>Cormac McCarthy famously hated the novels of Marcel Prousttoo many opera gloves, too many perfumed drapes, not enough elemental struggle with t...

Nay, ‘tis me. It is impossible, I dare say, to sully my own name, as I am quite —
Unequivocally, I mind you — the apogee of posters on this forsaken board, thus, regardless of the fact that I an a troony and a homosexual, I am a priori superior to you, as you are a dullard who will fall for this —

That’s not me. That is an anonymous poster trying to make me look bad (like a bigot chud neonazi). He is trying to sully the good name of Jon Kolner.

>He who pilfers my purse steals trash

— palpable red herring.

I'm afraid its all natural, unlike with you

You are just moronic namegay. Trashy society novels during turn of the 20th century france are as much genre fiction as any Western is. This is really telling that the people defending the trash homosexual are either illiterates or trannies with immense butthurt accumulated over years in McCarthy threads. So much misinformation.

>Genre as a term means obvious genres- westerns/ adventures/ comedy. Proust is definitely not an overt genre writer.
You don't even know how absurd you sound. Why of course it is. There's a whole genre of French society novel that was popular in the 19th century and Proust was aping for the backbone of his story.
>"but no no what proust focuses on is different"
So does McCarthy, but how is that a justification ITT?

>but the lack of a clear villain/ plot and the over realism clearly differentiate it from the genre shit of his day. You didn’t even bother to check the wiki page where it says this.
Lmao, are you fricking moronic? Having an antagonist isn't what makes a book genre fiction you dumbass. None of the bourgeois society novels necessarily had a villain. What stupid criteria
>If McCarthy books had no clear antagonist and were structured like present> past memory> further past memory of somebody else> slightly closer to present then they would maybe not be called genre shit
I would keep my trap shut about things I don't know. McCarthy has written 12 books, not 2. Besides, having antagonists didn't make Shakespeare or Melville or Goethe or Milton any less literary so frick off with that bullshit. The rest is just a teenager's opinion on what literary fiction should be
>present> past memory> further past memory of somebody else> slightly closer to present
Lol. It's always funny to see dumbasses give their opinion on what literature is without even realizing that literary fiction having no obligation to be written out of a blueprint is why it's lirerary fiction. Proustgays won't get it though. They still think that outdated garbage is groundbreaking in the present day when, even then, it was groundbreaking only to people who hadn't read the better writers he copied from.

You don't have the intelligence for it and I mean it in earnest.

>My IQ is in the 120's, same range as Nobel-prize winning physicists Richard Feynman, Luis Alvarez and William Shockley, higher than James D. Watson, how high should it be? 150? 160? 200? I know around 5-8 languages, should I know ten? Should I also be a NASA astronaut?
This is exactly why nobody is replying to. You are embarrassingly cringe.

If you knew how to interpret what you read you'd realize I actually do not give a shit about those metrics.
My point is: you don't need to be abnormally intelligent to understand McCarthy, or any great literary text. Average intelligence or slightly above average intelligence is enough 90% of the time.
So shut up and just explain what ground he broke, and post a paragraph where he is doing it.
It seems to me that you are insecure about your ability of actually explaining any of that in a clear and objective way, because secretly you know it's false.

>The response to this post
I was not going to respond, but since you kindly allow me to...

>broadest view of things
How do you even measure something like that? How is his "view" "broader" than that of Stendhal or Tolstoy?

>he can separate the absolute rock from the mental image
By 'absolute rock' do you just mean 'rock', as in the objective rock which exists in the real world? I believe nearly all good writers are able to do that.
As far as my low intelligence allows me to interpret your post, what you are saying is that McCarthy is not, so to speak, a "wordcel" (to use a new word with an old meaning) but can play things as they are, unlike the man in the blue guitar, am I correct? Furthermore, he uses that ability of his to create a world of things in themselves, unobstructed by excessive psychological interpretation and "points of view", with long passages where all you have are the very objects, is this right?

>overly internal writers that followed since Shakespeare
'Objective' writing has been a thing for a long time, it's already present to a large extent in Flaubert and the realists, is in fact a part of realism, of which the paragraph you posted can even be taken as an example (filtered, as I said, through 'time-book' Steinish, pseudo-biblical syntax), and there are many other historical instances, including imagism, Marianne Moore, as well as in other languages like Portuguese (João Cabral), French (Robbe-Grillet and the nouveau roman crowd have books full of paragraphs of extreme, in fact highly autistic visual precision, though this is not their main goal and they vary a lot, but they do have it), and probably others, all before McCarthy.
Remy de Gourmont has a whole book about precisely that, in which he contrasts two types of mind and style, one abstract, the kind that reads the word 'sea' and thinks of the word itself, of the letters, the other concrete, which reads the same word and is reminded of the very sea, with its sounds, colors, smells etc., and is therefore interested in the images and the objects of the world as such, and de Gourmont recommends a writer should preferentially be of the latter type; and Joseph Conrad, as everyone knows, was already writing in order to "make you see"...

That paragraph you posted adds nothing new to what Conrad, Joyce, Faulkner and others had already done. It's a fine paragraph of realist prose. Pic related is some Conrad for comparison. McCarthy is the same, he just cuts more, in modernist fashion (others cut even more, including poets who refuse to, e.g., use any adjectives at all and write just concrete nouns, verbs, etc.), dresses it in some burdensome syntax in pastiche of The Bible/Gertrude Stein, and of course adds his own little idiosyncrasies such as scientific terms ('simian' in that paragraph, in other paragraphs many more), fever imagery etc. like Conrad with his sea stuff and Nabokov with his butterflies. It does not break any sort of new ground.

Why do you insist I have not read McCarthy?
As I said, I have very much read Blood Meridian, and you will notice *I did not say* say he is a realist writer, +but rather that the specific piece of prose you posted is very much indistinguishable from realist prose other than from laughable biblical (really Gertrude Steinian) syntactical pastiche. He does have, however, *many points in common with realism*, including the objective/visual style of writing, such as can be seen in that very paragraph I posted, when compared to the paragraphs of Conrad. So do authors like Joyce, etc. all springing from realism but with 'modernist' aspects of divergence.
Your other points are obscure and you do not define your terms. You use pseudo-philosophical babble about "the absolute". Most likely McCarthy himself, a materialist who strongly appreciated science (very much the same as I in terms of philosophical outlook, in fact), would probable be very confused by what you are saying.

>Grillet is a perfect counterxample of an external style that serves the internal world
What does it even mean for a style to *serve* something?
McCarthy is not a documentary filmmaker. There is nearly as much subjectivity in him as in any other author, and as much room for the reader's imagination to operate.

>but rather paradoxically with such incredibly internal writers such as Melville, Shakespeare, Joyce and Faulkner
And Conrad, who was writing "to make you see".
Anyway, there is no such fake distinction between "external" and "internal" writers.
As I said, you talk like a student who learned/invented some abstract categories yesterday and is now applying them to whatever they see. The writers you mention have countless passages of both "internal" and "external" prose, both very long monologues full of wild ramblings, sentimental passages etc. and very long, objective descriptions of rooms, actions, events, etc.
What "internality" are Shakespeare's plays are serving?
What about Cervantes? In one line of interpretation, D. Qujote is the very epitome of revolt against the "internal" world and praise for the objective life.
And Homer? Turoldus? Machiavelli as historian? Do they "serve the internal world" too? How?

