[ 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: 117 KB, 640x757, Blood_Meridian_(1985_1st_ed_half_title_page).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19798385 No.19798385 [Reply] [Original]

what makes blood meridian a tough read and why is it even a critically "good writing".. like comparing to other equally violent/brutal book of its genre... is it that,exhausting?

>> No.19798391

>>19798385
I'm still not sure if McCarthy is actually good or if people here like him like they like Joyce.

>> No.19798422

>>19798391
I think increasingly people are recognizing Suttree as his masterwork and everything else as a little hammy and trite, as it should be

>> No.19798425

It's a tough read because of the strange stylistic choices

>> No.19798453

I believe the reason some people consider it to be a tough read is that it's written to a very high lexile level. There's just a lot of vocabulary that a typical reader will not recognize at all. On your second run-through, assuming you actually looked up all the words you didn't know the first time, I don't think it's a difficult book. It's always pretty clear what's happening.
Some people may also struggle with the lack of quotation marks, but I really don't even notice that.
It's good writing because his use of the language is masterful. His aesthetic is very visual and externally oriented (we almost never go into any character's inner life), so his vocabulary isn't just a flex, it's always used precisely and helps to conjure the exact image of what's being discussed. People say this book is unfilmable but I think that's exactly wrong, it's hard to read this book without conjuring it up as a beautifully shot movie. And thematically it's all quite heavy and masculine, pondering about the Big Questions of death, human nature, destiny, choice, and so on.
It may be exhausting for women because there aren't many scenes where the narrator explores a character's inner feelings for 3 pages in between descriptions of their wardrobe. Not really sure.

>> No.19798475

>>19798385
Imagine actually being such a midwit you think Blood Meridian is a "difficult" book.

Go read J R, The Faerie Queene, The Anatomy of Melancholy, even fucking Ulysses, and come back and tell me this is a difficult book.

It's a entry-level book on the same tier as Fight Club and Brave New World.

>> No.19798486

>>19798453
this is an extremely reddit comment

>> No.19798492

>>19798486
Thank you.

>> No.19798542

>>19798453
>his vocabulary isn't just a flex, it's always used precisely and helps to conjure the exact image of what's being discussed.

ehh, I disagree. When it's used as you say, I agree. Using the proper words for geographical or architectural features can help root a scene. But McCarthy drudges up seriously archaic words. I can't remember the word (I could look it up) but it was basically only used in like one other book about 200 years ago. That's a flex. It's intensely mannered, the words he chooses.

>> No.19798554

>>19798425
huh

>>19798453
>>19798486
lul

>>19798475
it's a commentary here and reddit
https://fivebooks.com/best-books/cormac-mccarthy-stacey-peebles/

>> No.19798562

>>19798385
There is no such thing as a tough read. Just read the words one after another lol.

>> No.19798576

>>19798562
There's a lot in Hegel and Deleuze that I do not understand even though I read the words in order and I know the definitions of all the words. I call those tough reads

>> No.19798604

>>19798576
what?! he's basically an illiterate then?
anyone can write jumbled words.

>> No.19798612

>>19798385
needledick critics whined about the graphic violence when it was published which pretty much guarantees a novel will be a classic

>> No.19798687

Am I the only one thinkin the violence wasnt all that explicit or excessive? Does it really traumatize people to read that some guy got shot or stabbed or whatever? It's not like pages of visceral detail

>> No.19798699

>>19798475
>The Faerie Queene
My goal in life is to find someone who has actually read this (inarguably the single most boring poem in the English language) and enjoyed it.

>> No.19798707

>>19798699
I imagine if you had read it in 1590 you would have been blown away.

>> No.19798766

>>19798707
Potentially. On the other hand, the Italians already did it better and there were better epics in English already. Plus some amazing translations

>> No.19798772

>>19798612
it s also getting lukewarm sales, dont forget.
>>19798687
>trauma
they got scalped but yes it s not like moby dick wasnt graphic or bible didnt have beheadings or burning people alive and so on, every books predates it had been kinda vile so why is this any special.

>> No.19798786

Was at the used bookstore, flirted with a cutie (mid twenties), told her that was the best book in the section (modern library copy) and she bought it.

I told her I read it in two days. She was giggly. Then I told her how much my wife liked the Road. She twitched a bit.

Go to bookstores if you're single!

>> No.19798787

>>19798687
>>19798772
Fuck, the Iliad has some of the most graphic kills I have ever read. Maybe the most, and it's still widely read in highschool.

>> No.19798827

>>19798699

I read all of the Faerie Queene last year and thoroughly enjoyed it, but I am a huge poetry nerd. Stopping after the first book is probably the right call for most readers, as it's self-contained enough to stand on its own.

>> No.19799003

>>19798422
That simply means more dumb pseuds are getting filtered.

>> No.19799014

>>19798475
>It's a entry-level book on the same tier as Fight Club and Brave New World.
While those other books are harder, you have clearly not read BM.

