How do I into Cormac McCarthy?
the road -> no country > blood meridian -> sutree
skipping no country is acceptable
>>7436570
Skip both The Road and No Country. Read anything except those, actually.
>>7436576
This. Watch No Country if you want to waste time late at night. Don't read The Road or No Country.
Start with All the Pretty Horses, then Blood Meridian, and then Suttree.
>>7436584
the road is good, people here just don't like it because it's accessible.
>>7436570
the No Country movie is better than the book, and it's worth watching
>>7436595
>the road is good, people here just don't like it because it's accessible
Nonsense. Siddhartha is an amazing book and I hold both Camus and Hemingway in high regard.
Nobody cares if "The Road" is accessible or not. What matters is if it's good or not. And it is not.
>>7436633
It is good.
>>7436595
I like accessible stuff like Catcher, Steinbeck, Vonnegut, Hemingway, Camus, etc. I don't like the Road because it just wasn't a good read
>>7436633
siddhartha is like the worst hesse and hemingway was a hack riding on the coattails of his actually talented friends, fuck off with your shitty taste.
>>7436649
>siddhartha is like the worst hesse and
Agreed, and it is an amazing book. So, there it is.
>hemingway was a hack riding on the coattails of his actually talented friends
This is not factual; it's a stupid thing to say, frankly.
>>7436670
>This is not factual
>aesthetic judgments aren't facts
wow thanks for the insight
>>7436685
The allegations that he rode on the coattails of his friends is completely false.
>>7436695
>some no name shit writer becomes famous shit writer after becoming acquainted with group of good writers
hmmmm it's a mystery you're right
>>7436595
Whether I perceive something as accessible has nothing to do with whether I perceive it as something of quality, and The Road, in my opinion, is just not a quality book.
I thought the Road was bretty gud desu senpai
>>7436570
If you've read Child of God like you said, skip the first two on this list and you'll be set. You can watch the No Country movie, which is pretty good, but neither the movie nor book version of The Road are really all that worthwhile
>>7436595
It's not that it's accessible, and I don't really think it's actively terrible or anything, just very unremarkable
The Road is good. If you aren't a "serious reader" it is probably his most accessible work. I've heard good things about All the Pretty Horses too.
I've never finished Blood Meridian but I still read it and take notes two years after I picked it up.
Start with Outer Dark, his most underrated novel
It's pretty short and very plot-driven so it gives you a good sense of cormac's writing style and themes before you start something more challenging like Blood Meridian or Suttree
So, is the first chapter of blood meridian the greatest prologue ever written?
Cormac McCarthy is a poor-man's James Michener.
>>7436584
He says that because everyone on this board is a hipster, and the road is somewhat mainstream
Why would you ever read Cormhack Hackarthy in the first place?
My first McCarthy book was Blood Meridian and it was fucking rad. I read some of The Road but didn't finish it, but I watched the movie and thought it was pretty fucking rad. The No Country for Old Men movie was pretty rad too. I started Suttree but since I've been busy with school I haven't finished it. It's been alright.
>>7437892
Don't be mad because we treat le Roadit like the trite mediocre novel it is
>>7436732
Please elaborate on why The Road is not a quality book. It seems like you are not holding this book, which is quite popular among the general population, in high regard. I also don't understand how people can that stupid. I personally think McCarthys other works is the epitome of his writings.
favorites
blood meridian or suttree.
most accessible favorites
border trilogy or the road
>>7437982
Not the guy you're responding to, but The Road is the best example of style over substance. McCarthy skates by on the stylistic techniques he's known for--namely through quoteless dialogue and stark, evocative imagery--but invests so fully in his style that the narrative falls flat. It's a cliche. Father and son against the big bad world, son carrying on the traditions of the old world into the new, yadda yadda yadda. There isn't the balance between narrative and style you see in McCarthy's other works, and the novel suffers from that imbalance.
>>7438007
>style over substance
>he thinks that's a thing
The Road is very likely a shitty novel, but this instrumentalist platitude is not why, that's a lazy cliche plebs think is valid criticism for works they don't/can't understand or appreciate.
> the narrative falls flat
>reading for plot
pic related
>>7438007
I can't see the problem. It's very well written and beatiful, in my opinon. The point of the book is the father-son relationship, and I think it's very well crafted and very touching, and even though the circumstances in the book is very hypotetical, it's easy to relate.
For me that makes it a good book, and it really stayed with me a long time.
If you break any story down to it's components it can be a cliché. What makes it a cliché or not is the execution, and The Road is perfectly executed. Too bad it's popular.
>>7438038
You're an idiot and should lurk more.
>>7438007
>style over substance.
I know man, Shakespeare and Nabokov are such hacks.
