>His list of those whom he calls the “good writers” — Melville, Dostoyevsky, Faulkner — precludes anyone who doesn’t “deal with issues of life and death.” Proust and Henry James don’t make the cut. “I don’t understand them,” he says. “To me, that’s not literature. A lot of writers who are considered good I consider strange.”
How could he be so wrong?
>people who don't like what I like are stoopid
He's always been a nitwit corncobbing tortilla raping spitting on the ground and saying ye hack.
just another idiot who takes himself way too seriously because he confused the aesthetic experience of his pretty little purple prose with actually deep knowledge
>people who write what I like r smurt
I'm hijacking your thread, is pic related any good? I've heard people say it's better than BMeridian. Is there any truth in this?
This man has unquestionable taste, as evidenced by the shirt and hat combo.
>ywn get Cormac to go on one last whiskey binge and get him to tell you the proper way to interpret Blood Meridian, then completely forget it the day after
i'm 100 pages in and i highly recommend it,not sure if it's better than bm yet though.
or you could just go to his archive in texas and read all of his noted pertaining to blood meridian.
it's a great book but it's not close to being better than blood meridian. More personal and emotional but isn't nearly as innovative or provocative as bm.
Fuck you I want my desert whiskey binge
The more you read about authors, at least successful ones, you tend to find that they all definitely have their own unique taste as to what is good literature. The western canon is a meme
>you ask the question too early and the atmosphere bristles
>nothing more is said as you both sit with your whiskies, you sipping and he taking great gulps
>you both finish your whiskies and the mood has changed
>you are slightly swaying in your seat and your face is numb
>he is steady and seems to find your state a little amusing
>he is in a good mood
>he decides to grant your wish
>finally after all these years the great man will reveal his secrets
>he leans back on his stool is silent for a moment then begins:
The Judge's (and the Kid's) final atrocity was an act of consensual intercourse.
The evidence that I believe proves this is couched in the Socratic Method Judge Holden assumes in his address to and edification of the gang and the Kid specifically. He talks to them in that exact kind of question-answer dialectic we see in the dialogues (go back and read some of his conversations with Tobin if you don’t believe me), just embellished to fit with the Paradise Lost grandiloquence McCarthy was cultivating.
We have all heard of the homosexual interplay that took place in Grecian pedagogy between teachers and students, but what some of you may not be aware of is the distinct meaning that intercourse carried. In Attic society, it was the duty and recreation of the teacher to attempt to seduce his students, to use his logic and wiles to persuade them to submit to him both sexually and intellectually. An ultimate act of deference by which the student was, in a sense, culled from the herd, and where after they were no longer a distinct and autonomous intellect, but rather one subservient to the teachers.
Given this understanding, the whole of Judge Holden's lectures may be considered a seduction of the boy, drawing him in with his power and erudition to the dogma of elemental warfare and supremacy.
This dynamic takes on even greater poignancy considering the kid was effectively the reader himself/herself, a mute attendant and ancillary of the Glanton gang.
So, in summation, if you are one of those who felt disturbed and violated following your first reading of Blood Meridian, it is simply because it was you and no other who was willingly buggered by the Judge in those dark Jakes. Because by simply reading through to the end of the book, you had granted him permission to do so, had asked or begged him to sodomize you with his evil. The Judge opened his arms and we all went quietly into his enveloping embrace.
*spits*
So it is a good book, but I still prefer Suttree.
He says he considers them 'strange', not bad. It's a confessional remark about being absent of a particular aesthetic sense, not a recommendation to follow his example.
this is actually my reading too but the problem that I come up against is that it means that the kid was a unlucky spectator who essentially had no agency which is a problem that doesn't sit particularly well with me
It's his unsung masterpiece. BM is usually praised as his magnum opus in the wider scope of literature, but Suttree is like final boss McCarthy within his own writing. It took him almost 20 years to write and is pretty much is the culmination of his work and life in up to that point and defined him as a writer before Blood Meridian.
If you're well read in McCarthy I think you'll appreciate Suttree more than BM, but BM is/was more sensational and therefore gained the "classic" stamp of approval, deservedly so. Not to take anything away from BM but post-Suttree novels are a completely different McCarthy since he moved to Texas and began writing in that atmosphere, creating that BM, Border Trilogy, NCFOM climate of his novels which everyone generally associates with his work.
Suttree is the best of the old, BM the best of the new, you just have to decide which voice you prefer.
its pasta my dude
>ywn have consensual buggery with Cormac
oh... well i agree with pasta
How do you reconcile this with the person coming to the jakes after this putative assignation and saying "Oh my God" or something like that and running away.
This seems like some pretty specious, albeit pretty, casuistry
what would anyone say when coming across bald albino judge fucking the kid as a man
This. You'll learn one day kiddies when you stop sucking Bloom's dick.
kek'd an check'd
Are both the Judge and the Kid in the outhouse when the stranger walks by? Also coming across consensual sex, which ostensibly ought to look much different than rape, seems less likely to be met with someone literally running away in horror. Just apologize for the intrusion, close the door, and deploy some homophobic epithets to your boys afterwards.
And why would the kid submit/acquiesce at the very end, when he had "been the only one who didn't" the whole novel, or whatever the Judge said about the kid leaving a place in his heart not for the gang and the Judge. What was the new impetus that put him over the edge.
Also I can't believe I just got baited into writing a two paragraph critique of pasta
I personally think the judge is eating the kid (remember, the judge eats mexican children) - i.e. ambiguously consumes him as the whale does to ahab at the end of moby dick, but whereas the kid is ishmael he is consumed as well
i do like the pasta of it being consensual tho, since the ambiguity of it is important in moby dick
I completely agree with him and the fact that you get triggered and call someone "wrong" when they just talk about their personal taste says a lot about. It's also exactly what I'd expect from someone in love with Proust, by the way.
>implying I implied that
You mong
Talentless compared to Proust.
Talentless compared to McCarthy
t. talentless compared to (you)
So you agree he's a retard then.
Thanks for the expansive answer user. I've found a couple authors whose "Second best" work I prefer to their putative "opus," i.e. Ada by Nabokov, The End of the Road by Barth, etc.
I'll give this a shot.
>"I'm CIA"
raw memetics
R A W
I don't know who that is.
t. non-american
>Proust doesn't deal with death
Marcel's grandmother????!