>> No.19799121

>>19798385
Things that annoy me:
>dick measuring over a book being hard, "You think BM is hard? Finnegans Wake is harder!"
>Dismissing a book for being "reddit" or any other descriptor that has nothing to do with the actual content, instead of judging it on its own. Maybe the book isn't as good as retards say it is on reddit but that doesn't mean it's ass, maybe it's just "interesting" instead of "earth-shattering"

Blood Meridian is probably considered hard by some people because of the very specific and sometimes archaic vocabulary, and because McCarthy doesn't use quotation marks or dialogue tags really, and maybe because the books isn't super plot drive, but more episodic and idea driven.

Is it good? Yeah, it's interesting. Interesting enough to read.

>> No.19799187

>>19798542
Just because it's archaic doesn't make it less precise.

>> No.19799218

>>19799187
It is archaic because it IS precise.

>> No.19799319

>>19798453
I'm about halfway through and I'm still waiting to see why people consider it unfilmable. I just don't get that.
It's definitely good, the imagery is just wonderful; however, I do tire of the all the that style of stretching out a sentence by tying it together and using the word and about fifty times and slowly finding it hard to not think about just getting to the next paragraph and wondering if he's intentionally setting a certain pace and in a way trying to tire you out and feel like another character trudging through the endless expanse of brutality and

>> No.19799341

>>19799319
>I'm still waiting to see why people consider it unfilmable
The imagery in the book works because of the metaphors and similes. You can't translate it to film. Expanses of desert are not interesting, Cormac makes them interesting with his prose. How would you film this? Narrating over the scene? Would ruin the movie for all but art cinema eltists.

>> No.19799426

>>19799014
I have read BM, multiple times. I actually quite enjoy the book but to think it is in any way difficult only exposes midwittery.
Just because it contains a $5 word every now and then doesn't make it difficult. The prose is extremely straightforward.

>> No.19799431

>>19799121
whole lot of cope going on here my guy

>> No.19799455

>>19798453
The problem I have; it was masterful that xt, about pointless nothing. And dont day “thats the point anon it’s about hard lives like all of his books” fuck off that shit was pointless he had a devil walking around with a naked retard on a leash

>> No.19799457

>>19799426
Never said it was difficult, but it is nowhere near as easy as bnw or fight club.
>prose is straightforward
After reading it multiple times maybe. First time around it is anything but straightforward.

>> No.19799461

>>19799457
If you've ever had any exposure with polysyndeton before (KJV) you would be able to read it easily on the first go.
Again, this is entry-level 'literary fiction', entry-level here meaning it is easy for someone who isn't well read to pick up and read with relative ease.

>> No.19799472

>>19799121
>>19798385
>>19798391
Blood meridian surprised me. I read it a few months ago and couldn't put it down. While watching tots full time, cooking, and cleaning, I managed to read it in three days. It wasn't particularly obscure or difficult. I did encounter a few odd constructions and learned a few new words.

I refuse to read Ulysses and most of the twentieth century's celebrated literature.

My academic training involved about 12 years of rigorous reading, including archaic texts, most of the major philosophers, and some of the most nebulous, pretentious, and insufferable texts one can imagine. I've also read complete collections in French, German, and English. After reading Hume and Hegel, I feel like most literature is fairly simple.

This might also owe to my rejection of Smart phones, tablets, and most social media. I refused to use smart phones until 2015.

>> No.19799475

>>19799472
what a bizarre LARP

>> No.19799486

>>19799461
KJV is written very simply though. The use of polysyndeton in it is very basic. That's not the case with BM.
>entry-level here meaning it is easy for someone who isn't well read to pick up and read with relative ease
Most first time readers I know got completely filtered and they had some experience with classics (up until 19th century). I think you are generalizing your experience. Moby dick is also straightforward, but for most first time readers is far beyond 'entry level'

>> No.19799492

>>19799472
After reading Hegel, everything is "simple". Not necessarily because they are simple 'simple', rather because your appetite for oddity now know little bounds.

>> No.19799656

>>19799486
>The use of polysyndeton in it is very basic. That's not the case with BM.
hahahah give me an example of complex polysyndeton in BM

>> No.19799663

>>19799486
also fucking high school students are prescribed MD

>> No.19799684

>>19798475
It's not hard but it's not entry tier either.

>> No.19799690

>>19798699
I enjoyed it.

>> No.19799704

>>19799663
Only parts of it. Never the full book. Do you not know this?
>>19799656
>They rode on and the sun in the east flushed pale streaks of light and then a deeper run of color like blood seeping up in sudden reaches flaring planewise and where the earth drained up into the sky at the edge of creation the top of the sun rose out of nothing like the head of a great red phallus until it cleared the unseen rim and sat squat and pulsing and malevolent behind them. The shadows of the smallest stones lay like pencil lines across the sand and the shapes of the men and their mounts advanced elongate before them like strands of the night from which they’d ridden, like tentacles to bind them to the darkness yet to come.

>> No.19799710

>>19799461
>>19799656
>>19799663
Stop making a mockery of yourself.