>I never even implied that McCarthy was the 1st to write an external style, but he is arguably the only one to write one that doesn't service human ponderings.
Again, what does it mean to say a style doesn't *service* human ponderings? McCarthy's style very much invites you to ponder about, say, the nature of evil, the meaning of lawfulness, etc. Pic related. There is very much space for pondering in Blood Meridian, as in any other novel.
Anyway, you said he was groundbreaking. I still fail to see how.

>You are what we call a volume reader
You whom? The Confederation of Fedora Readers?

>if you had read the writer
>You don't have to force your facade
>tantrum
>very childish
>emotional infancy
>And you are illiterate
>a reader of bare surfaces
>dumbest shit
>midwit

Your posts are just ad hominem at this point, it's useless to keep arguing, but...

>McCarthy's subjectivity is reader's projection
Does the same statement not apply to, e.g., Tolstoy in Ivan Ilich or T's model Homer.

>The narration's repetition and desperation changes with the focalizer and what is revealed is character
Does McCarthy not reveal character?
Both him and RG reveal character.
Both him and RG have long objective descriptions too.
Whether the descriptions are in *service* of the subjective character or not is a matter of interpretation.
One could reasonably argue the descriptions in BM, trees of dead babies, decayed scenery, desert etc., *serve* to enhance the theme of *human* evil and are in a way the imagistic entourage of the Judge -- or one could argue the reverse. Up to interpretation.

>McCarthy's narratives are never focalized through his character's minds
Neither are Homer's.

>That's stupid interpretation of Don Quixote
It's one of the most straightforward ones and perhaps the one many of Cervantes's contemporaries had.

>No, Don Quixote isn't doing anything similar to work like Blood meridian
I don't think he is. Reread my post.
I merely think Cervantes is not *serving* any "internality".

>Once again what is posted is dialogue
Obviously.
If I post the descriptions of a writer it will all look very objective and devoid of human relations, specially if they have to do with landscapes, objects, etc.
Read Euclides de Cunha, The Backlands, parts I and II. It's famously full of that, complete with thermometrical tables. Botanic manuals and ethological tracts full of that also, as is Courant's What Is Mathematics? which I recommend if you're by any chance interested in more abstract landscapes. Knuth's The Art of Computer Programming pays very little service to human subjectivity -- it certainly cared very little for mine!

Every writer will have in his books parts which are subjective -- dialogue, monologue, free indirect speech, occasional subjective considerations by the narrator -- and objective -- descriptions of objects etc.
All you seem to be saying is that McCarthy produces objective parts at a higher percentage than other authors do.
That, and that he has some obscure, underlying "broad view" from which that stems, a view which contains commentaries (what is a commentary? is it not a collection of human opinions?) on the world which does not include humanity (do you really think I human being can comment on the world while ignoring humanity itself, or being in some way influenced by the fact he is a human? is this not a mere fantasy of yours?), and these commentaries cannot be argued against through logic.
Very obscure. But it's, like, an a e s t h e t i c, bro, you wouldn't get it!

>the descriptions in BM, trees of dead babies, decayed scenery, desert etc., *serve* to enhance the theme of *human* evil and are in a way the imagistic entourage of the Judge -- or one could argue the reverse. Up to interpretation.
But that's precisely the argument. They are reader's projected interpretations. If you had read the book you would notice that the scene of dead babies is presented as matter of fact as a stone on the ground is. It unironically gives the whole thing an absurd comic vibe. That's the way violence throughout is treated, with a poker face. I think McCarthy used the descriptor optical democracy through the Judge somewhere in the book. It's a good description of his style. Please don't spam bad essays after misreading that one passage though.

>This whole shit up is bullshit. They are doing things very differently. I don't know what to tell you except to read the writer.
>But that's precisely the argument. They are reader's projected interpretations. If you had read the book you would notice that the scene of dead babies is presented as matter of fact as a stone on the ground is. It unironically gives the whole thing an absurd comic vibe. That's the way violence throughout is treated, with a poker face. I think McCarthy used the descriptor optical democracy through the Judge somewhere in the book. It's a good description of his style.

Nta and not saying his method is the same as Robbe-Grillet's, but why do you think McCarthy chose (what an average person might consider) particularly gruesome objective realities to describe? Why did he choose to set the entire book in such a harsh place and time, rather than in a setting of peace and prosperity? Do you think he used aleatoric divination to make these choices, or do you think he made them with some purpose in mind? To say nothing of the *way* he goes about describing things in terms of style, which is very distinctive and thus obviously not somehow completely neutral. I think I talked to (one of) you before in a favorites thread and had a pretty interesting discussion stemming from my skepticism about McCarthy when I had admired your other choices (incl. Bely's Petersburg). I was interested by your arguments but not convinced, and the thread ended up dying. I'd love to be able to enjoy him because I like bombastic, portentous, highflown style but I find that style to be particularly odious and ill-mannered in combination with his philosophical outlook - Beckett's is an example of a style that has some of those elements but is (closer to being, at least) rigorous and self-policing enough to satisfy the standards of seriousness to which I hold any author trying to make serious philosophical claims. Basically I think he was just a bit lazy in terms of wanting to be very serious and deal with pure realities but also to benefit from a stylized aesthetic that has little in common with reality. I understand how tempting the KJV style is, it's incredibly potent, but it is only so because it carries an implied belief in the incredible weight of what is being said - and I get that he thinks his objective realities are the weightiest thing there is, but without putting his money where his mouth is and using actual divination to determine where he aims his figurative camera, he is still on the pedestrian, human side of the objective/subjective gulf.

How is he not? Anglos seem to believe he is the greatest author to have ever existed, and upon asked to give you reasons always reply in the same way the McCarthy anon is doing, with random pseudo-philosophical babble -- in the anon's case, about Hegel and the absolute; in the case of bardolaters, usually more romantic and involving "forces of nature" at some point.
I believe Shakespeare is a very fine poet with a very fine talent for crafting memorable lines and metaphors, but I fail to see how he is responsible for such things as "inventing the human" and other such that are attributed to him by some of the most prominent and well-paid literary critics of our time. The structures of his plays are weak, many of his passages are nothing but cheap puns (in comedy) and empty rhetoric (in tragedy), many of his images and themes are commonplaces, and many of his characters are quite predictable, and most of his stories were taken from other authors to the point you sometimes don't know who exactly you are reading -- some of the best passages in Julius Caesar are imitations or mere reinventions of Thomas North's Plutarch. Pic related, and, if you want me to be really honest with you... I think Plutarch is better. He's clearer, less ridden with mediocre metaphors, and has none of that theatrical "Help-ho!" tier rhetoric which really annoys me. Everything comes at a price, and there are less memorable single lines in Plutarch, few if any great metaphors, and I wouldn't care to read a book of sonnets written by him, but overall the Lives, even in translation, are a better book for me to read than the First Folio. I enjoy Shakespeare and believe he is one of the foremost playwrights of his era, Macbeth and The Tempest in particular I often reread, but he is overrated by the likes of Bloom, Coleridge, T.S. Eliot and others.

