primitive

What do we think of Picrel guys? did he suck? was he different? did he tap into something that hadn't been done before?

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

Yakub: World's Greatest Dad Shirt $21.68

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    He made three things: Faulknerian pastiche, darker versions of spaghetti westerns, and crowd pleasers (thriller/sci-fi). I don't think he's particularly great but he's very good.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Who's great?

      He's good, I enjoy his prose often. I'm a little put off by his "corncobby" characters though as I don't find that particular social stratum the most fascinating. He also suffers the same defect as Nabokov in that while he can string together a lovely sentence, his prose sometimes collapses under its own weight. Faulkner, who he heavily imitated, did it first and did it with more soul IMO.

      >collapses under its own weight
      Does that have to do with his diction or the multiple adverbs and adjectives, flirting with a purple prose style?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Faulknerian pastiche
      Just his debut
      >darker versions of spaghetti
      Doesn’t account for Suttree, passenger/Stella maris

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        > Suttree
        The ghost of the faulknerian pastiche
        >passenger/Stella maris
        (Bad) crowd pleasers

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Congratulations on not reading any of them.
          >stella maris
          >crowd pleasers
          Lol wat?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The film rights were obtained already. It's not a crowd pleaser in a Stephen King way but in an HBO way.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You're moronic

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            seethe harder

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Lol. You're the one seething.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >no u
            I said harder, not gaygier.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    what do you think about the imagery he uses ? his descriptive sentences ? do you get almost an archaic or primitive feel from it? who is like him that you know of besides the great olds??

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    also, what about his general philosophy on writing, that all books come from other books?

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    He's good, I enjoy his prose often. I'm a little put off by his "corncobby" characters though as I don't find that particular social stratum the most fascinating. He also suffers the same defect as Nabokov in that while he can string together a lovely sentence, his prose sometimes collapses under its own weight. Faulkner, who he heavily imitated, did it first and did it with more soul IMO.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      do you think you could give me example of this "prose sometimes collapses under its own weight"

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It's hard to put my finger on it, but I could point it out when I see it. Probably a notorious example that others have critiqued is
        >In the gray twilight those retchings seemed to echo like the calls of some rude provisional species loosed upon that waste. Something imperfect and malformed lodged in the heart of being. A thing smirking deep in the eyes of grace itself like a gorgon in an autumn pool.
        People usually roast this passage for the last sentence
        >A thing smirking deep in the eyes of grace itself like a gorgon in an autumn pool.
        A thing smirking deep? Eyes of grace? A gorgon in an autumn pool? The criticism is that he tries to make mundane events like a donkey chewing grass seem like these momentous biblical events. Sometimes it hits, sometimes it doesn't.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          McCarthy does try too hard in his prose sometimes. I think he never quite learned how to let the words speak for themselves. He always felt like he needed to add more weight, and yeah, sometimes it collapsed. He always wanted the entire novel to be this ultra-profound thing, but that’s not really how good novels work. Shakespeare is Shakespeare in part because he knew when not to make his lines weighty.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It's sort of like "too much of a good thing." People remember him for his biblical narrative register, but the goal is not to make mundane events seem cosmic, but to avoid making cosmic events seem mundane by doing them justice. That's why many consider Blood Meridian his magnum opus, myself included. The story he' telling matches the magnanimity of the prose.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I wouldn’t consider it “too much of a good thing”. It’s plainly not a good thing. It’s just forced prose. You know, it’s like I could get really biblical about the coffee grounds but they’re still just fricking coffee grounds. If anything it detracts from the weight of what actually matters, like the judge pissing on dirt because there’s something really deep there. So I sort of agree I guess.

            The aftermath of the civil war soured the American writers on war, westerns themselves are a cleaned up frontier version of the kind of shit Ambrose Bierce wrote. I think all the western allows for is the exact moment the samurai met the gunman to be played out over a span of 50 years.