>> No.19799722

>>19799341
>Expanses of desert are not interesting
wrong!

>> No.19799732

Not totally related but I work a film development company and my boss recently got a hold of McCarthy's two next novels (yes, he's apparently publishing two). Can answer questions about them if anyone's interested.

>> No.19799746

>what makes blood meridian a tough read
Because it follows a very "they went there and did this, then they went here and did that" storytelling approach, so it can be tedious to follow.

>>19798453
Also this, if you're not familiar with the western / cowboy setting already, you might find yourself frequently looking up words such as "frizzen" or "mezcal"

>> No.19799757

>>19799732
Is your boss Scott Rudin? Has that faggot used you as his personal catamite?

>> No.19799761

>>19799704
If you actually believe that is complex you are truly ESL.
>>19799710
What does this even mean?

>> No.19799783

>>19799761
More complex than KJV and can easily disorient the first time reader. How thick are you that you don't get something this simple? Have you actually even read the book? You sound very delusional about this whole business.
>you are truly ESL.
Said the ESL, in the typical ESL manner.

>> No.19799795

>>19799475
Eh, I've found few people that share my views. Three of my best friends killed themselves, one had a science PhD, one almost had a phd, and the third had a bad case of final fantasy online.

I also pared in highschool, but was kicked out for bullying the fat kids.

>> No.19799798

>>19799704
lmao that is reddit as fuck

>> No.19799801

>>19799492
Hegel is important for my work. I cited Hegel in my last publication on ideas about freedom celebrating the anniversary of a freedom event.

>> No.19799803

>>19798475
JR is hard for the first 40 pages. After that it is easy once you get the hang of the unattributed dialogue.
May as well call it entry level.

>> No.19799806

>>19799798
nice critique, retard.

>> No.19799808

>>19799803
I struggle to read post modern critical theory.

>> No.19799809

>>19799798
You are reddit, so everything is reddit because everything you perceive has to pass through reddit before it registers in your disgusting, reddit-tumorous mind.

>> No.19799812

>>19799803
>everything is entry level, bro
might as well not even have the term entry level

>> No.19799816

>>19799812
You see the folly then.

>> No.19799817

>>19799812
I think active vs passive reading and comprehension play a role here.

>> No.19799820

>>19799757
No, my boss is pretty chill. He works for a total asshole big-wig though, won't disclose who

>> No.19799832

>>19799806
>>19799809
cope midwitters
fuck off back to /r/books nerds

>> No.19799856

>>19799798
>>19799832
Infinitely better than dedildo, redditor.

>> No.19800260

>>19798475
>>19799426
>>19799461
>>19799656
>>19799663
>>19799761
Why are you pretending to have read it? It's very obvious that you haven't.
Why are you also pretending that you read KJV?
What's the point?

>> No.19800292

>>19799461
The KJV reads nothing like the McCarthy passages I see posted here. Outside of the use of "and" the Bible doesn't read like a stream of consciousness.

>> No.19800315

>>19799704
This is shit man. Is the whole book like this?

>> No.19800333

>>19800315
It gets much denser than this, occasionally.

>> No.19800345

>>19800260
Why is it so hard for you to believe someone read an entry level book? Are you a newfag who just discovered corncob?

>> No.19800348

>>19800315
mostly. some parts are actually good

>> No.19800353

>>19800333
I wasn't addressing the "density". I hate seeing a list of completely disconnected similitudes that go all over the place. It's not elegant, it's not evocative.

>> No.19800363

>>19800345
It's obvious from everything that you write that you haven't read it. You are coping for some reason, maybe because it one ups your favorite book in praise on this board. Only way someone thinks it is entry level is if they haven't read it, or haven't actually read anything entry level (flattering you here). For that matter, I don't think you have read fight club or BNW either, or you wouldn't make such a nonsense comparison.
How long has JR been on your backlog? You will read it this year finally right? If it wasn't for its length, it would actually be easier than BM.

>> No.19800373

>>19800353
How are they disconnected? The prose in general is very evocative, if you don't come in with a sickle to critique the book that is. Nothing can convince you then. Read chapter 4 and see if you like it. It takes some getting used to.

>> No.19800374

>>19800353
>it's not evocative
it is. but yeah, mccarthys prose is ugly and riddled with cliches. he's a very cinematic writer, more intent on painting a vivid picture than writing something euphonic or creative or technically impressive

>> No.19800380

>>19800374
>riddled with cliches
>painting a vivid picture than writing something euphonic or creative or technically impressive
Is this the new bullshit the chuds are peddling now? How is vivid imagery not technically impressive when all good prose writers have always been ranked on imagery and sound. Both of which are present in swaths in his prose. And only puns and jokes count for creativity?

>> No.19800387

>>19800374
>it took 60+ replies for him to arrive
You are on right medications now. Continue.