I mean, I agree that Bloom is a goofball, that goes without saying. But it seems like you are highly indexed into purity in terms of your critical standards. The thing people like about Shakespeare is his multiplicity and the heights that he reaches. Most/all of the sins you enumerate are endemic to the Elizabethan drama, and are only significant through (1/2)

huh?

>Beckett's is an example of a style that has some of those elements but is (closer to being, at least) rigorous and self-policing enough to satisfy the standards of seriousness to which I hold any author trying to make serious philosophical claims.
Beckett doesn't have that style and his constant self awareness is very difficult to take seriously if you aren't a schoolboy in love with schopenhauer. Combine that with his somewhat slapstick humor and the effect is the opposite of what you are describing.
> I get that he thinks his objective realities are the weightiest thing there is, but without putting his money where his mouth is and using actual divination to determine where he aims his figurative camera, he is still on the pedestrian, human side of the objective/subjective gulf.
See I think this is completely false. I remember DFW praising McCarthy precisely for that fact that prose that is written in such a manner as to appear alien to most ears but with 100% sincerity. I think what you don't agree with is the inherent profundity in the style and your inability to see the profundity in what is being written. I also think your implication with objective realities is pedestrian. It's another symbol to begin with. You're viewing McCarthy's choice of writing about violence and hardship as an example of his dealing with objective reality when that's completely wrong. McCarthy's descriptions of desert are what's closer to objective reality, but transfigured by language. There's the problem. You are expecting him to point out something obvious about the human condition in this harsh landscape, as you have learned from reading writers like Beckett who write thinly veiled opinion pieces in some ways, instead of seeing what his attempts at writing the physical world might imply phenomenologically. I think you have begun on the wrong foot altogether, even the meaning of objective reality that you are using is entirely wrong. If I remember correctly you have only read ATPH, and you didn't give a very believable account of reading even that one properly, I would suggest that you atleast go through Blood meridian once before making up an opinion.

NTA
There are two styles in Blood meridian: one very grandiloquent and the second very objective and dry. The Grandiloquent style delineates the objectivity of the world through dissociation of what is described from the narrative implied through the language of its describing. Read the full thing, I imagine you will notice it. Here's an example:
>It was the judge and the imbecile. They were both of them naked and they neared through the desert dawn like beings of a mode little more than tangential to the world at large, their figures now quick with clarity and now fugitive in the strangeness of that same light. Like things whose very portent renders them ambiguous. Like things so charged with meaning that their forms are dimmed. The three at the well watched mutely this transit out of the breaking day and even though there was no longer any question as to what it was that approached yet none would name it. They lumbered on, the judge a pale pink beneath his talc of dust like something newly born, the imbecile much the darker, lurching together across the pan at the very extremes of exile like some scurrilous king stripped of his vestiture and driven together with his fool into the wilderness to die.
This, imo, is a highly ironic passage. The narrator's transformation of a scene on the desert is loaded with a portentous narrative, while in the very next line it is observed that such narration dims the object as itself, turning it into something else that is better cooked for myths. It's like the deconstruction of metaphors and similes. We see again The Judge and the idiot being turned into allusions for King Lear and his fool, but good luck to anyone trying to find a meaningful narrative where that is useful. This is why Blood meridian is considered hard to interpret. It IS about interpretation itself, but delivered fundamentally through desert imagery, rather than philosophical monologues (which are also there, mind you). Even the absurd analogical similes make much more sense once you realize that they are self reflexive.

Never read Wodehouse. Where to start?

>the descriptions in BM, trees of dead babies, decayed scenery, desert etc., *serve* to enhance the theme of *human* evil and are in a way the imagistic entourage of the Judge -- or one could argue the reverse. Up to interpretation.
But that's precisely the argument. They are reader's projected interpretations. If you had read the book you would notice that the scene of dead babies is presented as matter of fact as a stone on the ground is. It unironically gives the whole thing an absurd comic vibe. That's the way violence throughout is treated, with a poker face. I think McCarthy used the descriptor optical democracy through the Judge somewhere in the book. It's a good description of his style. Please don't spam bad essays after misreading that one passage though.

>There is nearly as much subjectivity in him as in any other author, and as much room for the reader's imagination to operate.
I should not have to explain this if you had read the writer. You don't have to force your facade. There are things that are immediately visible while reading the writer and fricked them up. Your tantrum are also very childish and thrown out of an emotional infancy which is again very palpable. McCarthy's subjectivity is reader's projection. He is nowhere near a writer of internal worlds or subjectivity like a Conrad is.
>What does it even mean for a style to *serve* something?
You think the voyeur or in the labyrinth are about people moving their hands about. The narration's repetition and desperation changes with the focalizer and what is revealed is character. McCarthy's narratives are never focalized through his character's minds, or often not if we are including his newer works.
>As I said, you talk like a student who learned/invented some abstract categories yesterday and is now applying them to whatever they see. The writers you mention have countless passages of both "internal" and "external" prose, both very long monologues full of wild ramblings, sentimental passages etc. and very long, objective descriptions of rooms, actions, events, etc.
And you are illiterate, and as I accurately stated above, a reader of bare surfaces and nothing below. You think these writers are doing the same thing as McCarthy because they have descriptions of nature occasionally like him. That's the dumbest shit anyone has posted whole day, and reveals you for the midwit you are. If you had read the writer you would see what I meant. Conrrad's influence on McCarthy is noted in their attitudes towards colonialism and in the character of the Judge, maybe prose through Faulkner. They are distinctly different narratively and philosophically. You have nothing but the blandest name dropping to hold up in court, which is the story of this whole thread really.
>What about Cervantes? In one line of interpretation, D. Qujote is the very epitome of revolt against the "internal" world and praise for the objective life.
That's stupid interpretation of Don Quixote and anybody who can read how much it overlaps with McCarthy's mode. As I said previously, you are waffling to find books that can be interpreted to have the only impression of this writer that you are aware of. To me it looks absolutely absurd and laughable. No, Don Quixote isn't doing anything similar to work like Blood meridian, just like Hegel wasn't just rewritting Kant by also pondering on the absolute like Kant did. You are dumb as hell.

>McCarthy's style very much invites you to ponder about, say, the nature of evil, the meaning of lawfulness, etc. Pic related.
Once again what is posted is dialogue. There are nearly 200 pages of desert descriptions that if they ponder human world of human relations, then they are probably the most oblique metaphors imaginable. The problem with you is that you are throwing shit at the wall to compose any sort of counterargument while doing barest possible to glean anything from the text that you have seen posted online. Your whole argument is dishonest. I will repeat again what I said before, McCarthy takes the broadest view where his commentaries on the world which does include humanity cannot be argued against strictly within the parameters of argumentative logic. His descriptions stem from there. Now you can bend over backwards to force this narrative practice over any other writer in defiance but you are convincing no one who has actually read him. It's an aesthetic. I can go deeper that would pull in his specific use of similes and parataxis but, as I predicted already, it will be distorted and misconstrued by dumb morons not arguing out of logic or truth but butthurt such as yourself.
>You whom? The Confederation of Fedora Readers
No. Mature readers who weren't biologically damned to be on their periods at the trigger of a name.