            Not sure what you mean by that last bit. Blood Meridian is so valued precisely because it’s not your stereotypical Western novel and Cormac McCarthy never knew the horror of the civil war.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I wouldn’t consider it “too much of a good thing”. It’s plainly not a good thing.
            I would accept that argument. It's that his biblical writing about coffee grounds is still stylistically good, they're well written sentences, the *form* has epical qualities, but not the content. He's misapplying or over-applying his obvious talents. Its his talents I don't question, although I do question his judgement when applying it.

            What McCarthy have you read? His prose starting from Child of God isn't very Faulknerian and it is much more constrained in its 'grandness'. Blood meridian is his most famous work and it is the most high falutin of them all.

            I have read the major Faulkner and I don't think Faulkner was that good a stylist in all honesty. Nabokov's criticisms are valid, but McCarthy is quite different in his approach to prose. The biblical weight works much better in McCarthy than it does in Faulkner. Besides, later Nabokov is guilty of the same. I am a quarter into Ada and there have been a few "so clever it's cringe" passages.
            [...]
            Best of McCarthy is better than best of Nabokov. McCarthy is a more eccentric and unique stylist though, so he can be polarizing in way Nabokov rarely is.

            >What McCarthy have you read?
            I've read BM, The Road (which was okay but didn't leave much of an impression) Child of God (which was good), Suttree (which I respected but didn't love), and maybe 1/3rd of All the Pretty Horses. So I feel that I have a good although admittedly not comprehensive grasp of his writing.
            You're allowed to disagree about Faulkner, although he was truly pushing boundaries in terms of narrative structure with works such as The Sound and the Fury and As I Lay Dying. He was very experimental and avant garde at his best. He even holds the record for the longest paragraph in a novel IIRC, and it's a really interesting paragraph. His frenchified, effusive prose can also sometimes come across as overblown and unconvincing too. He was a better writer than McCarthy, but I think even McCarthy would share that opinion.

            >The criticism is that he tries to make mundane events like a donkey chewing grass seem like these momentous biblical events. Sometimes it hits, sometimes it doesn't.
            I think the criticism is very short sighted. Most of McCarthy is quite restrained and even his more florid descriptive passages are delivered in a neutrally observant tone. These moments of analogical similes are rare.

            Look, I'm not denying he's a good writer, but I'm not ready to build a shrine in his name and worship it. I don't even think it's his writing which falls short, it's his subject matter that often falls short of his writing.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I am not denying Faulkner's contribution to narrative fiction. But as a Stylist he is not as good. He is rougher around the edges, more preachy. What People here are accusing McCarthy of is far more noticeable in Faulkner, and in Faulkner you couldn't be sure of the irony.
            >but I think even McCarthy would share that opinion.
            Maybe if you asked him in the 60s. I don't think he'd agree anytime post 2000s.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I acknowledge your point of view. It's hard to quantify these things objectively Both writers have left me awed at different points, although I resonated more with Faulkner. Pound for pound McCarthy could spin a better sentence on average, although Faulkner was capable of some knockouts. As an addendum, I see it as a sign of certification that Faulkner still hasn't been canceled, and nobody has made the attempt, despite the fact that he wrote numerous black characters and even had them speak ebonics. Dilsey Gibson is one of my favorite characters in literature.

            >but I'm not ready to build a shrine in his name and worship it.
            Not asking you to, bro. I just don’t agree with your disagreements with McCarthy, that's all. McCarthy was definitely not a classical modernist and finding profound in the mundane was never his purpose. If anything, McCarthy's landscape descriptions are a perfect example of his reverence for Nature unmediated by symbols or narratives. The feeling of profundity comes from the details of phenomena and the manner of prose it is decribed in, rather than some defined mythical story that is being played out in nature at large.

