[ 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: 7 KB, 225x225, suttree.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR] No.18847180 [Reply] [Original]

Pic related

>> No.18847517

>>18847180
McCarthy's trash in my opinion.

>> No.18847526

>>18847180
start with the greeks

>> No.18847546

>>18847517
Filtered
>>18847526
McCarthy did

>> No.18847555
File: 43 KB, 294x475, fathers and sons.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

Not so fast big boy

>> No.18847566

>>18847555
Is this gay?

>> No.18847573

>>18847180
His only good book

>> No.18847582

>>18847573
t.never read the other good ones but will pose like he did

>> No.18847659

>>18847517
McCarthy's trash can be found outside his home in Santa Fe. Not sure how it is relevant here.

>> No.18847675

>>18847180
This book feels like you’re stalking some random person on the street and watching them go about their day.

>> No.18847701

>>18847180
what really made this book for me is the relationship between suttree and harrogate. so beautiful. seeing as suttree cant be with his own son it seems as if he treats harrogate as if he was instead

>> No.18847709

>>18847517
that is not how you write that anon you big brainlet retard

>> No.18847744

>>18847701
I really like the part where Suttree takes him out to grab some Thanksgiving dinner. He also seems to give Harrogate banter that he never does with his other friends.

>> No.18847801

>>18847180
This book really resonates if you're >130. People under that don't really get it, are often threatened actually. It's good that we have works that speak to us though.

>> No.18847894

>>18847801
schizo

>> No.18847902

>>18847894
Not everything is for you, peasant.

>> No.18847936

>>18847744
I totally forgot about that bit, I remember now they had cranberry sauce. one of my favourite moments between the two is when suttree finds him in the mines

>> No.18848230

>>18847180
I love Suttree but it is not great, quite flawed from the technique perspective.

>> No.18849275

>>18848230
How?

>> No.18849338

>>18848230
How? The writing is pretty much flawless

>> No.18849465

>>18849275
Unfocused and inconsistent, half the book is only marginally related to theme or character and reads like he wrote these bits he loved and wanted to include them so just loosely tied them in. Many of Harrogate's parts show this and many misunderstand Suttree's relationship to him because of it, they see Suttree playing a father figure but it is really the same as his relationship with Daddy Watson, Ab Jones, and the old rag picker, they are all people who do not really need him and would barely notice if he was gone, there is no risk in these relationships to Suttree and none of them actually have any interest in him or knowing him, just in how he can help them, they are using each other.

>>18849338
Seriously? Even Cormac saw his flaws in it and he takes a marked change in dealing with characters and his prose after Suttree, he essentially cut his losses and realized that he was terrible at writing in a traditional sense. My guess is Suttree was before he got a proper editor.

>> No.18849577

>>18847517
Your opinion is shit. Like you.

>> No.18849683

>>18849465
What's the flaw in technique? You just elaborated your opinion on the narrative.
>he takes a marked change in dealing with characters and his prose after Suttree
His prose will get more sparse from here and after BM, which is generally regarded as his best work and is the closest to Suttree in prose style.
>My guess is Suttree was before he got a proper editor.
He had the same editor for his first 5 novels, BM included.

>> No.18850020

>>18847801
>Actually believing IQ is a useful measurement of intellect

It is a great fucking book though

>> No.18850094

I've been reading BM this week, first McCarthy novel and I'm really enjoying it. Actually going to finish up some other stuff so I can just have full attention on it. Should I read Suttree next?

>> No.18850106

>>18850094
Suttree is his longest work by awhile but you could if you wanted. I'd highly recommend reading The Crossing though (before you ask: yes it is part of a trilogy but the first two books in the trilogy—All The Pretty Horses and The Crossing—can be read as standalone novels).

>> No.18850123

>>18850106
Sounds good. Just remembered he wrote The Road as well, which interests me too. Man was pumping out classics it seems.