>> No.19800429

>>19800374
>get criticized by the occasional detractor for your aversion of cliches
>some illiterate pansy with a grudge calls it cliched
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

>> No.19800456

>>19800363
cope

>> No.19800459

>>19800380
>>19800387
>>19800429
cope midwitters

>> No.19800462

>>19800374
Pseud. Go read Pynchon or whatever

>> No.19800474

>>19800459
>so mindbroken he is still here
You do realize that most people see you as a joke right?
>>19800353
>disconnected similitudes
Judging by your complete incompetence at reading a rather straightforward scene and using nonsense vocab to construct some similarly incompetent critique, I wouldn't recommend this one. Try Harry potter.

>> No.19800481

>>19800373
>How are they disconnected?
In order,
>sunlight like blood
>sun like the head of a red phallus (ok these two fit)
>shadows like pencil lines
>shadows like tentacles
Other than Japanese hentai I can't think of a cohesive image. I don't know how >>19800374 says it's "cinematic" when it reads like forced simile after forced simile. It pleases (and impresses) me when a sequence of similitudes conjure a consistent image, otherwise it's jarring and it takes me out of the narrative.

>> No.19800486

>>19800474
>nonsense vocab
are you referring to "disconnected similitudes"? are you completely braindead?

>> No.19800501

>>19800481
>sunlight like blood
Yup completely incompetent.
>shadow like pencil lines
Of the round small stones
>shadow like tentacles
Of the large, amorphous men
It doesn't create a coherent image for you because you can't even read words properly. The sun just as it was rising threw elongated shadows which "look" (because the sun is at the horizon) as if they are still attached to the darkness of the night which receds as the sun rises.
>forced simile
Force your brain a little, you idiot.
>>19800486
Look in the mirror.

>> No.19800597

>>19800501
Do you have a complete lack of reading comprehension because you are high on drugs or are you just genuinely this fucking stupid? I did not say that I did not understand the fucking metaphors, I said that they conjure a hodgepodge of imagery that is not cohesive or elegant, and which takes me out of the narrative since it goes all over the place. Do you understand that, you fucking subhuman hypermongoloid?

>> No.19800603

>>19800597
You are a retard then, because the image is completely coherent. You wish to stay retarded and want all books to conform to similar retardation before they be good then please do, but Don't assault our ears and brain with your incessant whining. Stay retarded.
>sunlight like blood
Learn to read, retard.

>> No.19800610

>>19800603
Where the fuck is the visual continuity between pencil lines and tentacles? God you are stupid, Jesus Christ.

>> No.19800663

>>19800610
Because they are shadows of two different things you low IQ retard. Men's shadow don't look like pencil lines you fucking retard. Nor do stone shadows look like tentacles. Where is the coherence in your argument? You are crying coherence when you are incapable of inferring it.

>> No.19800692

>>19800610
>he is looking for cohesion between similes
Lmao. You must have read some shit like 'how fiction works' by writers who can't write fiction for shit.
Similes by nature make fragile connections. A simile has to describe the likeness of the object it is describing, it doesn't have to also describe the other simile that it has no connection with. The imagery here is both vivid and an accurate visual representation. Meanwhile, you are complaining why the similes don't follow a set pattern.
>blood
>red phallus (this is ok)
This is coherent? You are justifying it through the most tenuous reasoning possible that both have a relation to the human body. What is this amateurish shit?!

>> No.19800693

>>19799472
Nice blogpost, slut. Ask me how I know you’re a woman.

>> No.19800732

>>19800610
Where is the visual continuity between man and stone!!
There isn't. That's the point.
There. It is coherent in its incoherence and even stresses upon a statement the book later makes. Think a little harder, bud.

>> No.19800780

>>19800663
>>19800692
>>19800732
I AM NOT REFERRING TO THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE OBJECT OF THE SIMILE AND THE THING IT IS COMPARED TO IN EACH SIMILE, BUT THE OVERALL COHESIVENESS OF THE SIMILES THEMSELVES. GOD FUCKING DAMN IT, HOLY FUCKING SHIT YOU FAGGOTS ARE DENSER THAN A FUCKING BLACK HOLE

>> No.19800789

>>19800380
It's just a contrarian reaction where they try to base their ego on not liking what everyone else regards as a masterpiece. "I'm not like those other posters"

>> No.19800792

>>19800789
le masterpiece
mwah mwah
*le chefs kiss*
mamma mia!

>> No.19800800

>>19800780
>BUT THE OVERALL COHESIVENESS OF THE SIMILES THEMSELVES.
Made up rule. You are inventing reasons to not like it. Besides, I already explained. Man and stone have no visual continuity, THEN HOW CAN WE ACCEPT THEIR SIMILES (LIKENESSES USED TO DESCRIBE THEM) HAVE ONE BETWEEN THEM. THEIR DISSIMILARITY IS ASSERTED IN THE INCOHERENCE OF TENTACLES AND PENCIL LINES. Answer this. You want visual cohrsion just because. It goes against the theme of the book but it is wrong because mr. Anon can only understand simple rules of writing. Amateur.
You have pseudy rules but not the intelligence to follow them through to the end.

>> No.19800803

>>19800792
Yuck yuck!
Garbage poster
Shoo shoo!
Fucker!

>> No.19800817

>>19800800
You are completely fucking braindead. You are so braindead that you couldn't even read that I said, in my fucking post, that I don't PERSONALLY like a stream of similes that are disconnected from each other, because they are not clever and on top of all, take me out of the narrative. I said that several times, I did not claim it to be a fucking "rule" I said that I don't find it good. This schizophrenic obsession with rules is also why you think this is good writing. You are making an appeal to authority while I'm expressing myself on the basis of taste. The imagery is fucking jarring, it goes all over the place, it does not create something "vivid" but it's the equivalent of those shitty ads with 23490283429348239482349239289423892849 quick cuts to different "powerful" images. I am fucking done talking to you. Retard fucking burgerbrain. I hope your whole fucking country gets nuked into the bottom of the ocean.

>> No.19800830

>>19800817
You are mentally ill. It also explains your garbage understanding of writing and complete inability to reason beyond the capacity of your little brain. You want the writer to write dishonestly because your brain is so fried from watching shitty ads (YOU 100% DON'T UNDERSTAND EVEN THEM, I GUARANTEE) that you have invented retarded rules to describe your tastes. Rules that are so shallow that they don't hold up to any COHERENT argument (look how my logical explanation completely fucked you up). As the other guy said above, stick to Harry potter. There are no similes or only very basic metaphors in it. It will sit right with you.

>> No.19800845

>>19800817
>because they are not clever and on top of all, take me out of the narrative.
They are probably much too clever for your basic understanding. You want instant gratification of incoherent "coherence" of similes which is not supported by the themes of the book in any way. Just provide gratification to braindead retards like you who don't want to work to understand what is used and why it is used.

>> No.19800848

Those two sentences, which you guys are arguing about, are masterfully done.

>> No.19800871

>>19800817
>can't read sentences
>invents shitty criteria to look smart
>exposed for the retarded fraud he is with zero understanding of anything
>sperg out
>"THIS IS SHITTY WRITING....JUST BECAUSE... BECAUSE IT IS."
You are an embarrassment

>> No.19801076

>>19798385
Is it tough? The prose is a bit cryptic sometimes and there are lots of specific terms for plants and animals, but otherwise it's smooth. I read it in English just fine and I'm an Italian ESL...

>> No.19801084

>>19800830
>>19800845
>>19800871
Just letting you know that you're retarded. Keep sucking this shitty writer's cock.

>> No.19801088
File: 136 KB, 820x791, 4584.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19801088

>>19801084

>> No.19801690

>>19801084
>retarded person calling other people retards
Oh my! How will i recover! Grow a brain first retarded pussy.

>> No.19801709

>>19801084
>never read the book
>invent shitty reason to dislike it
>be retarded enough to believe the shitty reason
>refuse reasonable arguments because retarded
>yeah, letting you know hurr durr"
Why don't you try knowing something first? Rotten apebrain.

>> No.19801756

Why do BM thread attract the biggest retards on this board? Not talking just about the moop above, but these threads constantly attract idiots with the most unjustifiable and stupid reasons to dislike the book. The moop doesn't know what simile means, one idiot was trying to critique the high faultin language without reading more than a few goodreads quotes, another idiot had to be taught basics of poetics, another had to be lectured on polysyndeton (another idiot in this thread probably doesn't know anything about it beyond that it is used in KJV). Why don't they actually research before opening their mouths? Why do they even hate this book without ever having read it?

>> No.19801816

>>19798385
Love McCarthy's work but before I got into him, all of his books were pumped up as difficult and emotionally draining reads. And I read Blood Meridian, loved it (because I like weird shit), but it wasn't anymore difficult or moving than year six of Harry Potter. "This book will never be able to be filmed" I'm like, yeah cool baby tree bro, is this what's got them all worked up? Baby tree and some very light pedophilia and homoeroticism?

>> No.19801833

>>19801816
Have you read any others? The Border trilogy and Suttree are very emotionally draining, and c'mon you are over exaggerating with Harry potter. It is a significantly harder read than that, not that it matters but it gives potential readers the wrong impression. Plus the violence won't sit well with 99% of readers and can probably be draining to many though i didn't have much an issue with them.

>> No.19801912

>>19801833
Yeah, I'm referring more to my own taste level and emotions. That's why I mentioned that I liked weird shit (literature, films, music) Not much surprises me. McCarthy's writing is very clear. The lack of punctuation or his style of syntax didn't muddle the story, but I can see how many others would be thrown off by it. The violence is nothing that isn't shown in a Tarantino movie. Blood Meridian was an easy read for me. I casually read half of it while waiting in the court house for Jury duty. I just recently finished the road and people and didn't get any of the melancholy that people warn other's about. It was very much in line with other post-apocalypses stories. I like his writing and story telling and it comes off as cool and invigoration rather draining for me. If you're into video games the atmosphere McCarthy builds for his stories always reminds me of Dark Souls. Also year six of HP was bloody and violent, and had lots of horror in it which is why I mentioned that one in particular lol. I'm trying to imagine myself having to create a disclaimer or warning for McCarthy's work but I think that anybody who would ask me for book suggestions would already be a person that also likes a lot of the same media that I do and they wouldn't need one.

>> No.19801953

>>19801912
You seem to have pretty eccentric tastes. Have you tried Lautreamont's Maldoror? Pretty good and mean, that book.

>> No.19801985

>>19801953
It's on my list actually! I discovered that book through a neo-folk artist that I love. Just haven't gotten a chance to read it yet. I'm currently reading through The Malleus Maleficarum.

>> No.19802042

>>19801756
BM's just a pseud magnet, but you can tell from the negative reaction that it is a great book

>> No.19802265

>>19801816
If I remember right there are two separate baby tree incidents which alone is kinda funny

>> No.19803504

>>19798687
Dropping puppies off bridges and swinging infant babies onto rocks is graphic and demented.

>> No.19803529

>>19799319
>I do tire of the all the that style of stretching out a sentence by tying it together and using the word and about fifty times and slowly finding it hard to not think about just getting to the next paragraph and wondering if he's intentionally setting a certain pace and in a way trying to tire you out and feel like another character trudging through the endless expanse of brutality
I felt the exact same way. I do think he did so with that precise purpose.

>> No.19803959

After finishing BM (which I adored) I started reading Moby Dick and find this exhausting, maybe because it's the contrary of BM (more internal than external)? I'm 40% in.

>> No.19805213

>>19803504
But your post is not graphic and demented, because you've just described these things in a few words, not droned on and on describing every little graphic detail. That is also what McCarthy does. It's pretty much up to you how vividly you want to imagine it. He describes landscapes way more than violence

>> No.19805271

>>19803959
This is correct, and I always find it odd that Harold Bloom & co. place them in the same great American novel sequence of tradition or whatever. Why would one would say or think this?

Like they're almost completely opposed in style and form. BM has little to distinguish the chapters and is very visual in prose, like it's enslaved to the descriptive archaic language and metaphors. Meanwhile MD is almost biblical in its alternations between and cycles of types of writing: action-adventure to sermon to romantic-lyrical to playlike to philosophic-transcendental to encyclopedic-informative and back again. I like MD more but it's wrong to read it because of BM or because they're supposed to be kin-novels. Doing that will just disappoint.

>> No.19805272

>>19798542
I don’t think it’s a flex but I don’t think it’s chosen just to give you an exact image of what he’s saying either. The odd use of vocabulary gives the book and otherworldly quality where you piece together part of what is happening while having to try and figure out the rest. It also gives the prose a more archaic feel so it feels like you’re reading a biblical text, which I think is intentional.

>> No.19805276

>>19798687
It’s graphic but it didn’t horrify me in the way Child of God did.

>> No.19805291

>>19798385
This was actually the second Corncob book I read after The Road, and strangely enough I finished it a few months ago. It was really good and I enjoyed it. The descriptions were very well done and just different from other things that I've read. Some things would be left vague and up to the imagination and others things would be described like it was an image I could actually see. Just a pleb opinion but yeah.

>> No.19805403

>>19801816
>it wasn't anymore difficult or moving than year six of Harry Potter.

lol OK

>> No.19805623

>>19798422
This. Suttree is amazing, Blood Meridian is overhyped by edgelords

>> No.19805635

>>19805403
Not him but it's really not that moving despite being a fairly hard read. Graphic depictions of violence alone don't mean much

>> No.19805665

>>19798422
Nah, Suttree is overwritten. Blood Meridian is the one.

>> No.19805673

>>19798385
The style might take some getting used to. I don't think it is very hard to read. Although trying to understand it is another business entire. It is one of those books that get harder to pin down the more you try to understand them because you are then more likely to misread. I can imagine it being a really tough read for readers who want to stay in control of the work at all times.

>> No.19805674

>>19798453
>we almost never go into any character's inner life

This is what makes it great. Inner life, thoughts etc. are so corny. How the fuck does a writer know what his characters are thinking? You always here this complaint about McCarthy, "what aRe tHe ReAsOns?" As if any reason would be suitable for how the characters in this book act.

>> No.19805681

>>19798542
Did you ever think he writes for his own enjoyment of language? It entertains him? He didn't exactly have many readers when it was published. You stupid catamite

>> No.19805684

>>19805635
You'll understand when you're older ;)

>> No.19805695

>>19805213
Ah I see your point. Good observation.

>> No.19805704

>>19805272
This
I read Cormac knowing I won't understand 15-20% of the words even though I've been reading and writing my whole life. It gives an ethereal and otherworldly feel that detaches you enough to feel like there is a camera just floating around what is happening. You can tell it's intentional because No Country for Old Men, Child of God and The Road don't do this. It provides the feel of a Biblical epic which is done sincerely in Blood Meridian and ironically in Suttree.

>> No.19805721

>>19799319
I was in the same place you were at the halfway point, mildly interested, but not really enthralled. Fortunately, it gets better as you go through the novel. The last third or so of the book is where it shines the most, and I didn't really consider it a great novel until I got to the last paragraph before the epologue. That passage left a mark on me, and no other book has left the same impression.

>> No.19805722

>>19805704
Aren't Suttree's most vocab flexing sections Sut's meditation on death and life? The justification being that he is literally a high IQ bum like Cormac used to be.

>> No.19805732

>>19805721
I had the same thing happen to me but for Beckett's Molloy

>> No.19805768
File: 21 KB, 640x356, 1630826645602.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19805768

>>19799704
>los yanquis no pueden leer en su propio idioma

>> No.19805770

>>19805704
Another one of my favorite authors, Gene Wolfe, did the same thing for his fantasy series Book of the New Sun. He used antiquated words like “jelab” in lieu of something like cloak meaning and it truly made the prose feel alien.

>> No.19805923

>>19798453
I don’t want it to become a movie. It would only be good if tonally they made it different some how or exaggerated the humor. I’m sick of films that try to be a line for line copy of the book and sterilize the story with their fear of taking it in any direction that wasn’t originally intended. That’s exactly what this would most likely be. That said, Robert Eggers would be the only one who has any business directing/adapting it imo.

>> No.19806000
File: 956 KB, 634x821, glanton.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19806000

>HACK AWAY YOU MEAN RED NIGGER!

>> No.19807364
File: 52 KB, 800x800, judge holden.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19807364

>yfw you finally peel back the layers of Blood Meridian and find that it's just a simple story of what would happen if a cat turned into a human

>> No.19807410

>>19807364
I always knew cats were evil, na'mean

>> No.19807492

>>19805674
I like that about his style. When you go back to other authors you notice how often they "tell" rather than "show" what's motivating their protagonist by literally just explaining their feelings or even transcribing their thoughts. McCarthy almost exclusively "shows" character motivation. When he "tells" it's to let you know that this particular landscape used to be an ocean floor 70 million years ago or some other neat detail that mostly just builds atmosphere.

>> No.19808141

>>19800380
>chuds
As far as I’m aware only the gayest people on earth use that word unironically. I mean gay as in effeminate and ineffective.

>> No.19808148

>>19808141
You seem bothered.

>> No.19808166

>>19808148
Nope. Are you coping? Why do you use that word? What does it mean?

>> No.19808200

I honestly don’t know what the word “chud” means, I only know that absolute losers use it. That’s why I was confused when I saw somebody who seemed to be making a coherent post use the word. People who use that word usually have nothing worthwhile to say.

Disclaimer: I did not actually fully read the post.

>> No.19808202

>>19808166
You are the one coping here>>19808141
Imagine getting offended by words not even directed at you. Or were they?

>> No.19808209

>>19808200
Lmao! why are you posting your blog here? Who even cares what you think? Idk but I imagine only real chuds would get offended by the mention of that word.

>> No.19808220

>>19799472
>My academic training involved about 12 years of rigorous reading, including archaic texts, most of the major philosophers, and some of the most nebulous, pretentious, and insufferable texts one can imagine. I've also read complete collections in French, German, and English. After reading Hume and Hegel, I feel like most literature is fairly simple.
This is good to know, as someone with training in continental philosophy. I wasn't sure if it'd be hard for me compared to others.

>> No.19808221

>>19808200
Spend less time on twitter, you zoomer. We can't have words with trigger warnings now. That'd be maddening.

>> No.19808958

>>19808202
>>19808221
>Illiterates on /lit/
Typical. Answer me this you retards: what does that word mean? I do not know. How much more could I spell it out?

>> No.19808995

>>19808209
1) Why not.
2) Who doesn’t.
3) Yes very cute.

>> No.19809078

>>19808958
If you do not know what the word means but are still triggered at the mere mention of it, then it is probably because you have some mental issues. Do you have PTSD from fighting with all those twitter trannies? Fucking pathetic retard.
It means sensitive, ugly ass looking, easily triggered loser with unjustifiably large ego. Fits you to the tee.

>> No.19809273

>> 19809078
You are hysterical whilst projecting onto me. I can only assume you use the word a lot. Go get some exercise, strangers on the internet should not upset you so much.

>no u! Ur triggered!
Yeah sure i’m triggered. I’m in tears or in a rage or whatever.

Right… that’s a very subjective, lofty definition. I figured it’s what losers use to describe somebody who they think is beneath them (who may or may not be).

I was hoping for something a little more concise; maybe something to do with the alt right or somebody who thinks they’re an alpha male.

It does seem to mean: somebody who I don’t like.

You’re just too stupid to know the meaning of the words you use. I try not to talk to idiots.

>> No.19809282

>>19809078
Also I’m not bothering to address your attempts to insult me again, it means nothing to me except to tell me you’re upset.