            That's a fine take, and I won't dispute it. I just think he belabors points he shouldn't, and drags unimportant details out. I return to my original quote
            >In the gray twilight those retchings seemed to echo like the calls of some rude provisional species loosed upon that waste
            Who gives a frick?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Faulkner still hasn't been canceled, and nobody has made the attempt
            His writings circle around race relations in the American South repeatedly and repeatedly and still he never made caricatures or propagandistic misrepresentations out of his black characters. That I can respect.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Who gives a frick?
            That's not the best McCarthy passage, I agree. But perhaps the difficulty lies in coinciding the neutral treatment of everything else with these few bursts of "knowledge". I can give a thematic justification but that wouldn't excuse the line imo. That's not an unimportant detail however.

            But that is part of his mystique. Many of these passages are put in for a shock effect. A tame narrative suddenly comes to life, bursting with hidden meanings that the reader as yet completely ignored. It made me read his books deeper for the secret knowledge they might divulge, and I haven't been disappointed.

            I think that writers who don't tend to try a little hard are less interesting for the same. Reading classical, beautiful prose only does so much for me. Give me the eccentrics, the autistically specific writers who aren't scared of violating beloved registers to induce the required effect. In McCarthy's defense however, he, more often than not, makes it work.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >but I'm not ready to build a shrine in his name and worship it.
            Not asking you to, bro. I just don’t agree with your disagreements with McCarthy, that's all. McCarthy was definitely not a classical modernist and finding profound in the mundane was never his purpose. If anything, McCarthy's landscape descriptions are a perfect example of his reverence for Nature unmediated by symbols or narratives. The feeling of profundity comes from the details of phenomena and the manner of prose it is decribed in, rather than some defined mythical story that is being played out in nature at large.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > If anything, McCarthy's landscape descriptions are a perfect example of his reverence for Nature unmediated by symbols or narratives. The feeling of profundity comes from the details of phenomena and the manner of prose it is decribed in, rather than some defined mythical story that is being played out in nature at large.
            I think this guy gets what McCarthy was going for in his many vaunted (to some great, and for some infamous) landscape descriptions. Look up some of what nature conservationist and writer Edward Abbey, whom McCarthy was close friends with, had to say on this matter (the wild rugged primordiality of nature vs. the overly hi-tech stale civilization of man). Of course, McCarthy isn’t showing this nature-reverence in just any cliched old-fashioned Romantic way — he sees the bloodiness of nature along with its gorgeousness, the tooth and claw along with the shimmering iridescent feathers of the rare desert bird.

            There is this one very interesting description in Blood Meridian where I think McCarthy veers into the abstract and turns metafictional/self-referential for a moment, tipping his hand and revealing some of the rationale behind some of these gorgeous yet long-winded descriptions, with some phrase like “symbols to whom the referents have been lost or never existed at all”, something like that. Like something so profound and odd that it seems to be a symbol of something else, but it’s really just a symbol of itself. The violence is just violence. The desert mirage is just a desert mirage. No deeper “symbolism” to hunt for — just the barbarity of man juxtaposed with the beauty of nature and the potential beauty of language we can have when we want to use it well. This sounds really pretentious the way I’m putting it, I know, but I think there’s something to it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Thanks anon. McCarthy once said to his friend, Gary Wallace, that true mystical experiemce is cognition of the world unmediated by symbol. I think that's what McCarthy is trying to do in his books. It's impossible becausr that's the nature of the medium, but he definitely comes closest of all people.

            Anyone reading McCarthy would be greatly helped by familiarizing themselves with Post-structuralism. You'd understand why he writes the way he does. Think of him not as another quirky writer, but someone who, like philosophers, is very serious about his dialectic.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            do you think he could have written a good novel about being a serial killer in the national parks?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >McCarthy does try too hard in his prose sometimes
            I think this crit can be aimed at practically any writer who wrote remarkable, non-minimalistic prose. Not all lines are masterpieces, even in Shakespeare.
            >he never quite learned how to let the words speak for themselves. He always felt like he needed to add more weight, and yeah, sometimes it collapsed. He always wanted the entire novel to be this ultra-profound thing, but that’s not really how good novels work.
            I don't see where you're coming from. His two best acclaimed books are written in the most florid prose style possible. Most of his other books are quite sparse and minimalistic.