How is he not? Anglos seem to believe he is the greatest author to have ever existed, and upon asked to give you reasons always reply in the same way the McCarthy anon is doing, with random pseudo-philosophical babble -- in the anon's case, about Hegel and the absolute; in the case of bardolaters, usually more romantic and involving "forces of nature" at some point.
I believe Shakespeare is a very fine poet with a very fine talent for crafting memorable lines and metaphors, but I fail to see how he is responsible for such things as "inventing the human" and other such that are attributed to him by some of the most prominent and well-paid literary critics of our time. The structures of his plays are weak, many of his passages are nothing but cheap puns (in comedy) and empty rhetoric (in tragedy), many of his images and themes are commonplaces, and many of his characters are quite predictable, and most of his stories were taken from other authors to the point you sometimes don't know who exactly you are reading -- some of the best passages in Julius Caesar are imitations or mere reinventions of Thomas North's Plutarch. Pic related, and, if you want me to be really honest with you... I think Plutarch is better. He's clearer, less ridden with mediocre metaphors, and has none of that theatrical "Help-ho!" tier rhetoric which really annoys me. Everything comes at a price, and there are less memorable single lines in Plutarch, few if any great metaphors, and I wouldn't care to read a book of sonnets written by him, but overall the Lives, even in translation, are a better book for me to read than the First Folio. I enjoy Shakespeare and believe he is one of the foremost playwrights of his era, Macbeth and The Tempest in particular I often reread, but he is overrated by the likes of Bloom, Coleridge, T.S. Eliot and others.

>Anglos seem to believe he is the greatest author to have ever existed, and upon asked to give you reasons always reply in the same way the McCarthy anon is doing, with random pseudo-philosophical babble -- in the anon's case, about Hegel and the absolute; in the case of bardolaters, usually more romantic and involving "forces of nature" at some point
That's called reading and inference. You call it sucking homosexual dick and spamming the blandest possible readings that JSTOR sold you. Both are beyond the abilities of your little head.

>How is his "view" "broader" than that of Stendhal or Tolstoy?
Because McCarthy always has sight even of his own 'view' as an object. It's a Hegelian POV. If Tolstoy's winding down of War and Peace is anything to go by, he is a very biased thinker and relatively not broad at all. Dostoevsky was the greater thinker of the two for the same. It's part of Tolstoy's appeal though. Readers rarely want to go down so deep, most love Dosto for the invention and drama of his stories rather than the bare surface of his vision.

Why do you insist I have not read McCarthy?
As I said, I have very much read Blood Meridian, and you will notice *I did not say* say he is a realist writer, +but rather that the specific piece of prose you posted is very much indistinguishable from realist prose other than from laughable biblical (really Gertrude Steinian) syntactical pastiche. He does have, however, *many points in common with realism*, including the objective/visual style of writing, such as can be seen in that very paragraph I posted, when compared to the paragraphs of Conrad. So do authors like Joyce, etc. all springing from realism but with 'modernist' aspects of divergence.
Your other points are obscure and you do not define your terms. You use pseudo-philosophical babble about "the absolute". Most likely McCarthy himself, a materialist who strongly appreciated science (very much the same as I in terms of philosophical outlook, in fact), would probable be very confused by what you are saying.

>Grillet is a perfect counterxample of an external style that serves the internal world
What does it even mean for a style to *serve* something?
McCarthy is not a documentary filmmaker. There is nearly as much subjectivity in him as in any other author, and as much room for the reader's imagination to operate.

>but rather paradoxically with such incredibly internal writers such as Melville, Shakespeare, Joyce and Faulkner
And Conrad, who was writing "to make you see".
Anyway, there is no such fake distinction between "external" and "internal" writers.
As I said, you talk like a student who learned/invented some abstract categories yesterday and is now applying them to whatever they see. The writers you mention have countless passages of both "internal" and "external" prose, both very long monologues full of wild ramblings, sentimental passages etc. and very long, objective descriptions of rooms, actions, events, etc.
What "internality" are Shakespeare's plays are serving?
What about Cervantes? In one line of interpretation, D. Qujote is the very epitome of revolt against the "internal" world and praise for the objective life.
And Homer? Turoldus? Machiavelli as historian? Do they "serve the internal world" too? How?

>I never even implied that McCarthy was the 1st to write an external style, but he is arguably the only one to write one that doesn't service human ponderings.
Again, what does it mean to say a style doesn't *service* human ponderings? McCarthy's style very much invites you to ponder about, say, the nature of evil, the meaning of lawfulness, etc. Pic related. There is very much space for pondering in Blood Meridian, as in any other novel.
Anyway, you said he was groundbreaking. I still fail to see how.

>You are what we call a volume reader
You whom? The Confederation of Fedora Readers?

How is he not? Anglos seem to believe he is the greatest author to have ever existed, and upon asked to give you reasons always reply in the same way the McCarthy anon is doing, with random pseudo-philosophical babble -- in the anon's case, about Hegel and the absolute; in the case of bardolaters, usually more romantic and involving "forces of nature" at some point.
I believe Shakespeare is a very fine poet with a very fine talent for crafting memorable lines and metaphors, but I fail to see how he is responsible for such things as "inventing the human" and other such that are attributed to him by some of the most prominent and well-paid literary critics of our time. The structures of his plays are weak, many of his passages are nothing but cheap puns (in comedy) and empty rhetoric (in tragedy), many of his images and themes are commonplaces, and many of his characters are quite predictable, and most of his stories were taken from other authors to the point you sometimes don't know who exactly you are reading -- some of the best passages in Julius Caesar are imitations or mere reinventions of Thomas North's Plutarch. Pic related, and, if you want me to be really honest with you... I think Plutarch is better. He's clearer, less ridden with mediocre metaphors, and has none of that theatrical "Help-ho!" tier rhetoric which really annoys me. Everything comes at a price, and there are less memorable single lines in Plutarch, few if any great metaphors, and I wouldn't care to read a book of sonnets written by him, but overall the Lives, even in translation, are a better book for me to read than the First Folio. I enjoy Shakespeare and believe he is one of the foremost playwrights of his era, Macbeth and The Tempest in particular I often reread, but he is overrated by the likes of Bloom, Coleridge, T.S. Eliot and others.

>if you had read the writer
>You don't have to force your facade
>tantrum
>very childish
>emotional infancy
>And you are illiterate
>a reader of bare surfaces
>dumbest shit
>midwit

Your posts are just ad hominem at this point, it's useless to keep arguing, but...

>McCarthy's subjectivity is reader's projection
Does the same statement not apply to, e.g., Tolstoy in Ivan Ilich or T's model Homer.

>The narration's repetition and desperation changes with the focalizer and what is revealed is character
Does McCarthy not reveal character?
Both him and RG reveal character.
Both him and RG have long objective descriptions too.
Whether the descriptions are in *service* of the subjective character or not is a matter of interpretation.
One could reasonably argue the descriptions in BM, trees of dead babies, decayed scenery, desert etc., *serve* to enhance the theme of *human* evil and are in a way the imagistic entourage of the Judge -- or one could argue the reverse. Up to interpretation.

>McCarthy's narratives are never focalized through his character's minds
Neither are Homer's.

>That's stupid interpretation of Don Quixote
It's one of the most straightforward ones and perhaps the one many of Cervantes's contemporaries had.

>No, Don Quixote isn't doing anything similar to work like Blood meridian
I don't think he is. Reread my post.
I merely think Cervantes is not *serving* any "internality".

>Once again what is posted is dialogue
Obviously.
If I post the descriptions of a writer it will all look very objective and devoid of human relations, specially if they have to do with landscapes, objects, etc.
Read Euclides de Cunha, The Backlands, parts I and II. It's famously full of that, complete with thermometrical tables. Botanic manuals and ethological tracts full of that also, as is Courant's What Is Mathematics? which I recommend if you're by any chance interested in more abstract landscapes. Knuth's The Art of Computer Programming pays very little service to human subjectivity -- it certainly cared very little for mine!

Every writer will have in his books parts which are subjective -- dialogue, monologue, free indirect speech, occasional subjective considerations by the narrator -- and objective -- descriptions of objects etc.
All you seem to be saying is that McCarthy produces objective parts at a higher percentage than other authors do.
That, and that he has some obscure, underlying "broad view" from which that stems, a view which contains commentaries (what is a commentary? is it not a collection of human opinions?) on the world which does not include humanity (do you really think I human being can comment on the world while ignoring humanity itself, or being in some way influenced by the fact he is a human? is this not a mere fantasy of yours?), and these commentaries cannot be argued against through logic.
Very obscure. But it's, like, an a e s t h e t i c, bro, you wouldn't get it!

[...]
I am not even French.

[...]
No, there are many innovations in Joyce, such as, e.g., the composition of a novel in which each chapter takes a different literary form, the virtuosistic satire of chapter XIV etc. Maybe there are precedents in which case he's not being original and my previous sentence is wrong.
But in a way you are right. Originality is very rare and much that is considered original in Joyce is not really so.
There are many masters, writers who take already existing forms and produce good books with them, following the well-established patterns. McCarthy is one of those. I do not dislike him. My problem is with people who overrate him in the way that anon is doing, call him groundbreaking when he isn't, etc. It's laughable.
Also, you should notice I do not consider originality the only, or even the best, criterion of judgement. My problem with McCarthy is not that he's not original but that he imitates authors who are themselves full of problems, including Stein, Faulkner and Shakespeare -- he is a master of a second-rate kind of literature. Had he imitated Homer directly, like Tolstoy does, or the Shakespeare of the better sonnets, he'd be a better writer in my opinion (which is ultimately subjective, of course, like all aesthetic judgement).

[...]
Not really. There is a shady area where you don't know if what you're reading is a language or a dialect, also different levels of reading -- I can read Latin, but will need dictionary, often bilingual trans. etc. if it's a classical author; and none of that if it's, say, just the Vulgata, Carmina Burana and other easier books. Do I then read Latin, Catalan, Occitan, German? Depends on what you mean by "read", "Latin", "Catalan"...

[...]
>Now suddenly McCarthy's syntax is Steinian
Read Wyndham Lewis's Time and Western Man, part I.
McCarthy's syntax springs from that tradition and is directly influenced by Wyndham's buddy James Joyce.

>dependent clause spamming
What's the problem? Is that supposed to be difficult or somehow complex? Maybe for people who don't learn syntactical analysis at school?

Anyway, I have spent too much time in this thread and have things to do. I will probably cease replying.

So much subterfuge and dishonesty in these posts. Your knowledge on McCarthy is so general and basic as if cribbled from wikipedia, yet you find it "laughable that he could be groundbreaking" despite having likely never read the writer. How did you even pass high school with such intelligence?
>I do not dislike McCarthy
That would require reading the author. This thread is proof enough of your "infantile" attitude.

I wasn't sure about posting this, but there are some glaring dismissals of logic for pure hypocrisy that I couldn't stop myself. I want to focus on three writers that you brought up in your mad careen to stitch together this horribly argued argument: Conrad, Robbe-Grillet and Cervantes. Let's begin with Conrad.

Now Conrad does have influence on McCarthy, primarily through Faulkner. But it is your argument that makes no sense whatsoever. You are trying to argue that a book narrated by Marlowe, a narration impressed upon by Marlowe's psyche, is objective and non-human. The evidence? A description of nature. Are writers like J.A. Baker or Richard Jefferies also 'Conradian' because they wrote Landscape prose? These descriptions can be found in Cervantes too, is he Conradian as well keeping with your absurd flights of logic? This is from Ulysses:
>He watched her pour into the measure and thence into the jug rich white milk, not hers. Old shrunken paps. She poured again a measureful and a tilly. Old and secret she had entered from a morning world, maybe a messenger. She praised the goodness of the milk, pouring it out. Crouching by a patient cow at daybreak in the lush field, a witch on her toadstool, her wrinkled fingers quick at the squirting dugs.
You are implying, through your argument, that Joyce was basically the same as Conrad and Ulysses the same as Heart of Darkness. Utter bonkers. Equally ridiculous is your assumption that it was being implied that McCarthy is the first writer to write naturalistic prose, which never was, to my understanding. Perhaps this problem stems from skimming a text rather than reading it. It's difficult to say anything true about a book when singular passages are all you have to go by. In the same line of argument, a similarly naive reader may assume that landscape writers such as Richard Jefferies and J.A. Baker were doing nothing but rewriting Heart or Darkness or Ulysses, an impression that can be easily dismissed by picking up their books (for reading, not skimming). If McCarthy's outward natural writing has any cousins, it's in writers like Jefferies and Baker who are still very distant because their books are written with a very different intent and flavor, and ofc language. They are a rare breed themselves, and mostly writers of non-fiction. McCarthy bringing that mode of writing to a novelist's narrative effectively can itself be called an innovation. There is further point in this thread which will tied up in discussing Robbe-Grillet.

1/?

The discussion was useless because you hadn't read the book. It's obvious.
>that the quality he admires in McCarthy's style, namely the lack of "service to the internal", is different from objectiveness, because it has to do with how objectiveness is used.
If Alain Robbe-Grillet is an objective writer like McCarthy yet is completely different from McCarthy, then yes it has to do with how objective prose is used. Unless you are suggesting Proust and Joyce are the same because both are heavily internal and use internal monologues. This shouldn't be difficult to understand if you have read the book.
>I am not fully familiar with in the context of literature, and which must therefore be defined in such a way as to avoid confusion, and in such a way that we may clarify, through rigorous analysis, what constitutes a piece of "non-human prose" (???) vs. a piece of "human prose", so that we may then find out whether McCarthy really is a groundbreaking writer due to his mastery and creation of "non-human prose"
Goddamn you are a moron. You aren't familiar because you don't read books. Assuming you had read Heart of Darkness, why don't just read Blood meridian and see how the intent and context of the prose differs. It wouldn't need so much explaining here.
>but then how is it "non-human" and gives no "service" to the "internal"?
Because the narrator's diction is eccentric and doesn't follow hierarchies that sound more normal to the human ear. The narrration is cold and detached and doesn't narrate fron the pOV of any character's personal impressions. James wood found it greatly problematic how McCarthy does free indirect speech, without realizing that McCarthy very occasionally does free indirect speech. So the narration isn't internal, it isn't free indirect speech, it is much more focused on delivering the natural world rather than the character's internal impressions and even the diction isn't mimicking exactly how anybody talks or thinks, external is a good description of it. But here you are unable to even discern how it is different from such internal writers such as Flaubert and Conrad. Dumb as shit. I guess it shouldn't be out of imaginative bounds that there can be two visual writers who are different in being external and internal. Someone like Nabokob is a perfect example of a very internal writer who is also trying to make you see. But I don't imagine anybody confused what I was implying with him. Besides, interpreting interpretation itself isn't internal. It takes an objective view of arguably a human endeavour. I still think you are gonna twist it into something stupid out of your goddamn stupidity.

all your posts are corny as hell
muh you haven't read him ad infinitum
that other anon embarrassed your ass honestly

You are probably another ones of those idiots that shit up these threads without knowing anything. Feeling vindicted second hand?

