/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.1833057]

Started reading "No Country for Old Men" and can't get past the first few pages, because the author just fucking sucks at writing. I know it's Cormac McCarthy and he's supposed to be big business, but holy fucking hell...
"He sat down and he took a shit and he wiped his ass and he liked it." Not an exact quote, but every single sentence is written like that. I this just his worst book or is he not even worth reading?

I really liked the very beginning, where the old sheriff talks about the kid he sent to a gas chamber. But what's with him using "should of" instead of "should have"? I thought only /b/tards were thick enough to write like that, but I seem to have been proven wrong.

Anyway, that's me venting. Comments?

[Anonymous No.1833064]

[Anonymous No.1833066]

Cormac McCarthy is just a bad writer, who was promoted because of the films, and because of Harold ''jew'' Bloom and because bro's who are instinctively anti-intellectual saw his books @ the college bookstore and now they feel like he is the greatest writer since dr.seuss.

[Anonymous No.1833067]

>>1833064
Not sure if stupid or just trollin'.

[Anonymous No.1833069]

>>1833066
Well, that explains everything. Sucks, because the movie was amazing. Was hoping the book would be a pleasant read, but the sentence structures are just nagging at me.

[Anonymous No.1833070]

>>1833069
Yeah certain books are better of as films, you know?

[Anonymous No.1833072]

The Great Gatsby also has some 'should of's in dialog. Needless to say, those weren't the books brightest moments.

[Anonymous No.1833073]

>>1833057
To think about it, Hunter S. Thompson had an amazing writing style. And he was a junkie.

[Anonymous No.1833074]

No Country for Old Men is a minor McCarthy work. He probably just wanted some money and made a thinly veiled movie script.

Read Blood Meridian (his best by a mile) or All the Pretty Horses (good and a very accessible) or Suttree.

sage because this thread is filled with degenerates

[Anonymous No.1833075]

Can someone recommend me a writer with a similar style to that of Hunter S. Thompson?

[Anonymous No.1833077]

>>1833075
L.F. Celine

[Anonymous No.1833079]

>>1833073
> Hunter S. Thompson had an amazing writing style.

Wasn't it though? It was so fucking beautiful.

[Anonymous No.1833087]

>>1833074
Yeah, them degenerates promoting the feudal social model with their aversion toward glorious realist literature! Revolution!

[Anonymous No.1833094]

>>1833087
>realist
>misogynistic perspective
pick one

[Anonymous No.1833100]

>>1833079
Yup. He knew exactly how to arrange the sentences, and that gave the text a great flow.

Also, the "One of life's own prototypes" thing was a great passage.

[Anonymous No.1833111]

[Anonymous No.1833112]

So using "should of" makes the author stupid? Perhaps he did it deliberately and not out of ignorance? This thread is dicks.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1833122]

it's okay cos he's writing shit on purpose

don't you know? that's what all great writers do.

they are shitty writers on purpose

so d333p

[Anonymous No.1833131]

>>1833112
kind of does.

[Anonymous No.1833135]

>>1833122
http://vocaroo.com/?media=vTVuofBNGcy7eEQzO

Hey there, buddy!

[Anonymous No.1833136]

I hate it when authors use regional accents in literature. It seems really try-hard.

Steibeck is also guilty of this, in e.g. Grapes of Wrath, I'm sure I remember one or two characters using "c/w/should of".

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1833143]

>>1833131
not really though

[Anonymous No.1833151]

Plot summary:
A well-spoken Texan stumbles upon a cache of money, which, despite his top class education, he is still in dire need of. In deciding to keep it, he incurs the wrath of a lethal pedant and endangers his posho girlfriend. A detective, as thorough about grammar as he is about the law, fights a desperate fight to save the lives of all those embroiled.

[The Master !oKVZQzhloE No.1833159]

>>1833077

>Comparing Hunter Shit Thompson to Celine.