            Secondly, if he really tried to make his books ultra profound, I'd think the lit crit industry would do better than churn out super speculative essays about his work. McCarthy wasn't trying to be Joyce. In fact, a better critique of his work would be that he can be often quite obscure as to why he included something than whatever you are accusing him of.

            It’s not so much a manner of speaking. It’s more like what he thinks is interesting and profound. I read his Kukule problem essay and just thought “damn, this guy doesn’t get it” and the whole Santa Fe Institute venture is almost like it could be the context of a scene in a Marvel film. I think it’s bad when novelists try to be too intellectual, and he tried to be the worst sort of intellectual. His other novels had no punch for me. They weren’t unique or interesting enough to be memorable. The Road is probably his second most exalted novel and it’s just boring. Blood Meridian stands out because the novel is so evocative and the aesthetic is so unique. The prose is almost gothic in how severe it is. I think that’s why I love it so much actually. If the whole of American literature is the renaissance then Blood Meridian is the whole of the gothic Middle Ages. It frankly reads like the English translation of Oswald Spengler’s Decline of the West. To say it’s poetic and mystical doesn’t quite do it justice because it actually suggests something bigger, deeper, more terrifying. A monologue about architecture in that book isn’t really about architecture, but is about something more ineffable that lie behind the impulse which lie behind the architecture. And it’s not entirely pretty, whatever it is, but it is beautiful in a way. And you can never quite pin it down, like what is this book really saying? What is the point of all this? That’s what makes it good. The rest of his novels are just unremarkable though. They don’t read well. The prose is nothing special. The general aesthetic and tone are not great. They’re just not good.

            That's your opinion, but I find it really hard to believe that someone could see the depth in Blood meridian but couldn't in books like Suttree or The Crossing, which are arguably deeper.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            you think he is misunderstood? i really really enjoyed the crossing i really enjoyed all the pretty horses to, idk i wish i could explain why or how in a way that defies the current convention of literary criticism, perhaps there is more there then people care to take a look at, maybe they cant comprehend it or maybe im just over hyping it, im just trying to understand what exactly it is that i want to hear in a story, i want immersion and escape but also something like a bizarre vision or surreal idk

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            McCarthy is a true great, and like most of them he is still quite underrated, irrespective of his fame. It will take a few decades for people to accept him in the pantheon where, to me, he clearly belongs.

            Idk about misunderstanding. People like different things but I think I have read few of that anon's posts. His opinions on the "kukele" problem are more misinformed than anything he might accuse McCarthy and Santa fe of.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You can’t though. McCarthy does it more than any other writer. This is a real line in No Country for Old Men.
            >He sipped his coffee. The face that lapped and shifted in the dark liquid in the cup seemed an omen of things to come.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That's tame compared to BM or the particularly egregious examples and would probably go unnoticed in a novel by a different author. I think the problem is the rest of his prose around it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That's a perfectly reasonable line.
            >McCarthy does it more than any other author
            Idk. Maybe his weird writing style makes it more noticeable to you. Descriptive writers usually have a few lines like that in every work.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You don’t think it’s a little ridiculous to attach such weight to a cup of coffee?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The weight is attached to his visage. Not a cup of coffee. If that's enough to get on your bad side, I can see why you think that way about McCarthy. Here's the ending of Nestor:
            >On his wise shoulders through the checkerwork of leaves the sun flung spangles, dancing coins.
            This should be more egregious by your standards.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            i think in my lhumble opinion, that the point is not profundity, i think it is to make the coffee and the keep seem unfamiliar or alien or to take out the familiarity with everyday and make in seem like almost strange to us

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >The criticism is that he tries to make mundane events like a donkey chewing grass seem like these momentous biblical events. Sometimes it hits, sometimes it doesn't.
          I think the criticism is very short sighted. Most of McCarthy is quite restrained and even his more florid descriptive passages are delivered in a neutrally observant tone. These moments of analogical similes are rare.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The entirety of stella maris