At this point you are asking me to explain why water is wet. You are arguing that stone feels the same because they are both tactile. I am not wasting anymore time. Just read the book, everything I have posted will make immediate sense. It will be immediately visible how it is different from ivan illyich and Homer. You only brought in Homer because you heard BM was an epic. I have read nearly everything by Stein, there is nothing remotely similar to McCarthy in her except for the generality of their weird positional syntax (which doesn't match either). If you want I can post and analyse passages from TMoA, but you feel like a waste to me. You are only going by an impression you assume is similar to what is your only map.
>What does it mean to narrate from the pOV of any character's impressions?
What would a narration from the pOV of a cold and detached character look like?
Free indirect speech or any 1st person 'pOV'.
The opposite will be... the earth shattering opposite of that. Can you separate the narration style between say War and Peace and Brothers Karamazov? If you can't then I can explain nothing to you. So much sound signifying nothing.
>As I said before, one could interpret the descriptions in function of the Judge, and vice-versa, there is *no law whatsoever* preventing anyone from interpreting it like that. You seem to assume your own interp. is a scientific truth. It's not.
You cannot interpret the book to be stream of consciousness or internal monologue. There is no law preventing it, except common sense and general intelligence. Further, you cannot possibly interpret the desert descriptions as the function of The Judge. Prove it, nobody has ever argued for this and i have read a lot of discussion regarding BM. Will also put to test how much shit you really know. If ypu are willing to stretch the book so fricking much only to keep fixed your moronic agenda against it then reading 100 books didn't save you from being a manchild.

>Amazing that you shill so much for a book you haven't read.
Lmao. After everything I have written about the book, only someone who hasn't read the book could possibly get to this conclusion. Thank you for validating me after all this bullshit. Thread should have ended at my visionary prophecy tbh
>I know I am throwing a bone to morons to misconstrue and distort, but that's what happens when you don't read. The response to this post will prove me right.
Everything you have posted has proven me 100% right. Notice when I asked you back up your stupidity with evidence from the text, you immediately packed up. Lol.

>writes essays completely misrepresenting the book
>throws a hissy fit
Lol. Still spamming useless essays. This is some next level shit. Writing so much without knowing absolutely anything.
>will not write a 4000 page essay showing how the landscape of Blood Meridian is essentially a background where the characters operate, and where the details are chosen in such a way as to enhance shall we say the 'borders' of an atmosphere which is given its central substance by the psychological element of the characters.
This gives you away over and over again. Don't wanna listen to me? Literally the introduction by philip meyer in the 25th anniversary edition kills this agenda. You are so fricking moronic and dishonest that you are literally arguing against what is COMMONLY acknowledged about the work. And this moron is then throwing a hissy fit because people will not accept his moronation. It's incredible. When idiots try to concince you that Don Quixote is not satire at all, it is reaching those levels. If only waffling could change reality, but sucks for you.
>As for me, my way of approaching literature is much more based on rigorous definitions, analysis of rhetorical devices, stylistics, analysis of the sentence and structure, etc. and has little to do with grand-statements like "McCarthy represents the external" and the "absolute object" and other pseudo-philosophical BS.
Your approach to literature involves being butthurt about writers from only an impression then trying to convince people who have read the book that red is actually blue. Lol at the sentence structure, you have shown repeated incapablility of even skimming syntax by trying to fit in Gertrude fricking Stein somehow in this discussion. Stop embarrassing yourself. Spamming essays about zilch nothing won't convince anyone.
>he is one of the first since Shakespeare to rebel against the "internal", presumably "human", writing which supposedly characterizes most literature.
Quote from another critical essay on the book. Try a different hobby. This book business isn't for you. I can only bear so much. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if you told me that Ulysses is a rewrite of Hamlet because they both are internal novels and there are allusions to it in Joyce's book.

More waffling by the moron who hasn't read the book and only going by agenda.
>what heresy! I am saying it's possible to disagree with what's COMMONLY acknowledged by the famously infallible McCarthy interpreters! The mighty Philip Meyer! Oh, no!
I agree. Blood meridian is a period romance for girls. Fricking moron.
>I do not claim there was an influence on McCarthy, merely that the style and syntax are typical of a certain kind of modernist lit which was floating around when he begun writing, as is all of McCarthy to be honest, at least in Blood Meridian, which is Sam Peckinpah for poseurs (and so is Sam Peckinpah).
You have a lot of opinions. I wish even one of them was well informed. I wish you had atleast read the writers you claim to hate so much. You are ben shapiro for morons (which is saying something). This guy nailed you in one post lol

Your moronic ass is the epitome of this. Now suddenly McCarthy's syntax is Steinian because some ESL moron who read a single passage had that impression. have a nice day.

Proust is bad Henry James for morons. His dependent clause spamming is even more annoying and a derivative version of James. His psychology is watered down version of the James brothers (William as well). He is unique to homosexuals basement dwellers because they need a hero they can identify with, but these vermin are usually NEET and hence even more pathetic.

>Anyway, you didn't define your terms rigorously because you knew if you defined them you would be opening yourself to the possibility of counterexamples that disprove your thesis about the uniqueness or at least the "groundbreaking" quality of McCarthy's writing.
Anyway, you haven't even read the book. And even if you had it seems you simply lack the intelligence to analyze books whatsoever because I defined my terms already for non-morons. We have come full circle, vindicated what originally said. Incredible.

Well it seems you are illiterate too. I have defined my terms already, all you need to do is read the book to see it (at the very least, having the intelligence for analysis is whole other ball game altogether). I keep telling you to read the book because every post that you make makes more and more clear that you have no idea what you are talking about. When I asked to verify your moronic claims through the text you threw a hissy fit, so much so that you aren't even talking about books anymore. Afraid of being found out for all to see.

>Claiming e-girlta doesn't have unreliable narration is certainly not the same as claiming McCarthy's style in BM is "non-human" and pays no service to the "internal".
It's the same. As easy to know that as picking up and reading the book. In fact, it's a common complaint among many readers who don't take to the book.

This post is the hardest intellectual feat you have achieved because you have written 3000 words telling everyone in a windy, douchy way that you can't read. I maybe all of that but I am 10 times better than you lol.
>confused
Lol. You should go back to reading Mr. alain gertrude wyndham tolstoyvich homer stein joyce cuthbert Conrad Wiiliam.S. Only you can read him because he has written nothing whatsoever.

This post is the hardest intellectual feat you have achieved because you have written 3000 words telling everyone in a windy, douchy way that you can't read. I maybe all of that but I am 10 times better than you lol.
>confused
Lol. You should go back to reading Mr. alain gertrude wyndham tolstoyvich homer stein joyce cuthbert Conrad Wiiliam.S. Only you can read him because he has written nothing whatsoever.

I really touched a nerve, didn't I? Looks like the Americanoid McCarthy fanboy gets really really mad, just like the little girl his daddy could never write, when he meets someone who isn't fooled by pseudo-philosophical babble about "non-human" prose and demands rigorous definitions from his interlocutors.
Go cry to your daddy's cadaver, imbecile.

>Thou seem
>Thou seemt
So, which one is it, my Lord?

>The writer famed for not psychologizing his characters
Who? McCarthy? Camoens? So many...

>Besides, acknowledging that proves you a phony poser because you were the only person arguing that the landscape was somehow representatice of character psychology
You cannot interpret text at all. I have never argued that, and if I did it would be easy to refute.
Reread my posts, imbecile.
Seriously, you have brain damage. Just read what I wrote.

You haven't read camões either....

Complete works, twice. Os Lusíadas... Don't know. Six times? Seven? Ten? Camões famously does not psychologize his characters, and no, he does not do it either in the Inês de Castro episode, or does so only barely. Only the gods, maybe, specially Bacchus and Venus, contain some psychological depth, but then again it's still much less than the characters of McCarthy, mostly because Camões wasn't wasn't really interested in the psychology of the individuals as much as in the historical importance of their actions.

>Want to write and post my well read and researched follow up
>Don't want to it sully it on some dumbass with the most arbitrary, emotional arguments.
Welp, looks like the world will have to do without my post on Cervantes.

You have nothing of value to say about Cervantes.

>the landscape of Blood Meridian is essentially a background where the characters operate, and where the details are chosen in such a way as to enhance shall we say the 'borders' of an atmosphere which is given its central substance by the psychological element of the characters .
Long winded way of saying that landscape reveals character psychology. Forget the landscape, even the actions don't reveal any psychology after a point when the gang is basically going through motions. A fundamental part of the book is how the protagonist and gang are thrown to the side in favor of the desrt and your moronic ass thinks that it is only a background where some sort of Shakespearean character drama is being staged. Dumbass moron who doesn't know shit. You are moronic and haven't even read the book or writer that you dislike. The only thing preventing you from admitting is that you are butthurt at being made to look like a fool.

Huh what, moronic Black person?

You can't spin this shit, moron.
>I could even argue that there essentially is no separation between the two and both landscape and character, "human" and "non-human", operate in a deep symbiosis which composes the substance of the book
There is no argument, you have no idea about the book and your incredibly confused impressions in every other post prove it. You can't read your own post. It refutes you even harder so I don't know why you would even implore to read further. If there is no character psychology how could there be any symbiosis? Only a moron throwing shit at the wall could think that, that's what you are.

Now you want to change your argument. Just stop posting clown.
>Do you seriously think there is NO character psychology in Blood Meridian?
There is only one sustained passage on Glanton. The narration even dipping into what someone felt happens very occasionally. 995-98% is wholly external. The Landscapes are like 60% of the book. But our resident liar thinks otherwise. What trash.

Also, if there is no psychology, is that not a failure on the part of the book?
Why use human characters if they will simply lack any kind of humanity, i.e., psychology?
Why not employ animals, such as Jack London did?
I am honestly baffled that someone thinks McCarthy wrote a 300 page novel and gave the characters no sort of psychological existence whatsoever.

>Why use human characters if they will simply lack any kind of humanity, i.e., psychology? Why not employ animals, such as Jack London did?
Because the Glanton gang was an historical entity and it wasn't composed of bears. And McCarthy does employ them as animals, non-figuratively, but it's unlikely you would know about the animal man as a juxtaposition to the rational man.

>speak bullshit
>deny you spoke bullshit
>given proof you spoke bullshit
>"hey, doesn't my bullshit have any value?"
There is less character psychology in BM than Lusiads, not that you would know. Even if the psychological aspect in the Lusiads exists only for the Gods, it would comfortably outdo BM in abject psychology.

He is lying. He has been doing nothing but lying. How can anyone read his opinions and the batch of writers he has picked up time and again in this thread and think "this is a well read man". It is absolutely absurd. I am not even sure he has read anything. He seems to me a reader of excerpts, and his only analysis is comparing random excerpts to see how similar they appeared to him. Look at his response to the post. He didn't respond to the accusation of his poser attitude in implying psychoanalysis on the part of a writer who is famous for avoiding it wholesale; he started posting some poet from the 16th century who "doesn't psychologize" lest McCarthy appears too unique and his agenda be damned. As if anyone was arguing for that with that comment in the first place. How much is Lusiads similar to Blood meridian? only God knows, perhaps not even of this world. This whole thread is him feeling anally raped about a writer he never read because said writer didn't agree with rimming gays in a bar or whatever it's equivalent in 19th century france.

You have the mind of a 12 year old. You struggle with things any 20 year old reader would intuitively make sense of and understand.

>you have nothing of value to say about Cervantes
I am very certainly not like you, so that's false. It's good that you realized by yourself who the idiot with arbitrary argument was though.

>I touched a nerve
>seethes for 2 days continuously

You are embarrassing. You have been embarrassing for the last 2 days. That must be a record.

I should get back to finishing this. Got side-tracked with work.

How could you pass middle school (I assume you haven't passed high school) with such stupidity?
Reread the whole discussion and you will find that any obscurity in my posts is derived solely from my interlocutor's refusal to define his terms. I asked for clarity, and received no clarity.

For instance, you say;
>You are trying to argue that a book narrated by Marlowe, a narration impressed upon by Marlowe's psyche, is objective and non-human
Notice two things:
1) my interlocutor did not even seem to deny that those books (Conrad's, Flaubert's etc.) are objective; rather, he seems to have said, from what I could gather from an incoherent, rambling stream of curses in post [...], that the quality he admires in McCarthy's style, namely the lack of "service to the internal", is different from objectiveness, because it has to do with how objectiveness is used.
2) notice that I had simply to **guess** what on Earth my interlocutor meant by "non-human", and simply assumed that a description of nature which in which no human interference is to be found qualifies (no human interference other than the writing itself, that is, which is arguably already *very much human*, assuming it's not ChatGPT writing, and even then).
I am educated in grammar, rhetoric, the sciences etc. I know the meaning of "alexandrine", "polysyndeton", "feet", "syllable", "sapphic", "sonnet", "accusative", even terms such as "negative capability", "death of the author" and whatnot, but such novel distinctions as the "internal" vs. the "external" and the "human" vs. "non-human" are ones I am not fully familiar with in the context of literature, and which must therefore be defined in such a way as to avoid confusion, and in such a way that we may clarify, through rigorous analysis, what constitutes a piece of "non-human prose" (???) vs. a piece of "human prose", so that we may then find out whether McCarthy really is a groundbreaking writer due to his mastery and creation of "non-human prose".

Anyway, if I did not read Blood Meridian (I did) then you certainly did not read my posts, because if you had done so you'd know I compare McCarthy with Conrad because Conrad was writing to "make you see" -- his focus was on the object, even if that object was a man named Marlow.
Also, he could write in the third-person when he so wished.

>that Joyce was basically the same as Conrad and Ulysses the same as Heart of Darkness
I am not. Reread the discussion.

>This is why Blood meridian is considered hard to interpret. It IS about interpretation itself, but delivered fundamentally through desert imagery, rather than philosophical monologues (which are also there, mind you). Even the absurd analogical similes make much more sense once you realize that they are self reflexive.
I more or less agree, but then how is it "non-human" and gives no "service" to the "internal"?
Reread the discussion.
Anyway, the whole discussion was useless because the terms were not well-defined.

I will respond sometime today. Just wait. It's really fraudulent though that you are trying to get everything out of a book through these posts rather than reading it.
>Anyway, if I did not read Blood Meridian (I did)
Let's not even question this. It's not very difficult to figure out who knows what he is talking about and who doesn't. Hell, I don't even get the impression you have read Heart of Darkness after what you just said about Marlowe lol. I wish we could discuss McCarthy's writing without constantly having to defend him against baboons who are always anally sore about him but know as much about his work as an ant does. This is the the kind of anon we need more of

NTA
There are two styles in Blood meridian: one very grandiloquent and the second very objective and dry. The Grandiloquent style delineates the objectivity of the world through dissociation of what is described from the narrative implied through the language of its describing. Read the full thing, I imagine you will notice it. Here's an example:
>It was the judge and the imbecile. They were both of them naked and they neared through the desert dawn like beings of a mode little more than tangential to the world at large, their figures now quick with clarity and now fugitive in the strangeness of that same light. Like things whose very portent renders them ambiguous. Like things so charged with meaning that their forms are dimmed. The three at the well watched mutely this transit out of the breaking day and even though there was no longer any question as to what it was that approached yet none would name it. They lumbered on, the judge a pale pink beneath his talc of dust like something newly born, the imbecile much the darker, lurching together across the pan at the very extremes of exile like some scurrilous king stripped of his vestiture and driven together with his fool into the wilderness to die.
This, imo, is a highly ironic passage. The narrator's transformation of a scene on the desert is loaded with a portentous narrative, while in the very next line it is observed that such narration dims the object as itself, turning it into something else that is better cooked for myths. It's like the deconstruction of metaphors and similes. We see again The Judge and the idiot being turned into allusions for King Lear and his fool, but good luck to anyone trying to find a meaningful narrative where that is useful. This is why Blood meridian is considered hard to interpret. It IS about interpretation itself, but delivered fundamentally through desert imagery, rather than philosophical monologues (which are also there, mind you). Even the absurd analogical similes make much more sense once you realize that they are self reflexive.

> None of the bourgeois society novels necessarily had a villain.

Yes, they did. The narrator of Swann’s Way even talks about how juvenile George Sand is because of the trite way he wrote romances and action. This could actually be seen as a more general attack on “genre literature” of the 19th century in general. The grandma or dad (I can’t remember) buys a George Sand genre shit novel for him because actual literary stuff and the philosophy of Rousseau he feels is too much.

Your genre shit claim would have more backing to it if there wasn’t a whole screed against genre shit within the first 37 pages of the book.

Whats the point of discussing Proust with you if no one here even read the full novel. No one here knows what it is about, exactly

show me another writer, spending 100 pages on describing single party, Proust is modernism

>spending 100 pages on describing single party
I can't. There is no serious writer who is dumb enough to do it and I don't read shitty french romance novels.

His life was genre fiction then because bourgeois society novel clearly is a thing.

>It is technically a romance but the experimental structure and narrative is what separates it from genre fiction.
Oh the irony

See

There’s no Anthony Chirugh or Judge in Proust and there’s no badass lines about the inherent violence of life. It is just that McCarthy was a dimwit.

McCarthy would’ve liked it more if De Charlus were some brooding antihero and he were giving Swann lectures on how life is meaningless and a woman’s fidelity is fleeting. Then throw in a gun fight or something.

See [...]
McCarthy would’ve liked it more if De Charlus were some brooding antihero and he were giving Swann lectures on how life is meaningless and a woman’s fidelity is fleeting. Then throw in a gun fight or something.

Enough seething for today. You aren't even parroting the wiki well at this point. Say whatever, homosexual proust was an immende bore. Only limp wristed morons who project their mental illness of overthinking biscuits would pretend otherwise.

The best thing about arguing with manchildren is that they get emotionally butthurt whenever someone points them out accurately. This is why anti-Mccarthy gays never had any success.

I will let you get away this time. You're praying for it and it's obvious.

That was kinda the point of Holden. He's like Humbert from e-girlta except instead of being the narrator everyone else is just too downbeaten to challenge him so he gets to paint the philosphy of the book

>character mologue by the closest equivalent in his world to God
God you are dumb. Even the premium member of Holden groupie, Harold Bloom called him 'literature's greatest sophist'.

From some perspectives what he is saying is not wrong. It's just a case of emo teenagers selectively reading excerpts. But he is no stranger to irony.
>They posted guards atop the azotea and unsaddled the horses and drove them out to graze and the judge took one of the packanimals and emptied out the panniers and went off to explore the works. In the afternoon he sat in the compound breaking ore samples with a hammer, the feldspar rich in red oxide of copper and native nuggets in whose organic lobations he purported to read news of the earth’s origins, holding an extemporary lecture in geology to a small gathering who nodded and spat. A few would quote him scripture to confound his ordering up of eons out of the ancient chaos and other apostate supposings. The judge smiled.
>Books lie, he said.
>God dont lie.
>No, said the judge. He does not. And these are his words.
>He held up a chunk of rock.
>He speaks in stones and trees, the bones of things.
>The squatters in their rags nodded among themselves and were soon reckoning him correct, this man of learning, in all his speculations, and this the judge encouraged until they were right proselytes of the new order whereupon he laughed at them for fools.

you're right. I was wrong. Still I don't think the Judge was written as a caricature or as the "look at him, his evil ideology!" moral lesson character

Except everyone else who spam subordinate clauses sitting in their mother's room. I described like half of the European writers in 2nd half of the 19th century right there.

>Calling Proust bad is one thing but calling him unoriginal is just moronic. There is no one who writes like him.
It's more of a playful attack on the dumbass teenager and his opinions. I mean, who writes exactly like McCarthy? Disliking him is one thing but denying that he isn't one of the most unique stylists in any language would require illiteracy. That's the hill the teenager wants to die on though.

>Meanwhile Proust reads exactly like all the 100s of european writers just stringing together subordinate clause with romantic inagery.
He really doesn't. Say whatever you will of him but his style was supremely unique and original and prophetic and true. He is, alongside Joyce, the greatest novelist for all time. McCarthy does not even hold half a candle to him, frickface.

this guy thinks you need to be smart to read books, what a moron

>implying goofy shit is bad

I think a lot of his challenges stem from the fact that he is an ESL, and also that he might not have read the author under discussion. They have trouble telling modes apart. Some ESL thought that Moby Dick is a Victorian novel because the prose was dense and laden with ornate, very mannered constructions. This guy seems to struggle with that too. He can't understand that words being similar but the effect completely different is the norm in all English novels of great import.