[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 25 KB, 300x381, trolls trolling trolls.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1151341 No.1151341 [Reply] [Original]

How long will the Nobel Prize committee continue to troll America? I don't mean to sound like a nationalistic prick but the last time we got the prize in literature was 1993 and it was Toni Morrison. I'm not saying the previous winners weren't good, Orhan Pamuk is excellent for example. But they need to give credit to some great American authors like Pynchon, it would be interesting to see how he would accept the award, he likely wouldn't do it in person.

>> No.1151348
File: 20 KB, 341x321, artist_stare.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1151348

How long before a small group of people quit channeling positions of power and status to hold disproportionate levels of power in society?
I don't think there will be an end, to be honest

>> No.1151350

Junot Diaz will be the next American Nobel Prize winner, infa 100%. He has almost everything they look for: brown skin, born in a shithole, writes about the oppressive politics of that shithole. The only thing he's missing is a vagina.

>> No.1151355
File: 3 KB, 109x126, favre pants on the ground.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1151355

>my face when they give it to Jonathan Frazen.

>> No.1151359

i ain't even gonna play, i love that they keep not giving it to roth

he can write and all but fuck that guy

>> No.1151360

they hate us for our freedom

>> No.1151367

>>1151359

u mad cause no one will pay you to right down your sexual fantasies

>> No.1151368

This is the same committee that gave Obama an award for not being George Bush right?

I dont think they will ever stop trolling us.

I would love it if they gave the award to Pychon just so he could accept it with a paper bag over his head.

>> No.1151369

>>1151368

The committees are different for each prize.

>> No.1151371

>>1151369
it's all blood money from inventing dynamite handed out by marxists to marxists (lol)

>> No.1151373

Not pretentious enough, Americunts.

>> No.1151375

>>1151368
It`s not the same commitee. The reason why some great authors never get it is because the will of nobel states some guide lines they have to follow, it`s not just the "best" authors.

>> No.1151376

>>1151350
This. If you're not part of some sort of minority and/or female chances of getting the prize are low.
That is because they're not able to get nobel prizes in science, so the committee wants to make up for that by giving them as many nobel peace/literature prizes as possible.

>> No.1151380

>>1151350
You forgot mediocrity.

>> No.1151384

White Male? Automatically disqualified.

>> No.1151393

This is just retarted, a couple of years ago the commitee were criticised for only choosing males from western Europe. Recently they tried to expand their horizon, but 9/10 winners the last 10 years have been european and 6/10 males.

>> No.1151415

>>1151393
Let's see:
2000 - Xingjian, CHINESE
2001 - Naipaul, INDIAN
2002 - Kertesz, EASTERN EUROPE
2003 - Coertzee, SOUTH AFRICA
2004 - Jelinek, WOMAN
2005 - white, english-speaking male
2006 - Pamuk, TURK
2007 - Lessing, WOMAN
2008 - Clezio, french
2009 - Müller, WOMAN

So we have exactly 2 white, western males, one being french and the other one being british, not a single american.
Doesn't seem biased to you?

>> No.1151419

Give it to Tao Lin.

>> No.1151423

>>1151415
I would say coetze is a white western male even though he is south african, and the list is pretty fair when it comes to diversity, it`s not like a white man can`t win. I agree about the americans though.

>> No.1151424
File: 39 KB, 562x437, ohwow.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1151424

>>1151419

>> No.1151425

>>1151415
No, it doesn't seem biased, you seem to have delusions of prejudice when in fact the Nobel committee has their own criteria for selection and I doubt seriously that nationality or gender figures into it very much. Seriously what are you a neo-nazi? Must we secure a future for white children or whatever? Suck it up, white males from the west are no longer especially dominant in literature, and I for one think that is fine. Also, who gives a fuck about Nobel Prizes I mean they snuff all of the best writers anyway (well, Faulkner was great and he got one, but I don't put too much value on that award it's like caring who won the oscar)

>> No.1151428

Maybe america is a great, bloated beast on it's way down and is no longer producing anything of interest or value.

>> No.1151429

Blame your own country, everything it produces from literature to movies is The A-team-remake-level

>> No.1151431

>>1151425
>Suck it up, white males from the west are no longer especially dominant in literature

0/10. Keep working at it bro.

>> No.1151434

>>1151428
>>1151429
America has the greatest living authors.

>> No.1151441

>>1151431
Keep working at what? I'm not trying to troll--literature isn't dominated by the western white male like it once was, and I don't see why it even should be. I don't really get the point of bitching about this, giving so much importance to award winning is not the mark of anyone who gives a damn about literature. Literature is not supposed to be so competitive, and I honestly can't think of a recent american author who deserves the nobel prize any more than the people who have actually won it, can you? I guess pynchon is okay, not so great that he got cheated.

>> No.1151443

>>1151434
Which ones are those? Seriously, I'm curious.

>> No.1151448

LOL to anyone who takes the Nobel Prize seriously as it is all biased bullshit

>> No.1151451

>>1151425
>Seriously what are you a neo-nazi?

Butthurt non-white detected.
I'm not a "neo-nazi", I'm not even slightly racist. However, people like Pynchon or Roth would have gotten the prize long ago, were they not white, american males.
The committee keeps giving the price to unknown, mediocre female/shitskin authors.

>> No.1151454

>2000 - Xingjian, CHINESE

Actually, French. But they needed somebody from Asia, you're right.

>2001 - Naipaul, INDIAN
>2002 - Kertesz, EASTERN EUROPE
>2003 - Coertzee, SOUTH AFRICA
>2004 - Jelinek, WOMAN

Fair enough.

>2005 - white, english-speaking male

Jews are only *technically* white.

>2006 - Pamuk, TURK
>2007 - Lessing, WOMAN
>2008 - Clezio, french
>2009 - Müller, WOMAN

You're missing the point here. It's all about POLITICS. It's political correctness in some of these cases, like Müller and Jelinek, who are hardly world-class writers. On the other hand, Doris Lessing may have ovaries, but she's also an aggressively political writer.

Likewise Harold Pinter, who hadn't written anything good in about 20 years, but who had devoted the last 20 years of his life to making ignorant obnoxious complaints about America.

They would never give it to Pynchon or Franzen because they're not political in a way that Swedes take an interest in. Just like they didn't take the faintest fucking interest in Obama, they just realized he wasn't George Bush.

>> No.1151467

>>1151451

>>not even slightly racist
>>shitskin

You herped pretty hard there. Not sure if you herped so hard you derped, but a doctor could tell you.

>> No.1151470

>>1151454
>Just like they didn't take the faintest fucking interest in Obama, they just realized he wasn't George Bush.
Are you referring to the nobel peace prize?
That one is norwegian.

>> No.1151471

>>1151443
Philip Roth
Thomas Pynchon
Cormac McCarthy
Don Delillo
Tom Wolfe
Gore Vidal
Michael Cunningham

>> No.1151476

>>1151467
Probably spent too much time on /int/.

>> No.1151482

>>1151467
I was actually searching for a less offensive word there, but after trying third world or non-white I just typed shitskin.
That doesn't render my point invalid, does it?

>> No.1151491

>>1151471
Cormac McCarthy is mediocre, Gore Vidal is even worse. I can't comment on Pynchon, but from what I have heard he seems to be doing something that has been done to death (the experimental novel, i mean the last bastion of Modernist literature) I don't know Delilo but Tom Wolfe are you fucking kidding me? You didn't even mention Joyce Carol Oates who is really an amazing novelist. I would say that the international community has most of your list beat, and not even by a small margin. For instance: Michel Houellebecq, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, John Lindqvist, Catherine Breillat, Slavoj Zizek, Mikhail Shiskin, Rohinton Mistry...etc.

>> No.1151496

>>1151471
wait... you seriously want to nominate Cormac McCarthy for the nobel prize?


ahahahahahahahahahahah

>> No.1151499

>>1151491
>>1151491
>Cormac McCarthy is mediocre

Read Suttree.

>> No.1151504

>>1151496
Where did I state that? Funny thing is he is probably one the more likely ones to get it.

Also, Suttree and Blood Meridian are 2 of the greatest novels written in the last 50 years.

>> No.1151510

>>1151491
>Michel Houellebecq

LOL, stopped reading there..

>> No.1151518

>>1151499
I will, but I must say that I thought The Road was excrutiatingly bad and overly sentimental and Blood Meridian was a hamfisted attempt at a statement on violence written by an armchair soldier. Both of them showed a lack of elegance, and McCarthy really seems to try to give us this bare, spartan type of narrative and language but it just comes across as incompetent. I'll look into Suttree though because I haven't read it or even really thought of it until now.

>> No.1151519

>>1151491

>Michel Houellebecq

Get the fuck out of here, Houellebecq is a second-rate nihilist turning over the leftovers of older transgressive writers, hoping desperately that he can still shock _somebody_. The only good thing he's ever written was the ending to The Elementary Particles (which was good enough for me to force myself through The Possibility of an Island, god why).

>John Lindqvist

HAHAHAHA WHAT

NO

>Zizek

Ah, so you're one of _those_

>Mikhail Shiskin

Fuck yes

>Rohinton Mistry

Proud of Canada :3

>> No.1151522

>>1151510
>thinks casual dismissal is a refutation
lol you are really a loser. You didn't stop reading, you just didn't recognize any of the other names and you haven't read anything by Houellebecq, i'm guessing you have just heard the haters on /lit/ or read a review or something, is that about right?

>> No.1151523

>>1151518

>bare, spartan type of narrative and language

I dont think you read Blood Meridian

>> No.1151524
File: 80 KB, 576x432, ijustbluemyself.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1151524

>>1151504
Also, Suttree and Blood Meridian are 2 of the greatest novels written in the last 50 years.

>> No.1151525

>>1151471
>Gore Vidal

lawd jesus

>> No.1151533

>>1151519
Have you read Handling the Undead by Lindqvist? It's amazing...Also I understand your arguments against Houellebecq, I really do, but I would say he is at least five times better than Cormac McCarthy or Gore Vidal. Especially vidal, because everything you've said about Houellebecq is so much the truer about him (i don't think you were the one who made those choices, but those were the ones I was contesting) Also, Zizek is a truly engaging political/cultural theory writer and I think haters are just going to hate on that one. I realize my tastes aren't exactly refined, but those writers to me are much better than anything the US has to offer at the moment. Anything that i'm aware of anyway.

>> No.1151535

>>1151491
>John Lindqvist
>Michel Houellebecq

Zombies, Vampires, and science fiction... wow.

>Catherine Breillat

A filmmaker first and a decent novelist second

>Slavoj Zizek

A philosopher.

>Gabriel Garcia Marquez

You got one.

>> No.1151537

>>1151523
Well, I was trying to say in a nice way that he just uses a lot of sentence fragments to convey ''manliness''.

>> No.1151544

>>1151518
>>1151518
>Blood Meridian was a hamfisted attempt at a statement on violence

It was a lot more than a statement on violence, read some critical essays. Don't see how it was hamfisted either.

>> No.1151549

>>1151535
Well, does philosophy not qualify for the nobel prize? I really don't know...Sciencefiction/horror can be great literature, it just usually is not. Breillat's novels are better than her books.

>> No.1151556

>>1151544
His use of language is hamfisted, it is ineloquent (dem fragments) and it reminds me of Bukowski writing poetry, excusing his lack of ability on the rawness of content. Basically, Blood Meridian just was not my cup of tea, I prefer writers who approach language poetically. I can't say that I got much out of it other than his hammering home the idea that humanity is essentially violent and amoral, which is a message that I find incredibly flawed, especially in the hands of McCarthy who i think is second rate.

>> No.1151558

>>1151549

I'm pretty sure the only non-fiction writer to get it was Churchill.

>> No.1151563

>>1151556
>His use of language is hamfisted, it is ineloquent (dem fragments) and it reminds me of Bukowski writing poetry, excusing his lack of ability on the rawness of content. Basically, Blood Meridian just was not my cup of tea, I prefer writers who approach language poetically.

I'm 100% sure you didn't read the novel now.

>> No.1151570

>>1151563
Just because I disagree with you? Imagine! people can perceive the same thing in different ways! seriously, man, mccarthy just isn't that good in my estimation. I could go quote the book and make an ass out him, but I really have other things I would like to do.

>> No.1151587

>>1151570
What you are saying, doesn't describe the book.

>> No.1151597

>>1151587
lrn2subjectivity I think it describes the book perfectly. Honestly, there is a matter of taste at hand. I think McCarthy used a lot of boorish platitudes to flesh out his characters, and the sentence structure is abysmal in both Blood Meridian and The Road. People tell me it's experimental, or real, or whatever but I think it just reads like total shite. I like novelists like Faulkner who can write with a certain poetic elegance, and still be truel experimental. Faulkner is not my favorite, either. I'm just saying, to me McCarthy is terrible. What is it that you saw in it that was so great? feel free to give quotes from the book that are in any way poetic...

>> No.1151612

>>1151587
I'll elaborate. You say you prefer authors who language poetically. That implies that Blood Meridian isn't poetic. Well Blood Meridian is well known for it's poetic and biblical prose. Not for being bare, it's in fact the opposite. I can easily conclude you have never read the novel.

>> No.1151616

>>1151597
>>1151597
>and the sentence structure is abysmal in both Blood Meridian and The Road.

More evidence that you have never read Blood Meridian, the books are absurdly different.

>> No.1151619

Pynchon would outright refuse the award as Sartre once did. In hopes of ending the days of art-as-commodity.

>> No.1151626

>>1151597
>>1151597
>I like novelists like Faulkner who can write with a certain poetic elegance

Once again, more evidence you have never read anything outside of The Road or perhaps No Country. You would know that early on McCarthy had a very similar style to Faulkner.

>> No.1151633

>>1151612
''well known'' that is not a statement of fact, but of popular opinion with which I disagree. Biblical prose notwithstanding. You are just contesting that I read the book because I don't think McCarthy is writing poetically. There are people well known as ''poets'' who I do not think are capable (such as Lawrence Ferlinghetti and Charles Bukowski, for instance). Seriously, put up or shut up--give me a quote from Blood Meridian that is poetic, or that you consider poetic. I have read the book, and it was sparsely written. I don't think we agree on what poetry is, so it probably doesn't matter.
>>1151616
Two books which are different can both be bad. It isn't that complicated.

>> No.1151641

Subjectivity cannot be used as an excuse every time you fuck up. This is one of those instances where you don't get to use it.

>> No.1151643

>>1151626
Hahahahah you are really mistaken--mccarthy may be compared to Faulkner, but that is a false comparison. I realize that McCarthy has won some critical praise and somebody may have stupidly placed him in the same universe as Faulkner, but if you read each of them with any kind of honesty you will see how much greater Faulkner is, and how very very different. US literature is hurting for a new hero, and I think McCarthy is the abitrary ''chosen one'', for whatever reason (I know he is popular, and some critics like him) Personally, I think he is kind of a hack and comparing him to Faulkner is like spitting in the face of literature.

>> No.1151647

>>1151641
>doesn't know what subjectivity means
i'm not using it as an excuse for a fuck up, but indicating that the anon who is battling heroically for his lady Cormac that in the end he just disagrees with my subjective opinion on a novel and that he really can't disprove how I feel about it.

>> No.1151648

>>1151633
>I have read the book, and it was sparsely written.

No it wasn't, seriously. No one has ever said that about Blood Meridian, ever. That has never been a complaint, ever.

>> No.1151652

>>1151647

Whether you like it or not is subjective. How the book was written is not subjective.

>> No.1151653

>>1151647
I don't care that you don't like the novel, but I do believe you have not read and instead are confusing it with a different McCarthy book, perhaps No Country.