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      i feel that Nabokov is like the pinnacle of prose ? who is better i guess its somewhat subjective, does Cormac stand out as far as prose goes? like top 5?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I don’t have a great affinity for corncobby characters either, but McCarthy always wanted to write about things more primordial than what is on full display on a factory floor, in an office, or the political meeting of a progressive politician. The old West is arguably the last moment in modern history where the sheer brutality of mankind, even civilized mankind, was right at the forefront, and the culture hadn’t yet been sterilized entirely by tech and money. McCarthy never rambles on about money or capitalism. It’s an afterthought for him. The society of money comes after the society of stone has started crumble, and that’s what fascinated him, I think. So in
      blood Meridian it’s like English border rievers or Hagen and Sigurd come to life in the modern era despite their corncobby appearances. I can really appreciate that.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The other moments were probably the world wars, but, well, you can’t publish something like that…

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >The old West is arguably the last moment in modern history where the sheer brutality of mankind, even civilized mankind, was right at the forefront, and the culture hadn’t yet been sterilized entirely by tech and money.
        I don't know anon, I guess you can claim WWII was a bit too industrialized and fundamentally sets it apart from other eras, but WWI was as brutal as anything else.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah but

          The other moments were probably the world wars, but, well, you can’t publish something like that…

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The aftermath of the Civil War soured the American writers on war, westerns themselves are a cleaned up frontier version of the kind of shit Ambrose Bierce wrote. I think all the western allows for is the exact moment the samurai met the gunman to be played out over a span of 50 years.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What McCarthy have you read? His prose starting from Child of God isn't very Faulknerian and it is much more constrained in its 'grandness'. Blood meridian is his most famous work and it is the most high falutin of them all.

      I have read the major Faulkner and I don't think Faulkner was that good a stylist in all honesty. Nabokov's criticisms are valid, but McCarthy is quite different in his approach to prose. The biblical weight works much better in McCarthy than it does in Faulkner. Besides, later Nabokov is guilty of the same. I am a quarter into Ada and there have been a few "so clever it's cringe" passages.

      i feel that Nabokov is like the pinnacle of prose ? who is better i guess its somewhat subjective, does Cormac stand out as far as prose goes? like top 5?

      Best of McCarthy is better than best of Nabokov. McCarthy is a more eccentric and unique stylist though, so he can be polarizing in way Nabokov rarely is.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Have you ever tried thinking for yourself and not just going along with the asinine contrarianism of hispanics on the internet? Go eat shit

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I accept this, but im still not sure what you mean, humiliate me in a way that only a simpleton might understand that seems necessary here please do elaborate

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    For me, he ties with Delillo as the best american author of the second half of the 20th century.

    His early work is a little too Faulknerian for my taste, but when Suttree came out in ‘79 Cormac really came into his own, both commercially and artistically. The whole novel has clear, crisp prose, and a new sheen of 50s Southern Americana really gave the characters a big boost.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      im obsessed with the prose and the imagery i dont think i can even grasp it at that level quite yet, i dont really think one author is necessarily more brilliant then the other perhaps i am not equipped to even do this yet? but the experience of reading some of cormac is unique for me, maybe even nostalgic maybe like a dream or something odd who is your favorite or favorites

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      what is your favorite by dellilo?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Underworld is first. White Noise and Libra are also excellent. Mao II is also very good but not quote on the level of the other 3.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I don't feel particularly strong about him one way or the other. I do find the lack of quotation marks and general punctuation very stupid, which a lot of people say isn't a valid criticism.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      no thats completely understandable! especially coming from someone that appreciate literature in general! it doesnt personal bother me in fact i found it inspiring or almost forceful in a way? but yes i understand good point what author do you really like and why??