[Anonymous No.1833163]

>>1833159
>Cynical tone
>topical opinions
They have some similarities. If you put Celine on a pedestal, you haven't understood him at all.

[Anonymous No.1833170]

>>1833151
Yeah it's written like a dumb action film but only more boring, more discursive, less aware of functional conventions..I'm not against him for writing in ''vernacular'' as much as I hate that..but for writing westerns and making them pretentious

[The Master !oKVZQzhloE No.1833167]

>>1833163

It's more me placing Thompson on a shit-estal.

They have nothing in common.

Read some Algren if that's what you're looking for.

[Anonymous No.1833173]

>>1833167
Still, Celine was pretty gimmicky, writing in Argot and everything..he wasn't the great thing you wish him to be..and Hunter S. Thompson wrote in a very engaging way..in the end it's just opinion, but I think someone who enjoyed HS Thompson will similarly enjoy Celine.

[The Master !oKVZQzhloE No.1833175]

>>1833173

>he wasn't the great thing you wish him to be

Right. That's what I'm doing.

[Anonymous No.1833176]

I had an English prof who shit-talked this one a lot because he had heard that McCarthy essentially just wrote it for the paycheck. He got about a half million dollars for the novel and a lucrative film deal after that. Also, I think wikipedia says it was originally going to be a screenplay, so that would probably explain the "action-oriented" language and fairly simple morals.

That said, I do sort of like it. I found it to be a pretty entertaining page-turner, and an alright book-end to Blood Meridian. Also, the film is probably my favourite of the past five years, so I figure if nothing else, that justifies the book's existence.

[Anonymous No.1833179]

>>1833112
I guess only if it's in the narration. I have no problem with dialogue being full of colloquialisms. Or if the narrator is a character within the story, and it makes sense for him to fuck up his grammar. Other than that, it's bad writing.

[Anonymous No.1833204]

Things to know:

1. McCarthy is a storyteller and he is very good at it.
2. He is not a PhD of English and could give a shit about grammar/punctuation.
3. Good grammar/punctuation has nothing to do with the quality or presentation of the actual stories he writes. Even if it were perfectly written, it wouldn't change the content.

Once you realize that, you are ready to start. I've read No Country, The Road, and Blood Meridian and liked them all. If I were going to be an author, I wouldn't waste my time trying to appease English majors either. Get the story on the fucking paper. That's all that matters.

[Anonymous No.1833209]

>>1833204
I don't care about grammar conventions either, but that doesn't make me like really sparse narration and the western genre.

[sage No.1833219]

this thread is so damn stupid. op suffers from i can't understand it so it must suck. no one is twisting your arm to like it. drop it and move on.

>>1833066
you're so fucking stupid just gtfo of /lit/.

>>1833069
op replying to an answer he was hoping to get before even making his initial post.

i used to post on /lit/ all the time and it gets worse with dunderheaded gimps everywhere. same stupid threads with the same stupid replies.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1833227]

>>1833204
Things to remember:

Storytelling != literature
A "good" story != a good literary text

Once you realize this, you're ready to start appreciating literature and not stories. If I were going to be an author, I'd produce a text with such skill and mastery of literary technique that it deserves a place amongst the rest of the highest works of literary achievement in history. I wouldn't waste my time trying to appease people who love a good story but don't know the first thing about form and critical evaluation. Be a master of your craft. That's all that matters.

[Anonymous No.1833239]

Hey, /lit/. I've tried all of the suggested links to find this book online, but I've had no luck.

Any of you guys know of any obscure sites that might have this?

It's Hunger of Memory, by Richard Rodriguez.
I have to read it in a week for school, and I'm low on cash right now. Any help would be nice.

Thanks in advance.

[Anonymous No.1833240]

>>1833227

for what it's worth, I'd say you are a master at your chosen craft, which is shitting up an anonymous imageboard about books to the tune of about sixty hours per week. congrats.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1833251]

>>1833240
>imageboard about books
>/lit/ - Literature

never change, people who don't know what they're talking about

[Sage !!4tV++0AG5iF No.1833263]

>>1833227
mccarthy follows what is generally considered "literary fiction." which is to say fiction that is character driven and not plot driven like harry potter or whatever the hell.

i get what you're saying, but whether he is a master or not is debatable. it's not as accessible as hemingway...nor is it conventional, and writing professors probably don't praise it like they do carver or o'connor, but i still like it.

>>1833057
>But what's with him using "should of" instead of "should have"?

mccarthy's narrative voice is a southern one. get it? it's not complicated you retarded fuck.

[Anonymous No.1833275]

>>1833251

>"here is your book board" ~moot
>text board is called /book/
>no board has a four-letter name, /lit/ was a convenient alternative.

honestly you lifeless loser, do you really think he named it /lit/ so pedantic over-educated ballsacks such as yourself could pull out your cocks and piss all over everyone's fun? you are the cancer of this board, not to mention whatever real life you might have when you tear yourself away from this place for 15-20 minutes a month. i bet your parents despise you.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1833285]

>>1833275
>/lit/ - Literature
do you have trouble reading or something, squirt? a board about literature mightn't be the best place for you if so

[Anonymous No.1833321]

>>1833263
So every educated southerner writes "should of" instead of "should have", huh? Do they teach that in southern schools? If not, shut the fuck up.

Accent is one thing, but writing things the way they sound A.K.A like a fucking retard is a whole different thing. I'd just like to meet the nuthugging editor that let that shit slide.

That's why most non-native English speakers write "should of", not "should have". Because that's what it sounds like. That's no excuse for a native English speaker to write like a mongoloid. Makes him look uneducated.

pic related: mfw /lit/ defends bad grammar

[Anonymous No.1833330]

The film is a characterless void, a dreadful exercise in cinematography. Watch Fargo and Blood Simple instead.

[Anonymous No.1833338]

>>1833330
Fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.1833345]

>>1833338
If you're calling me a retard because I'm posting something about film in /lit/, fine, I accept your insult gladly. If you're calling me a retard because I'm steering people away from the waste of polyester that is No Country For Old Men... well, I pity the fool. Fool.

[Oxford Thorpe !0H4geJT4nA No.1833348]

>>1833321
>So every educated southerner writes "should of" instead of "should have"

It is more like someone is saying everything within the book aloud to you, and not that you are reading it in your style of speaking.

When you are educated, you won't write "should of" in place of "should have." However, if you live in an area where a majority of individuals speak like this, you will eventually find your self speaking like such. Thusly, if someone from an area where they speak like this is “reading the novel to you,” they will without doubt speak as such.

[Sage !!4tV++0AG5iF No.1833351]

>>>1833321
>Do they teach that in southern schools? If not, shut the fuck up.

xD

>/lit/ defends bad grammar
hey, it's only half as bad as defending yourself against something you don't understand. again, i'll say for you to drop the book and move on to something else. you don't have to like nor understand what others enjoy.

you'd like to understand mccarthy? i don't think so.

>"He sat down and he took a shit and he wiped his ass and he liked it."

ad hominem in your first post. try again or gtfo.

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1833367]

>>1833321
>>1833321
it's called the evolution of language bro

[Anonymous No.1833391]

>>1833204
>3. Good grammar/punctuation has nothing to do with the quality or presentation of the actual stories he writes. Even if it were perfectly written, it wouldn't change the content.

Well then, I guess I'll just rewrite all the heralded classics in "txt sp33k" since the core content will be unaffected. There might actually be a market in this.

>>1833227
There's really no room for you to speak on this matter, Mr. Wikipedia philosopher. Do you even read literature?

[Anonymous No.1833396]

I think we can all agree that the English language is shit from the ground up.

Comb, bomb, and tomb should all rhyme. Do they? Hell no, because it's English.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1833400]

>>1833391
>There's really no room for you to speak
who are you to say

[Anonymous No.1833407]

10/10 OP would rage again.

[Anonymous No.1833419]

It´s supposed to be simple. Some people simply like it when the structure is simple. There´s a certain beauty to it.

[Anonymous No.1833420]

>>1833407
OP ain't been here for awhile. xD

[Anonymous No.1833432]

>>1833420
Oh

[Anonymous No.1833433]

>>1833400
Someone who actually reads books and doesn't spend 14.5 hours a day making an idiot of himself on /lit/ or brushing up on Wikipedia's interpretation of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.1833435]

I enjoyed it for the most part and his writing style, it was like the reading equivalent of automatic writing. The end dragged on longer than it should have.

[Anonymous No.1833438]

ITT people ground into literary norms. Not understanding that art sometimes breaks convention.

Bet you all jizz over Joyce too, hypocrites.

[Anonymous No.1833440]

>>1833433

[Anonymous No.1833473]

>>1833057
It is his worst work, but it doesn't suck. His writing is minimal and matter of fact in this book. It's a style he started experimenting with late in his career.

"should of" instead of "should have"

Where does this book take place? What kind of person would say "should of" instead of "should have"? Should be able to figure this one out yourself.

[Anonymous No.1833474]

>>1833438
Can you take this comment and post it in >>1833302 as well, please?

[Anonymous No.1833493]

ARE WE CARRYING THE FIRE DAD.

YES. OH NO, THE BABY EATER PEOPLE, SO EVIL, SO DEVASTATING, HEART-WRENCHING ONLY BECAUSE IT IS OCCURRING IN A SHORT BOOK, SO PEOPLE SAY IT'S STRAIGHT TO THE POINT AND HITS HARD.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1833519]

>>1833438
>art sometimes breaks convention
That in no way means we can't question such new conventions and whether they're better or worse than the ones that preceded them. Language, and literature, is dialogic.

[Anonymous No.1833539]

>>1833519
That's all based on personal preference. There's no way to factually declare one version better or not. They're just different.

Most people who still read literature over-analyze and think they're deepfags just because not as many people read as they used to.

None of you are special snowflakes. Stop shitting your pants over small trivial things that don't matter. Life will go smoother.

[Anonymous No.1833547]

>>1833519

It does when you're insinuating that they're doing something wrong. Which you are.

You're confusing intentional stylistic choices designed to foster certain feelings and emotions with amateur mistakes.

and departing from convention != changing convention. After Duchamp's fountain people still painted portraits. Appreciation of McCarthy's stream of consciousness style doesn't have to come hand in hand with dismissal of technically correct writing. It seems you need to do a lot more thinking about your position because put frankly its retarded.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1833553]

>>1833539
>That's all based on personal preference
Obviously, it's hardly based on the alignment of the stars, you fucking dork

>There's no way to factually declare one version better or not.
Who said anything about facticity?

>They're just different.
They're just different and some are better or worse relative to others. Kind of like workout routines, snackbars, video-games, pieces of music, army boots, anything you can think of really.

[Anonymous No.1833562]

i like to imagine that all of d&e's time irl is spent arguing interminably about subjectivity, too

[TheBookworm !!EgZ+c4h8Yq+ No.1833563]

dont worry it gets way better once you get deeper into it, not my favorite book but definitely one I enjoyed reading

[Anonymous No.1833570]

>>1833553

so you think art and literature can be compared equally with on programming, army boots, snackbars and workout routines?
tell me, what intellectual intentions do army boots carry?
you're making yourself look silly

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1833573]

>>1833547
>It does when you're insinuating that they're doing something wrong. Which you are.
I didn't say they were doing something wrong, just shit. Two completely different things.

>You're confusing intentional stylistic choices designed to foster certain feelings and emotions with amateur mistakes.
No, I'm not, and you're committing an intentional fallacy.

>departing from convention != changing convention
I never said it was

>After Duchamp's fountain people still painted portraits
Thank christ. It's just a shame more people followed suit with his worthless rubbish. But as you say, there are always people, and a healthy amount at that, who recognise the value of a stock of techniques and conventions and the history of a craft.

>Appreciation of McCarthy's stream of consciousness style doesn't have to come hand in hand with dismissal of technically correct writing
It does if you want to critically appreciate it. You can appreciate it just fine as a slack-jawed faggot who reads for fun for all I care.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1833577]

>>1833570
>what intellectual intentions do army boots carry?
lol, again a blatant intellectual fallacy

You're like those bitter, resentful ugly people who cry that it's what's inside that matters.

[Anonymous No.1833578]

>>1833573
>I never said it was

>new conventions

yes you did, thanks for your time

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1833583]

>>1833578
I didn't say a new convention meant a break from old ones, which would be a literal impossibility. That's something you assumed.

[Anonymous No.1833586]

>>1833570
NEVER ARGUE ABOUT SUBJECTIVITY WITH D&E

he will never shut up about it, ever. and then he posts that shitty comic he always posts, and the debate turns into "no u" for 200 posts. I've seen it happen like 50 times.

[Anonymous No.1833589]

>>1833577

Don't think you get this "art" thing. Its not like building a bridge, there is no mathematically correct way to do it.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1833591]

>>1833589
I didn't say anything about building bridges or mathematics.

[Anonymous No.1833594]

All of his books written without punctuation? I've only read The Road and I thought it was just written like that to reflect that the world was a post-apocalyptic shithole.

[Anonymous No.1833595]

>>1833586

gonna feign leukemia so i can ask make a wish foundation to sticky this post

[Anonymous No.1833596]

>>1833583

But we were talking about departures from convention. If that wasn't what you were insinuating then your post was completely meaningless, or in other words objectively bad.

maybe you should go back to school and find out how to post properly

[Anonymous No.1833597]

So..what's a good Elmore Leonard novel to start off with?

[Anonymous No.1833598]

>>1833591

Yes, but I did. If you can't understand the relevance you're retarded.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1833599]

>>1833596
>f that wasn't what you were insinuating then your post was completely meaningless
No it wasn't, because that's not what I was insinuating, and it wouldn't consequently be meaningless. Maybe it would be meaningless to you, because you're a myopic retard.

[Anonymous No.1833601]

>>1833594

Yes

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1833602]

>>1833598
>If you can't understand the relevance you're retarded
I'd like you to demonstrate how either of these things has any relevance to anything I've said

[Anonymous No.1833609]

>>1833596
>>1833598
>>1833601

see:
>>1833586

[Anonymous No.1833612]

>>1833599

It would be, because the discussion was about breaks from convention. If you weren't talking about breaks from convention your post was completely meaningless with regards to the topic of conversation.

For all your twittering on about dialogy you seem perplexed by the concept of dialogue.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1833618]

>>1833612
>If you weren't talking about breaks from convention your post was completely meaningless with regards to the topic of conversation
But how would it be meaningless with regards to the topic of conversation?

>For all your twittering on about dialogy you seem perplexed by the concept of dialogue.
I haven't been talking about dialogue at all, I have been talking about a much more specific concept

[Anonymous No.1833631]

>>1833618

Because it would be a departure from the topic. It would not be connected to it. It would be irrelevant. Irrelevant things are meaningless to the topic.

and you said literature was dialogic in the very post we're discussing.

As a master poster i can confirm that you are objectively bad. Good night.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1833638]

>>1833631
>Because it would be a departure from the topic
But I haven't departed from the topic. You think I have because you don't follow my meaning.

>and you said literature was dialogic in the very post we're discussing.
But that's not the same as dialogue

>Good night
Told. Don't let the door kick you on the way out, pipsqueak.

[Anonymous No.1833641]

>>1833595
fucking lol
This post is too good for this thread.

[Anonymous No.1833643]

>>1833638
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogic
>The dialogic work carries on a continual dialogue with other works of literature and other authors

where did you think the word came from?

[Anonymous No.1833652]

>>1833638
>Don't let the door kick you on the way out, pipsqueak.