>> No.19809335

>>19800481
You haven't seen a shadow in the desert at sunrise before have you. It's not the same elsewhere as it is the closer you get to the equator, which they are approximating, as this is taking place several hundred kilometers over the Mexican border from Texas. Equator shadows when the sun is at horizon are very spindly and long.

>> No.19809496

>>19798422
I adore Suttree but BM is hardly trite.

>> No.19810008

>>19805923
>I’m sick of films that try to be a line for line copy of the book and sterilize the story with their fear of taking it in any direction that wasn’t originally intended.
Name me a movie that does this and doesn't instead ruin the book by taking it in wildly different directions and making retard choices about its story.

>> No.19810049

>>19798385
Not much of it is a tough read, only some of the old style naming and lingo. I do wonder what resources and references Cormac used to make it authentic.

>> No.19810050

>>19810008
Dune

>> No.19810102

>>19810050
I haven't seen nor read Dunc because I've been desperately trying to move away from Sci Fi and Fantasy, but from the complaints over on /tv/ I'm not sure many people would agree with you in that it was just a sterile 1:1 adaptation.

>> No.19811079

>>19800817
cope seethe also meds

>> No.19811091

/lit/ is getting worse. Again.

>> No.19811288

>>19807492
correcto

>> No.19811374

>>19809273
>TeLl mE wHAt iT MeANs
>invent his own definition to fit his delusions
Shut the fuck up retard. You have ptsd from all the trannies calling you chud on twitter or to your "brethren". Everything about you screams chud in denial.

>> No.19811404

>>19809273
>don't know what the word means
>ask what it means
>"nah it must mean that"
You listen a lot to troons. You are also unnaturally upset at that word. I don't know what it means but only someone who sees those qualities in himself would get so bothered by the word.

>> No.19812194

Chud - A unattractive person whose defining characteristic of their personality is their egotism. Most often used to describe typically one-dimensional preps, chauches, or the like. A particularly mean insult; it should not be taken nor thrown around lightly.

(Urban dictionary)

>>19811374
>>19811404
You are a toxic, bitter loser who’s obsessed with trannies/twitter. You are also a simpleton who doesn’t understand the meaning of the words they use. Why you’re on /lit/ i can only assume is for the sake of your vanity. You are a chud - an unattractive egotist. I know this because attractive people aren’t bitter and you’re too stupid to actually read as a hobby.

I would prefer to use real words to articulate myself. Chud is a gay word used by gay people to describe gay people. Like people who say nigga or lit or etc.

(You) are a obtuse, abject loser who can’t read. What could be worse.

>> No.19812262
File: 383 KB, 592x552, 1635604137753.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19812262

>>19812194
>attractive people aren't bitter
>bitter over a word in a completely unrelated thread
>"only losers use it"
>uses it himself
Look how mad this chud is! Lol
What happened CHUD. Does it sting? Lol.
Imagine having a meltdown over namecalling NOT even meant for you. You are a CHUD in DENIAL, that is the only explanation.

>> No.19812291

>>19812194
>"I know this because attractive people aren’t bitter and you’re too stupid to actually read as a hobby"
>derails a thread about a book because of his insecurity
You are an illiterate retard lol.
>I would prefer to use real words to articulate myself
If you could you'd be talking about books not getting triggered over words llike chud, nigga etc. like a limpwristed snowflake (aka chud)
>abject loser who can’t read. What could be worse.
Definitely (you). I would kms if I realized I was so embarrassing.

>> No.19812298

>>19798385
Why is /lit/ so obsessed with this book

>> No.19812433

>>19812262
>>19812291
>longwinded replies that amount to “no u”
Lol ok retard(s).

>> No.19812454

>being so hysterically mad that you pretend to be multiple people to win an anonymous internet argument

>quiet for hours then 2 posts in 5 min intervals twice

>>19811374
>>19811404

>>19812291
>>19812262

That is exactly the person I imagined to be using the word “chud”. A completely deranged, bottom of the barrel, loser. Disheartening pathetic to see this kind of terminally online retard.

>> No.19812462

>>19812454
*typo phoneposting

>> No.19812503

>>19812433
>>19812454
>>19812462
>so mad he keeps replying after every 10 minutes. He keeps reading your post and keeps getting mad at something new, hesitates to post in one reply because his insecurities are into overdrive at intervals
Pathetic loser lol. This is exactly what I expect from a chud. So self aware that he cannot let pass even one mention of the word, because he knows deep down below his disgusting skin and lice infested head he is garbage personified. Come at me chud. I have your neck in my hands and I am twisting it and your squawks are ridiculously fun. Rage more chud.
Learn to type. So embarrassing you can't even post with autocorrect enabled. Inbred retard.

>> No.19812637

Hahaha what a freak.

>> No.19812651

>watch him waffle again after 10 minutes calling everyone "ebil" for using a word that reminds him of his physique like the trannies on twitter rage at "tranny".
Zero self awareness

>> No.19812935

I just finished Child of God.

I liked it :)

>> No.19813028

>>19812651
Post body.