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I think straddled the line between Reddit-tier pseud and something more profound. Most of his books are mediocre but Blood Meridian is a weird and great novel.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Reddit-tier pseud
      can you help me understand this^ there is certainly a particular way redditors talk no doubt its pretentious to me i guess? perhaps those that spend a lot of time there all begin to write and speak the same as do some people here! blood meridian is great no doubt no doubt? whats mediocre about the others? i guess there are some dumb things i have to reread sometimes cause im surprsied he wrote that one line? what authors do you find compelling or profound? who is your fav?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It’s not so much a manner of speaking. It’s more like what he thinks is interesting and profound. I read his Kukule problem essay and just thought “damn, this guy doesn’t get it” and the whole Santa Fe Institute venture is almost like it could be the context of a scene in a Marvel film. I think it’s bad when novelists try to be too intellectual, and he tried to be the worst sort of intellectual. His other novels had no punch for me. They weren’t unique or interesting enough to be memorable. The Road is probably his second most exalted novel and it’s just boring. Blood Meridian stands out because the novel is so evocative and the aesthetic is so unique. The prose is almost gothic in how severe it is. I think that’s why I love it so much actually. If the whole of American literature is the renaissance then Blood Meridian is the whole of the gothic Middle Ages. It frankly reads like the English translation of Oswald Spengler’s Decline of the West. To say it’s poetic and mystical doesn’t quite do it justice because it actually suggests something bigger, deeper, more terrifying. A monologue about architecture in that book isn’t really about architecture, but is about something more ineffable that lie behind the impulse which lie behind the architecture. And it’s not entirely pretty, whatever it is, but it is beautiful in a way. And you can never quite pin it down, like what is this book really saying? What is the point of all this? That’s what makes it good. The rest of his novels are just unremarkable though. They don’t read well. The prose is nothing special. The general aesthetic and tone are not great. They’re just not good.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          "To say it’s poetic and mystical doesn’t quite do it justice because it actually suggests something bigger, deeper, more terrifying." a lot of what you said is hard to disagree with but don't you see a lot of the judges statements and also the behaviors of the men in the glanton gang as some sort of reflection about the nature of men, like men in the military on the front when left to just be men they go about killing and waring like some kind of animal? isnt that a bit terrifying, to be reminded of our inhuman nature to be like this evolutionary side affect or side show, or is it obvious already and no longer so scary? i like that you say its gothic that feels right, but it also feels almost to new to say? i just get this primal sense when i read that book. like i almost feel like an alien viewing our world or a human viewing an alien world, it honestly sounds so stupid when verbalized, i cant quite put a finger on it, tbh i didnt actually know the book blood merridian was even considered a dark book until after i had read it. i didnt see it as dark, it seemed so naturalistic to me! what books do you like think are absolutely brilliant? anything that encapsulates that out-of-human experience, something that makes you feel as tho all of humanity is just an illusion, like something that makes you feel like there is no reference point and events are just happening randomly? nihilistic? gothic? primitive? primeval? ancient? archaic? IDK really what it is or what to call it or what to call my perception of it, maybe violence is what it is called something thats just old as us? older then us? i should prob find a new favorite author to grow on tho

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I think that McCarthy’s Kukule problem essay says a lot about his worldview. For him, human nature, religion, science, technology, violence all come from some subconscious place of primordial origin. So it is animalistic, and it is terrifying, it is primal. For McCarthy, primal drives and scientific discovery come from the same place. He has tremendous overlap with Oswald Spengler. You might find his book interesting. The key difference I think is that Spengler sees all this as unique to Western people while McCarthy thinks it’s all more universal, and he is a bit friendlier to science, which he sees as something building upon whereas Spengler sees it as a sort of decline. As for novelists, there is really nobody like McCarthy.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    My da' stopped reading Blood Meridian when Judge Holden scalped the Indian kid.
    I feel he has a real problem integrating his shadow.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I know way too many chuds who only read one book in the last ~7 years or whatever since graduating high school and its blood meridian.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Why did Cormac sell his soul to materialism? he became a bugman and his last two books even have some troony. Most disappointing swan song ever.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *