/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19639266]

>In one of his few interviews, McCarthy revealed that he respects only authors who "deal with issues of life and death", citing Henry James and Marcel Proust as examples of writers who do not. "I don't understand them ... To me, that's not literature."

Thoughts?

[Anonymous No.19639268]

>>19639266
>i don't understand them
filtered.

[Anonymous No.19639283]

>McCarthy described his method of preparing to write as "awakening the demon within." A writer's "blood should be boiling over" when he writes. "I have some videos I watch for inspiration. The tears in the rain scene from Blade Runner, Vegeta's best powerups, that kind of thing."

Is this nigger serious?

[Anonymous No.19639326]

>>19639266
clearly an occult soul salesman. guaranteed to have gargled MM glue

[Anonymous No.19639328]

>>19639283

[Anonymous No.19639344]

>le suburban white american male
He is literally a dad at a bbq. Great books mind

[Anonymous No.19639354]

>>19639283
fucking key, McCarthy 100% has 30+ tabs open on his computer of Zyzz hype compilations

[Anonymous No.19639356]

>>19639283

[Anonymous No.19639543]

>>19639283
No way it is real

[Anonymous No.19639558]

>>19639283
>he doesn't watch motivational speeches with classical music playing too loudly in the background
Ngmi

[Anonymous No.19639565]

>>19639354
>>19639283
based

[Anonymous No.19639586]

>>19639283
>When asked which fictional character he thought best represented the 20th century, McCarthy thought for a few moments and answered, "The Joker." When asked to elaborate, he said, "The Joker is the ultimate master of chaos. He represents something which I think we all - all of us - have felt at some point. Intelligent people, [we] go through life being isolated from society, from our families, from our peers. I think the Joker is the only character written during the 20th century that encapsulates that elemental feeling."

[Anonymous No.19639949]

>>19639283
Incredible.

[Anonymous No.19640038]

>>19639266
Seems to be seethe about writers far better than him, same with Nabokov's "criticism" of Dosto, Mann, et al. Uninteresting to say the least. Doesn't take away from his own work, just means that he is worthless as a critic.

[Anonymous No.19640058]

>>19640038
James is worse than McCarthy.

[Anonymous No.19640112]

>>19640058
As is "prout"

[Anonymous No.19640122]

>>19640112
Haven't read Proust, actually, but for James I can confirm he's worse.

[Anonymous No.19640134]

>>19640038
Dostoevsky is a garbage writer. Nabokov's criticism, as in the actual points, is absolutely spot on. You'll see when you mature.

[Anonymous No.19640142]

>>19640134
>Dostoevsky is a garbage writer.
No. He's just misunderstood by tryhards. It's an interesting filtering.

[Anonymous No.19640154]

>>19640142
You too are a garbage writer. Only midwits consider him good and get all emotional everytime somebody calls 'water' water. r/dostoevsky is that way >>>/reddit/

[Anonymous No.19640179]

>>19640154
I wouldn't consider Hemingway, Joyce and Borges to be 'midwits' and they liked Dostoyevksy.

[Anonymous No.19640195]

>>19639543
Yeah I doubt he'd like Blade Runner. Too much romance.

[Anonymous No.19640203]

>>19640179
>bringing up famous others
You clearly haven't read Nabokov's criticism of Dostoevsky. Like you have neither read Proust nor James. All 5 of them would agree that what Nabokov writes is true.

[":hidehats:" No.19640225]

>>19639266
Absolutely overrated, this dude thinks he's Dirty Harry

[Anonymous No.19640243]

>>19640134
He's not garbage, is he now? He has some pretty major flaws, like most writers, but garbage is nonsense.
This kind of rhetoric is as bad as /box/ where anyone who loses a fight is immediately trash

[Anonymous No.19640253]

>>19639283
Holy BASED

[Anonymous No.19640256]

>>19640243
>Dostoevsky fag is a /box/ brainlet
The joke writes itself.

[Anonymous No.19640260]

>>19640203
Have you read Borges and Joyce words on Dostoyevsky? They aren't as dramatic and pedantic and actually mention the individual qualities/works they like. And I have read James but not Proust as I'm currently just learning French.

[Anonymous No.19640288]

>>19640260
James utterly despised Dostoevsky btw. I have read what they've said. Their assessment is general praise on subjective qualities. Nabokov gets to business in his criticism. There is little subjectivity there, beside the hyperbole which is normal for a Nabokov piece. McCarthy revered Dostoevsky btw. Is that going to change your assessment of him in comparison to James now? Just testing my theory on Dostofags.

[Anonymous No.19640315]

>>19640179
Nabokov also liked Dostoevsky; he just thought his works should've been plays, which is reasonable. The dialogues and speeches in his works are amazing, but Dostoevsky as a novelist you could say was very cliche.

[Anonymous No.19640325]

>>19639283
Bros he is literally like me I feel I'm going to make it :)

[Anonymous No.19640335]

>>19640288
>Their assessment is general praise on subjective qualities. Nabokov gets to business in his criticism. There is little subjectivity there, beside the hyperbole which is normal for a Nabokov piece.
Nabokov's criticism is also quite subjective and sometimes even terribly nonsensical or downright inaccurate when describing Dostoyevsky's works.
> Is that going to change your assessment of him in comparison to James now?
I never really cared for James. I mock jamesfags all the time. Nabokov also didn't care for James. But I do like Nabokov's work (fiction only, he couldn't write poetry). I just don't think his opinion on certain matters is absolute or "objective" and who knows if he's ideologically motivated.

[Anonymous No.19640345]

>>19640335
>Nabokov's criticism is also quite subjective
Can you refute it. Even Dosto's most obsessive fans have to concede all that which Nabokov lists are major flaws.

[Anonymous No.19640350]

>>19640345
Can you provide a quote? What exactly do you have in mind?

[Anonymous No.19640366]

>>19640350
https://lithub.com/on-dostoevskys-199th-birthday-heres-nabokov-insulting-him-a-lot/

[Anonymous No.19640377]

>>19640345
>Can you refute it
I like sentimental novels. They are as valid as sensitive novels. Refute me bitch

[Anonymous No.19640380]

>>19640350
>>19640366
>>19640377
I will let Nabokov do the talking and refuting.
https://www.nytimes.com/1981/08/23/magazine/nabokov-on-dostoyevsky.html

[Anonymous No.19640386]

>>19640380
I refute him thus

[Anonymous No.19640395]

>>19640380
>Just as I have no ear for music, I have to my regret no ear for Dostoyevsky the Prophet.
He refuted himself.

[Anonymous No.19640433]

>>19640395
He is just being a gentleman. This was one of his classes at cornell. Read further, he eloquently breaks the spectre of "Dostoevsky the writer".

[Anonymous No.19640511]

>>19640377
>the most striking thing is how little difference it all makes. As I said earlier, one cannot answer Nabokov's essay, at least on its main counts. There is no argument by which one can defend a poem. It defends itself by surviving, or it is indefensible. And if this test is valid, I think the verdict in Dostoevsky's case must be ‘not guilty’. Like every other writer, Dostoevsky will be forgotten sooner or later, but it is unlikely that a heavier indictment will ever be brought against him. Nabokov was perhaps the most admired literary man of his age, and he was certainly not its least able essayist. He turned all his powers of denunciation against Dostoevsky, like all the guns of a battleship roaring simultaneously. And with what result? Forty years later Dostoevsky is still there completely unaffected, and of the attempt to demolish him nothing remains except the yellowing pages of an essay which hardly anyone has read, and which would be forgotten altogether if Nabokov had not also been the author of Lolita and Pale Fire.

[Anonymous No.19640515]

>>19640380
>In the light of the historical development of artistic vision, Dostoyevsky is a very fascinating phenomenon. If you examine closely any of his works, say ''The Brothers Karamazov,'' you will note that the natural background and all things relevant to the perception of the senses hardly exist. What landscape there is is a landscape of ideas, a moral landscape. The weather does not exist in his world, so it does not much matter how people dress. Dostoyevsky characterizes his people through situation, through ethical matters, their psychological reactions, their inside ripples.
I seriously do not understand Nabokov's autism in this. He has quite a narrow view on what novels should be like. He wants to picture them like one watches a film, as some mockery of someone's senses but in text form, maybe it's his bizarre synesthesia condition, but he seems to be unable to connect with pure literaryspace or ideaspace, so it's impossible for him to get into this kind of texts. That's why he says novels 'shouldn't' be about ideas but about style. Well, that's his preference and his subjective judgment ('should' is blatant arrogance) but there really isn't a template for what novels can be. This reads more like a whine more than a proper criticism. "He doesn't mention what people wear! Therefore, he's bad." This particular bit is a non-critique and says more about Nabokov's taste and aesthetic preferences than about Dostoyevsky. What he sees as a flaw here is an irrelevant aspect for other people, or a non-issue.

[Anonymous No.19640595]

>>19640380
>In the light of the historical development of artistic vision, Dostoyevsky is a very fascinating phenomenon. If you examine closely any of his works, say ''The Brothers Karamazov,'' you will note that the natural background and all things relevant to the perception of the senses hardly exist. What landscape there is is a landscape of ideas, a moral landscape. The weather does not exist in his world, so it does not much matter how people dress. Dostoyevsky characterizes his people through situation, through ethical matters, their psychological reactions, their inside ripples.
I seriously do not understand Nabokov's autism in this. He has quite a narrow view on what novels should be like. He wants to picture them like one watches a film, with every shallow detail, every sound, every physical characteristic describe, as some mockery of someone's senses but in text form, as an immediate sensory description, maybe it's his bizarre synesthesia condition, but he seems to be unable to connect with pure literaryspace or ideaspace, so it's impossible for him to get into this kind of texts. Probably just not in his nature. That's why he says novels 'shouldn't' be about ideas but about style. Well, that's his preference and his subjective judgment ('should' is blatant arrogance) but there really isn't a template for what novels can be. This reads more like a whine more than a proper criticism. "He doesn't mention what people wear! Therefore, he's bad." This particular bit is a non-critique and says more about Nabokov's taste and aesthetic preferences than about Dostoyevsky. What he sees as a flaw here is an irrelevant aspect for other people, or a non-issue.

[Anonymous No.19640602]

>>19640515
>That's why he says novels 'shouldn't' be about ideas
art as a whole isnt about ideas. ironic that nab got this when he couldnt appreciate music, because all that makes art art can be found in music while in lit, that thing gets muddled by people who have no eye for beauty, so they reach for "profoundity"

[Anonymous No.19640615]

>>19640602
Not sure what you mean by ideas but everything in art has ideas. Artists aren't just automata who come up with stuff out of nowhere. They have an idea (or multiple ideas) for a piece and they execute it. The final product is bursting with ideas as well. There are ideas in Lolita, there are ideas in Pale Fire.

[Anonymous No.19640934]

>>19639283
10/10

[Anonymous No.19640991]

>>19639283
>>19639354
wagmi

[Anonymous No.19640998]

>>19639283
I don't write for success. I do it to appease the beast

[Anonymous No.19641005]

>>19640134
I love Dostoyevsky it's gay pop culture literature I just love it. It reads like anime

[Anonymous No.19641042]

>>19639283
okay, i need a fookin source on this

[Anonymous No.19641075]

>>19640203
I like Nabokov as much as the next guy but the dude who's magnum opus centers around tricking you into feeling bad for a literal nonce among other things accusing Dostoyevsky of being a cheap sensationalist who uses parlor tricks is laughable.

[Anonymous No.19641096]

>>19641042
It's fake

[Anonymous No.19641108]

>>19640615
i meant what the poster above meant by "ideas". as in the text having a purpose of commenting on the world outside itself ideologically or something like that.

>>19641075
>centers around
very reductive

[Anonymous No.19641120]

>>19641075
Pretty much this. Lolita is a pretty sensationalist novel (OMG pedophilia!) as is Ada (OMG incest!).

[Anonymous No.19641185]

>>19640134
Found the atheist faggot

[Anonymous No.19641192]

>>19640203
Literally no one gives a shit about that self-hating Russian wannabe Anglo faggot besides mediocre women, like you.

[Anonymous No.19641218]

>>19639283
>Vegeta's best powerups

[Anonymous No.19641603]

>“They is four things that can destroy the earth, he said. Women, whiskey, money, and niggers.”

Based.

