizing. Despite all that, most interpreters agree that most characters in BM aren't psychologically significant. The two characters who are the main show: The Judge and The Kid, are ciphers which is part of their allure.
>think it is a commonly accepted point at all that there is no character psychology in Blood Meridian.
Don't post more uneducated bullshit, nigger. It IS commonly accepted and is a frequent complaint by people such as yourself because McCarthy didn't follow 600 years of history. How could you even know that without even reading the book, let alone reading secondary literature about the book? This is so enormously stupid.

>>22444432
>Also, if there is no psychology, is that not a failure on the part of the book?
That's what's groundbreaking about it. Now don't get burthurt about the word 'groundbreaking' and spam more bad, ignorant essays about the book from more scatterbrained assumptions.
It's hilarious how many moods you are going through in this thread, a thread in which you are arguing against something you never even read. Absurdist fiction can be written out of this thread lol.
>I am honestly baffled that someone thinks McCarthy wrote a 300 page novel and gave the characters no sort of psychological existence whatsoever.
It escapes your pea sized brain is why you aren't a writer. This is so funny how you have literally changed what you were saying some hours ago.
>You cannot interpret text at all. I have never argued that, and if I did it would be easy to refute.
>Reread my posts, imbecile.
And immediately posted your comment where you were exactly arguing just that. Retard.

>>22444432
>Why use human characters if they will simply lack any kind of humanity, i.e., psychology? Why not employ animals, such as Jack London did?
Because the Glanton gang was an historical entity and it wasn't composed of bears. And McCarthy does employ them as animals, non-figuratively, but it's unlikely you would know about the animal man as a juxtaposition to the rational man.