>>7438049
Been here longer than you. You're the archetypal pseudo, please go back to /co/ or whatever shithole you came from.
>>7438057
>Shakespeare
>Style over substance
>>7438068
Unable to appreciate how many more magnitudes better Shakespeare's verse is than the plots attached to it. Sad.
>>7438038
>that's a lazy cliche plebs think is valid criticism for works they don't/can't understand or appreciate.
>YOU JUST DON'T GET IT, MAN
Yeah, I'm the one dealing in lazy cliches.
>>7438007
>style over substance
How to spot a redditor 101. Fuck off back to your memevies if you love plot so much
>>7438064
>Been here longer than you.
If you've been here for longer than a few months and are still in your aestheticism phase then you're beyond saving.
>conflating thematic substance with the narrative.
>>7438073
The rest of your post is equally intellectually lazy. There isn't a thimbleful or original thought there.
>>7438088
Namedrop instrumentalism a few more times, maybe you'll impress some mouth-breather with that one polysyllabic word.
>>7438088
How am I an Instrumentalist?
>>7438076
Are you really this idiotic? Substance does not refer to plot. Do you think that literature is merely the expression of certain activities and that the quality is to be determined merely by the specific sounds used to describe it. You are a moron who cannot appreciate the vast philosophical and psychological worth of Shakespeare. How can his verse be 'better' than his plot, that is a completely nonsensical phrase. Stop posting and LURK MOAR (try several years before you make another post).
>>7438111
I used the phrase completely correctly, as he emphasises style above all, I made a factual statement.
How can I samefag in the space of 5 second you utter simpleton?
Instrumentalism has nothing to do with the 'conversation' we are having.
>>7438111
Instrumentalist! Redditor! Samefag!
For someone accusing others of lazy thought you're awfully into insubstantial ad hominems.
>>7438068
Name his most substantially profound play.
>>7438136
Why, what point are you trying to make?
>all these asspained crossboarders defending that retarded view
>>7438084
Didn't feel like developing some groundbreaking original thesis on a book that's been talked to death on this board. McCarthy's a fine writer, but The Road is objectively among his weakest works.
Fanboys, fucking Christ.
>>7438136
The Tempest.
>>7438145
That his themes aren't profound. They're rather banal, actually. Part of the reason he transcends time and space. His real kicker is his sublime mastery of language. "Style over substance".
>>7438135
>he thinks insulting people is equivalent to an ad hominem
Be more reddit.
>>7438128
>Instrumentalism has nothing to do with the 'conversation' we are having.
Then you don't understand what 'conversation' 'we' are having.
>>7438116
What I said is not even polemical, Shakespeare verse is far more important to his plays than his "vast philosophical worth" (lol) and, yes, his extensive psychological insights.
You're all (if not samefag) plebs, I hope you read more than wikipedia summaries some day.
>>7438151
>fanboy
>first sentence in my first reply to you was a concession of the shittyness of the novel
Thanks for proving my point about you being unable to read. Go back to /v/, 'fanboy'.
>>7438135
>implying I'm the one who was saying that
Wow, you samefags really love to project. I don't need to falsify the fact that people agree you're full of shit.
An ad-hominem necessitates that the point is an irrelevant attack on character-- you being a redditor and samefag prove your perfidious nature and shallow analysis. The idea of someone who unironically uses the phrase 'style over substance' complaining about clichéd attacks is amusing.
>>7438158
Verse cannot be separated from its meaning.
>>7438158
Attacking people rather than their argument is the literal definition of an ad hominem you facile dunce
Why am I still feeding the troll, get it together Anon
>>7438166
>SUPREME damage control
This is hilarious. You McCarthy defeners will now pretend 'whoa I wasn't defending him at all!' when you get BTFO
>>7438171
Bait: the comment
I ought to send this over to the 'what is the dumbest opinion you have ever seen expressed on /lit/?' thread
>>7438166
Your whole post basically read "it may be shitty but maybe you just don't get it, Anon"
Which means "It may be shitty but I don't think it is"
Pedantry everywhere.
>>7436705
>>7436685
>>7436649
According to practically every single professional association of writers/critics, Hemingway's stories figure into some of the greatest written.
By all means, relegate him to being far beneath Joyce, Woolf, Miller, and whoever you want.
But to claim he's a hack? It just reeks of idiocy. His avant-garde style (for the time) popularized and became influencial for tons of other writers.
Beckett was a near Joyce sycophant, does that mean he's a hack? Fuck man, there's tons of writers that had a type of teacher in some regard.
>>7438184
Is the quality of verse merely to be found in the sound?
The Crossing is my favorite novel ever, read it.
>>7438185
I haven't read McCarthy, I don't like Westerns and that's all I hear about him. Let me correct you on something:
>"it may be shitty but maybe you just don't get it, Anon"
>"it may be shitty, but you're an idiot for thinking that is the reason why."
>Which means "It may be shitty but I don't think it is"
So you're arguing with yourself over some bullshit you made up and assigned to me in your head? Oh cool.
>>7438177
>facile dunce
Oh god.
>>7438191
The quality of verse is phonaesthetic. It isn't "merely" found in sound, and meaning certainly plays a part (how can I express my meaning adequately within the conventions of poetry?) but meaning is far from quintessential. A testament: there are poets who write with nonce-words or write (cf. Gertrude Stein pic related) in meaningless but phonaesthetically pleasing units
>>7438244
This is getting confusing, but it's good to know we came for the same thing.
>>7436564
Hey guys. I haven't read McCarthy before, can I get some suggestions?
>What should I read to prepare for Blood Meridian?
>Moby Dick? The Bible? etc.
And:
>Should I something else before Blood Meridian?
>>7438231
I know this, I was getting unnecessarily mad. I suppose I misunderstood what was meant by Shakespeare being 'Style over Substance'.
>>7437758
>>7438297
The greeks
>>7438068
Whoever hath her wish, thou hast thy Will,
And Will to boot, and Will in over-plus;
More than enough am I that vexed thee still,
To thy sweet will making addition thus.
Wilt thou, whose will is large and spacious,
Not once vouchsafe to hide my will in thine?
Shall will in others seem right gracious,
And in my will no fair acceptance shine?
The sea, all water, yet receives rain still,
And in abundance addeth to his store;
So thou, being rich in Will, add to thy Will
One will of mine, to make thy large will more.
Let no unkind, no fair beseechers kill;
Think all but one, and me in that one Will.
:^)
>>7438007
Style is substance, famalamadingdong.
Hi I'm just gonna skate by all this debating to tell OP that I've only read Blood Meridian by him and it's great. I really enjoyed No Country the movie as well but people are saying it's not worth reading here?
>>7439256
I loved No Country, the novel, as well as everything else he has written.
SUTTREE UNTIL YOU READ IT
Do you see the state of this thread, OP? Then heed my word when I tell you this is the only thing The Road is any good for: trolling /lit/
>Read McCarthy, I recommend Blood Meridian
>pay attention to his words but also at all the dust he kicks up with his words, the atmosphere of things
>Look into negative theology
>>7440520
OP here
Start with the Greeks to be honest family.
>>7440531
What to take from this thread Mr Op, is that McCarthy is incredible but maybe not for everybody.
What's with all the praise no country for old men the movie gets? I thought it was pretty much garbage.
>>7438187
>His avant-garde style (for the time) popularized and became influencial for tons of other writers.
To be fair to anti-Hemingway posters, the man's influence manifested itself in such shitters as Bukowski
>>7441642
Coens are meme favorites
>>7436576
Don't listen to this faggot. Read The Road, you can see a progression of his writing style and his maturation from the brilliant but self-indulgent grand narrative of Blood Meridian to a more humble story about human relationships in the bleakest setting imaginable.
>>7441642
>cinematography perfectly captures the tone of the novel
>Javier Bardem's memorable performance as the villain
>Tommy Lee Jones as the affable good old boy cop past his prime
>Avoided becoming an action movie while still having a great sense of suspense and capturing the subtext of unpredictability and senseless violence
>the redneck bystanders Chigurgh encounters
>good pacing
>alternates perfectly between dry humor and serious scenes
>>7441642
It mostly has to do with the cinematography and Bardem's performance.
>>7436564
wtf, just read it from the begining. From the first book to the last one.
you people here surprises me
>>7438187
>His avant-garde style (for the time)
Can you elaborate on this?
>>7442570
People on /lit/ love asking what book in an author's repertoire they should start with then end up never reading anything by that author.
This ensures that shitposting about how terrible an author is based on unsubstantiated claims can continue to flourish.
Otherwise this would be a board filled with meaningful discussion which is not what 4chan is about.
>>7442678
most people on /lit/ ask about starting points because for them literature is a panacea for their insecurity in their intelligence. like adherents of fad diets, they are concerned with outward appearances rather than true wellbeing or improvement
if they were actually concerned with entering into a dialogue of ideas and appreciation of craft then they would ask for recommendations of critical texts or browse the web sites of university literature departments
>>7442701
dead on
>>7442701
>reading literature
>true wellbeing and improvement
Choose one.
>>7438068
Style OVER substance is not the same as style with no substance. Sheakespeare's substance is very good, but it is surpassed by his style.
>>7436610
book<movie
>2016
>Sill comparing different art forms.
Like saying the song was better than the donut.
>>7436649
>stop liking what I don't like.jpg