[Anonymous No.19641681]

Henry James was and wrote about rich idles and so his conflicts don't have the same stakes as McCarthy's. Save for a few key differences, all his books are the same. The short stories are more varied. But there are some gems. Just read Portrait of a Lady and Beast in the Jungle.

[Anonymous No.19641710]

>>19641681
Henry James is a mediocre Edgar Allen Poe.

[Anonymous No.19641719]

Visit my McCarthy thread >>>19641675

[Anonymous No.19642099]

>>19641603
Best line

[Anonymous No.19642162]

>>19641075
>t. couldn't even solve the Q riddle
that book isn't remotely about giving empathy to that pig Humbert. that this is the take of so many is disconcerting, but not surprising. Lolita is a puzzlebook, one of games, red herrings, dead ends, and engendering misconceptions. If you approach it as such, it unfolds as the wings of a bird and soars well above its more base interpretations. A hint of one interpretation is that Humbert was a warning by The Penguin that pedos can be sophisticated monsters, and that it is unwise to underestimate an enemy with such a devious intent.

[Anonymous No.19642176]

>interview
www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3kpzuk1Y8I
He must have loved his agent to do this

[Anonymous No.19642220]

>>19639283

[Anonymous No.19642387]

>>19639266
>When you're so obsessed with McCarthy you know the paper, year, and newspaper this interview came from.

[Anonymous No.19643993]

>>19639586
I knew it. I knew he was a pseud. All this time you rebuked me - I was right all this time.

[Anonymous No.19644028]

>>19640595
>Dostoyevsky characterizes his people through [. . .] their inside ripples

Well that is a fantastic comment proving exactly why Dosto is based and Nabokov is cringe. The latter simply has nothing much to say so he resorts to painting familiar pictures which make one go "aha, I know that!"

[Anonymous No.19644047]

>>19639283
so cringe it's based

[Anonymous No.19644048]

>>19639266
I was a big fan of his in my teens, but his literature is aging very poorly. His prose is amazing, but everything else barely holds, and it shows in the novels where is prose is downgraded. There's little thought of structure, and he has a stock of less than ten characters recurring in all his books. Also, he cannot write good female characters, which is sad. It's as if he missed that half the world is there.

[Anonymous No.19644593]

>>19641075
Nabokov's protagonists are all him, lol fucking hack.

[Anonymous No.19644611]

>>19639283
the way he writes it doesn't surprise me, all his works could be forsaken for a young pre-teen rage against le machine narrative.

[Anonymous No.19644617]

>>19644048
>There's little thought of structure
You 100% got filtered here. I bet you can't even comment on the structure of any of his books.
>he has a stock of less than ten characters recurring in all his books. Also, he cannot write good female characters
Who cares for them? His fiction was never character based and he does those 10 types very well. Rinthy was also a better female protagonist than most male writers tend to produce.

[Anonymous No.19644622]

>>19640595
Nabokov did have a specific idea of what novels should and shouldn't be; he ultimately believed that there is no such thing as "realistic" in a novel—every novel is the creation of a brand new world almost completely separate from our own, with its own rules and internal laws, and it should be described as such. Even if the setting of a book is based on a real-world time and place, it should be developed and described like as if the author dreamed it up on his own. Thus, the settings of Dostoevsky's novels lack definition, the physical setting of the book is hazy and doesn't really impinge on the internal emotional and mental worlds of the characters that Dostoevsky explores, if that makes sense.
So yeah, you can argue that he was just autistic but I feel he had a genuine point he was trying to get across

[Anonymous No.19644639]

>>19644622
Also, to add to this, I think we should compare what he had to say about Dostoevsky to what he had to say about Austin; in both their novels, the physical landscape of the setting is rarely mentioned and usually doesn't play too big a part in the plot of the story; but with Austin, she has her gimmick: the internal rules of her fictional worlds (based off of early 19th century England you could say) take the form of social etiquette and manners, and this is where her genius comes in: seeing her characters interact and develop through the dainty, often complex web of social manners, if that makes sense.

[Anonymous No.19645782]

>>19639586
Wtf is this real?

[Anonymous No.19645825]

>>19639283
This is why he is the best writer alive.

[Anonymous No.19645830]

>>19644622
>muh worldbuilding
God, Nabokov is such a faggot.