>> No.1151655

Those who praise McCarthy earn the gape ov's grave. They ask for the reply Hitlor ga

>> No.1151657

"The floor of the playa lay smooth and unbroken by any track and the mountains in their blue islands stood footless in the void like floating temples."

>> No.1151663

>>1151648
I am making the complaint, and just so you know something can be both sparse and adorned, which is what i'm saying. Sure, it isn't barren, but it lacks real depth so it is sparse. >>1151652
I'm not talking about how it was written, but how I perceive it's content
>>1151653
Haven't read it, but honestly why is McCarthy so preoccupied with a certain macho character? I think he's a total closet-case.

>> No.1151666

>>1151657
That is really crap. I can see that he is trying to sound like Faulkner, but he is really a clown. I don't know, it just sounds really juvenile to me, like babbys first imagery. I don't get what you people see in him. You should probably all read Faulkner instead.

>> No.1151670
File: 16 KB, 310x376, nabokov.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1151670

>>1151663

>Derivative writers seem versatile because they imitate many others, past and present. Artistic originality has only its own self to copy.

>> No.1151673

Random quote from Blood Meridian:

"The seep lay high up among the ledges, vadose water dripping down the slick black rock and monkeyflower and deathcamas hanging in a small perilous garden. The water that reached the canyon floor was no more than a trickle and they leaned by turns with pursed lips to the stone like devouts at a shrine."

>> No.1151676

>>1151670
Interesting, but Bertolt Brecht kind of refutes it.

>> No.1151681

>>1151673
Seriously, no real structure and he uses adjectives like a teenage boy writing an essay for class. Lots of adjectives=/=poetic imagery. How is a garden perilous?!!?!?!?!?

>> No.1151683

This is a rather boring troll. Why are you people feeding him? Go back to complaining about WASPs being marginalised in the modern world.

>> No.1151687

>>1151666
>You should probably all read Faulkner instead.

I have already read the 4 great Faulkner novels.

>> No.1151695

>>1151687
Well, then, move along to greener pastures cowpoke time ta move down the perilous, dust-choked trail off into the crimson and sienna sky. Seriously, though, there are much better writers than McCarthy. Or I just don't get his appeal. I think he sucks, big time.

>> No.1151696

>>1151681
>How is a garden perilous?!!?!?!?!?

It's hanging over an edge. You can't even read.

>> No.1151706

>>1151696
Perilous means something like endangered. I think he meant to use precarious, honestly, which is more suggestive of insecurely placed (as in on the edge of a cliff)

>> No.1151708

I love how the most articulate he has been about his dislike of McCarty has been 'he sucks' and you all continue to feed him.

>> No.1151709

>>1151695
You are a condescending idiot. Seriously, that's pretty much all there is to it. You have never read the novel because your complaints about it showed that. Now you have changed your complaints once I quoted some exerts. Fuck off.

>> No.1151713 [DELETED] 

>>1151706
>>1151706
>Perilous means something like endangered.

It;s endangered because it's handing off a ledge.

>> No.1151719

>>1151706

>Perilous means something like endangered.

No

-ous is a suffix meaning full of

Perilous means "full of peril"

>> No.1151721

>>1151709
No, what I said before are exemplified by the clumsy and obnoxiously written prose you quoted. I can't believe that you're refutation of my opinion is ''you must not have read the novel because if you had you would be dickriding cormac just like me''
>>1151708
I love how you fail at reading comprehension, or else did not read what I have written, then you make non-refutations at a strawman and feel smug about it.

>> No.1151725

>>1151706
>Perilous means something like endangered.
>>1151696
>It's hanging over an edge

Wow... you really can't read.

>> No.1151733
File: 105 KB, 650x484, 1284528227980.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1151733

>>1151643
Mccarthy read, was inspired by, and in some ways imitates Faulkner. Just because you think Faulkner is far better doesn't mean it's a false comparison, you fucking retard. are you retarded? seriously? How are you going to call it a false comparison on the grounds you stated? Get off of lit, you stupid fucking child. That is one of the most retarded posts I've read, completely falsed based on illogical and arbitrary premises. You don't even know how to think, fucktard. Don't write until your brain can turn on. people like you fucking disgust me. once more: your post was objectively wrong and you are a moron.

>> No.1151739
File: 379 KB, 446x600, 1277222902247.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1151739

>Perilous means something like endangered.

We're done here, everyone go home.

>> No.1151743

>>1151733
U are officially mad, and just because I profaned your Saint Mccarthy. Fuck's sake, i can clearly see that McCarthy imitates Faulkner, but he does it so poorly that to compare the two is disrespectful of Faulkner.
>>1151725
Seriously, bro, he meant to use ''precarious'' which is much closer to ''hanging over a ledge'' than ''perilous'

>> No.1151752

>>1151721
SEE:
>>1151653

>> No.1151753

>>1151743

>Seriously, bro, he meant to use ''precarious'' which is much closer to ''hanging over a ledge'' than ''perilous'

Deathcamas are life-threatening plants.

I see you can't read, either.

>> No.1151756

OP, Borges never got one. Henry Kissinger did. Nobel Prizes aren't all.

>> No.1151762

>>1151753
No, you see that I am not an amateur botanist, that is all. Still, using perilous to describe a garden is just wasteful and it is certainly not poetic, but a failed attempt at poetry--the original argument was that it is perilous because it is on the edge of a cliff to which i responded precarious would be a more fitting term and now you tell me I should know my life threatening plants oh lawd.

>> No.1151770

>>1151753
Awesome, I get to read awesome poetic prose and learn about cool fauna. Double win.

>> No.1151772

>>1151752
oh, sorry, it's getting a bit confusing who I am arguing with at this point. there are so many rabid mccarthy fans on /lit/ and I think he is overrated and someone suggested he should win the nobel prize so I felt it necessary to state my distaste for his writing, that is all.

>> No.1151781

They will never give the award to Pynchon for the simple reason that he would either not accept it or send someone with an insane troll speech to accept it for him (see http://www.thomaspynchon.com/gravitys-rainbow/extra/corey.html))

>> No.1151783

>>1151762

>deathcamas
>death

I see your mental faculties aren't even capable of inferring from diction.

>> No.1151785

>>1151762
That's fine, I think perilous sounds better.

>> No.1151791

>>1151772
That's fine. Now shut up. You never read Blood Meridian, but you would hate it if you did. I'm fine with that.

>> No.1151792

>>1151783
Yes, because words are always precisely descriptive of the object they are used to describe. I see you are an amateur linguist, as well. Either way, poisonous plants in a garden would suggest on their own the danger of the garden (danger only to people who eat plants without knowing what they are) and so using ''perilous'' to describe the garden is both needless and redundant.

>> No.1151802

>>1151791
The funny thing is I have read it, and having read it I disliked it. You people are using religious pseudo-logic. ''you disagree with the scriptures? well, you must have never read it!!!'' For fucks sake, does McCarthy really need defending so badly? He is a terrible writer, he uses too many unnecessary adjectives which is amateur, he tells what he could show and his sentence construction is grade-school level (which gets passed off as somehow innovative which it isn't)

>> No.1151804

>>1151785
Well, I can respect that.

>> No.1151808

>>1151415
>2008 - Clezio, french

After Clezio won, i really felt like the nobel committee was just biased. that was the year where Horace engdahl made those comments about american literature:

>"Of course there is powerful literature in all big cultures, but you can't get away from the fact that Europe still is the center of the literary world ... not the United States,


>Speaking generally about American literature, however, he said U.S. writers are "too sensitive to trends in their own mass culture," dragging down the quality of their work.

>"The U.S. is too isolated, too insular. They don't translate enough and don't really participate in the big dialogue of literature," Engdahl said. "That ignorance is restraining."

Now on the one hand, Clezio, who lives half the year in America anyways -- what's the evidence that he deserved it? Well, after he got the prize the new yorker rushed to translate and publish one of his short stories. I read it, and it was horrible, pretentious crap with overly wrought symbolism. (similar to my opinion of v.s. naipaul, another renowned writer who i've only read part of).

On the other hand, Engdahl is kind of right. We don't read the literature of other countries. how many people here even know who Victor Pelevin is? we translate only the tiniest amount of foreign literature. no one can deny the u.s. is self-centered.

maybe our literature seems better to us than it is because we don't read anything from other countries.

and yet. everything they say seems so tinted with general scandinavian anti-american attitudes, I can't take any of it seriously in the slightest. part of me just thinks they're a bunch of jealous fags.

>> No.1151814

>>1151802
>>1151802
>The funny thing is I have read it, and having read it I disliked it

If true, that's fine.. but how you described gave me the impression you did not.

>> No.1151815

>>1151802

>thinks perilous means endangered
>misses obvious clues in diction

Please shut the fuck up. Your critical faculties are severely lacking if this thread is anything to go by.

>> No.1151822
File: 11 KB, 187x182, faulkner2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1151822

>>1151802

i don't even like mccarthy. all i read is the road which was okay I guess.

tell me, what books have you read by faulkner?

>> No.1151829

>>1151815
I gave a quick, cursory definition of perilous, and I would say more expansively that it posseses the quality of danger, and anyway an obvious clue of diction it is not. You really are making too many ad hominems and meanwhile, I am making a great case against your favorite writer and buttbuddy.

>> No.1151838

>>1151822
As I Lay Dying, The Sound and the Fury, and Light in August. I'm not a Faulkner scholar, but anyone who has taste can see his obvious superiority to the imitator McCarthy.

>> No.1151846

ITT: ''I don't like McCarthy, and here is why I have that opinion''
''FFFFFFUUUUU MCCARTHY CAN DO NO WRONG''
i'm out, seriously.

>> No.1151893

>>1151846

"McCarthy is a bad writer because he is bad and dumb and I don't like him and also perilous is a synonym for endangered. BAWWWWWW"

>> No.1151923
File: 28 KB, 310x450, absalom51.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1151923

>>1151838

Okay, you read three books. That's nice. Can you not be so pretentious with the rest of your post though? Because maybe if you'd read more Faulkner, you would like him less. Maybe if you'd read more McCarthy, you'd like him more.

All I can tell you is that in the genealogy of American literature, McCarthy, who is undeniably one of the best Americans currently alive, branches off from Faulkner. whether you like him or not is irrelevant. To use Faulkner as some sort of golden idol of literature is stupid -- he was just a person, and people hated his books when they came out as well.

I'm trying to be polite because I really want you to stop writing on this lit board like a pretentious fag.

As for Faulkner, he's one of my faves. Absalom, Absalom! is the best, some say, and I loved it more than Sound and Fury or Light in August or As I lay dying. I'm currently reading The Wild Palms and loving it.

>> No.1151934

>>1151923
I hate to say it, but you really use pretentious in the wrong way. I was being totally sincere. I was not using Faulkner as an idol, only stating that the comparison between he and McCarthy is overstated. I think McCarthy is a very poor writer, and this is because I have a sense of aesthetics that is clearly incompatible with his choices as a writer. I've stated a few reasons why I dislike his prose (the sloppy sentence construction, the over-use of adjectives and his over-all bluntness I find to be shit) I will also add to that, his common trope of rugged individualism (I won't debate this, I will say that I think rugged individualism is a hollow idea which is very attractive to a certain kind of person), his obvious borrowing from Faulkner (poorly executed in my opinion) and his relatively constant story content (the survivalist, a harsh environment, otherness as a negativity, idealised manhood, bleak depictions of violence) I am really not trying to sound pretentious, as I have said I am quite sincere in this opinion. I think McCarthy is completely over-hyped and so when i'm on /lit/ I feel I can at least state this opinion to people who care about such opinions. Anyway, I don't see why you're trying to show that you know more about Faulkner than me because I already said I'm no expert. I appreciate your candor.

>> No.1152195

>>1151934

sigh, well now i like you. /lit is the best

>> No.1152221

>>1152195
Thanks, I like you too. I never get to discuss books with people IRL and to be honest even talking about writers I don't like very much is strangely fulfilling.