>> No.18850139

>>18850094
I read the Border Trilogy next, to stay in the western theme. It's easier reading than BM but still really good. There's also The Road and No Country for Old Men, neither which is quite as good as his masterpieces BM and The Crossing but are still great and much quicker reads than his other books. I saved Suttree for last personally and it took me the longest of all his books

>> No.18850180

>>18849683
>What's the flaw in technique? You just elaborated your opinion on the narrative.
It is UNFOCUSED AND INCONSISTENT, and I did give and example of that and even showed the consequence of that. Sorry not going to copy and paste 20 pages of text to show this, just start working through the Harrogate sections, won't take but 20 minutes. The first Harrogate chapter serves no real purpose and is antithetical to the novel, it speaks nothing of Harrogate's character, he is not going about fucking produce for the rest of the novel, it is there purely for it's own sake and a fair amount of Harrogate's parts fall into this. The only part dealing with him that actually ties in well to the novel is his arrival in town, fantastic way fill in the setting, we got a limited view from Suttree's well tread path, but he has seen it all so many times there is not much to say, it takes Harrogate's new eyes to see all that is just scenery to Suttree.
>His prose will get more sparse from here and after BM, which is generally regarded as his best work and is the closest to Suttree in prose style.
Gee, thanks for explaining that, I never knew his style changed after Suttree.
>He had the same editor for his first 5 novels, BM included.
Then he probably could not afford full editing until after Suttree when he got that big check and editing up until then was just basic editing for useage/errors etc.

Fucking morons need to be spoon fed.

>> No.18850204

>>18850180
>He is not going about fucking produce for the rest of the novel

well no shit. So if a character doesn't do the exact same thing all novel it means the writing is inconsistent?

>He probably could not afford full editing
No proof of this whatsoever, just pulling shit out of your ass.

Not the guy you're replying to either. You're wrong and an asshsole

>> No.18850208

>>18850180
You are sperging because you couldn't understand the context of certain scenes and you call this flaw in technique.
I was expecting an educated response but it seems I am talking to a teenager. Don't use words you don't know the meaning of.

>> No.18850233

>>18850204
Not what I said.
>No proof of this whatsoever, just pulling shit out of your ass.
Notice that I said PROBABLY, his first three novels have all the hallmarks of self editing.
>>18850208
So explain to me why I am wrong, show me how educated you are.

>> No.18850235

>>18850204
Even funnier when Suttree was his book that spent the longest in the burner. Everything in it has a purpose to be there even when Cormac does not make it obvious or makes it obscure.

>> No.18850260

>>18850233
I never said you were wrong and I don't act like I understand everything in the book. I only questioned because you critiqued his technique which in Suttree seems to me close to perfect. But it seems you have some weird definition of technique.
Besides, a 500 page novel having some throwaway funny scenes is no big deal. Every scene in Outer Dark has a purpose to give a counterexample, but it is a very different book from Suttree.
>couldn't afford full editing
His editor for his first 5 novels was the great Albert Erskine who was William Faulkner's primary editor. (When he was alive)

>> No.18850303

>>18850233
>Notice that I said PROBABLY

So you're confirming you pulled it out of your ass? Funny when you get proven wrong and your response is, "well I said it was probably right". Just as based in reality as scenes you don't like meaning he has bad writing technique

>> No.18850325

>>18850260
>I think it is perfect so therefore it is
Those throw away scenes could actually support theme or structure or contribute to character development, they don't and so they are throwaway. I have no idea how you think this is a weird idea of technique, fairly basic and rudimentary.
>His editor for his first 5 novels was the great Albert Erskine
That does not mean anything, editors are not going to spend weeks or months with the author helping them refine their work if all they can afford is basic editing. This is why authors almost always have a noticeable increase in quality once they get some success, they can afford the full service or their publisher is willing to spring for it because they have demonstrated they are worth the expense.
>>18850303
No one proved me wrong and it is called an educated guess. You are embarressing yourself. Also I never said I did not like those scenes, Harrogate's are quite enjoyable, they just do not contribute much to the novel as a whole.

>> No.18850366

>>18850325
>You are embarressing yourself

You can't spell embarrassing right dude

>> No.18850378

>>18847517
same

>> No.18850390

>>18847582
>misusing t.
summer is almost over

>> No.18850447

>>18850390
You should go back then

>> No.18851594

>dude fuck writing conventions lol
What is the purpose?