It's "don't let the door hit you on the way out".
Jesus Christ, you can't even get that much right without making yourself look stupid.

[Anonymous No.1833656]

>>1833573
>I didn't say they were doing something wrong, just shit. Two completely different things.
Actually, if a novel's shit you're still implying something went wrong in its creation. They are not two entirely separate things unless you're talking about the fecal matter that you expel from both your rectum and your mouth.

>No, I'm not, and you're committing an intentional fallacy.
You mean that fallacy that's only a fallacy if you believe it is? Very objective of you.

>Thank christ. It's just a shame more people followed suit with his worthless rubbish. But as you say, there are always people, and a healthy amount at that, who recognise the value of a stock of techniques and conventions and the history of a craft.
Once again, Derp displays his philistine nature for all to see. And once more, the casual reader can safely assume Derp to be an artistic imbecile.

>It does if you want to critically appreciate it. You can appreciate it just fine as a slack-jawed faggot who reads for fun for all I care.
With his idiocy evident to all of us like the lice-infested crotch of a homeless exhibitionist, the fool wanders off into the wilderness to write missives against subjectivity as he himself loses all objectivity when confronted with "new" literary techniques.

[Anonymous No.1833661]

Ive never read it,

but it sounds like it's written in stream of consciousness.

Hubert Selby does the same thing in Last Exit to Brooklyn; "He lit a cigarette while he stared at the woman's ass"

It's pretty tough to get through this kind of writing, but there should be some character developement behind all the simple stuff.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1833680]

>>1833643
But I'm not talking about the etymology of a word

>>1833652
I prefer 'kick'

>>1833656
>you're still implying something went wrong in its creation
Where did I imply that?

>They are not two entirely separate things
Yes they are

>You mean that fallacy that's only a fallacy if you believe it is? Very objective of you.
I'll say it again. You're committing an intentional fallacy.

>Once again, Derp displays his philistine nature for all to see. And once more, the casual reader can safely assume Derp to be an artistic imbecile.
mouthfarting, moving on

>With his idiocy evident to all of us like the lice-infested crotch of a homeless exhibitionist, the fool wanders off into the wilderness to write missives against subjectivity as he himself loses all objectivity when confronted with "new" literary techniques.
I've never said anything about objectivity

[Anonymous No.1833709]

Am I okay?

[Anonymous No.1833765]

>Where did I imply that?
By calling it "shit." Unless "shit" to you means "a work of literature to be cherished," something went wrong in the creation of a work to make it shit. A third-grader might be able to understand something that simple, but even that may be beyond your grasp.

>Yes they are
No, they aren't. They aren't the same thing, but they are very much connected to one another, therefore not entirely separate.

>I'll say it again. You're committing an intentional fallacy.
So your tactic is to repeat the same thing over and over again until your opponent forfeits the argument in annoyance? The "fallacy" is subjective, therefore logically invalid. Normally accusing your opponent of a fallacy would work, but only in the case of the argument actually being logically flawed (and pointing out the logical flaw). In this case, you have offered no such evidence so I can assume that my original criticism was correct.

>I've never said anything about objectivity
So am I to assume you have nothing to do with this?
>>1833553
The comic seems to imply you're against others who believe in the subjective nature of literature and literary analysis. If not, then whoever wrote that proved infinite monkey theorem.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1834415]

>>1833765
>By calling it "shit
How do you think that implies for me it went wrong at some point? You're just going around in circles here

>They aren't the same thing, but they are very much connected to one another
No, something wrong is borne from an entirely different mindset from one that deems something bad.

>The "fallacy" is subjective
What do you mean by 'subjective'?

>The comic seems to imply you're against others who believe in the subjective nature of literature and literary analysis. If not, then whoever wrote that proved infinite monkey theorem.
That has nothing to do with objectivity, dipshit, you're just another person who doesn't understand either. Go figure considering what a clueless asshole you've shown yourself to be.