>Henry James? That's not literature.

A book where sentences were alternatingly
in James's style and McCarthy's would be fun for 10 minutes or so.

>>24541842 (OP)
Henry James is such a wonderful writer.
Few modern men were as sensitive as him, and none in English.

mccarthy was a priveiliged yankee irish catholic who LARPed as a southern hillbilly and who never actually experienced real strife or violence in his life yet wrote about it in his novels (which just plagiarise faulkner and 19th century lit)
pretty pathetic actually

>>24541842 (OP)
He's right, in a way.

>>24543641
>pretty pathetic actually
Actually? Actually factually? How is McCarthy making you seeth from beyond the grave?

>>24543553
>A book where sentences were alternatingly
>in James's style and McCarthy's would be fun for 10 minutes or so.
I bet most people would just skip the James sentences and read the CM ones and hope to work out what was going on.

In the same area: which would be better, Blood Meridian rewritten in Henry James style or Portrait of a Lady rewritten in Cormac McCarthy style?

It would be fun to see how Henry James expressed all the goings-on of BM without breaking HJ decorum, but I think POAL by Cormac would be a better book. (He's perfectly capable of describing people just sitting around talking. The Passenger & Stella Maris are mostly that.)

>>24545005
Anything in Cormac's style would be better. James' writing is awkward, long-winded and overly Latinate.

>>24541842 (OP)
Henry James was a European, he attained to a level of culture that was beyond America and became one of the greatest writers to ever live. Cormac McCarthy is just an American pulp writer for pubescents. His criticism of James is in the same vein as Charles Ives calling Mozart a sissy, it just exposes a parochial American outlook insensitive to things of the spirit.

>>24543642
I don't much like Henry James but I don't think CM was right here.

He dismissed HJ because he thought "literature should be about matters of life and death".

Well, firstly, you might argue that everything is connected, and therefore if you write well enough about anything you're helping fill in the picture about everything, and so HJ *is* writing about life and death, just (very) indirectly. Should literature only deal DIRECTLY with matters of life and death?

Secondly, even if you don't accept that argument, I'm not sure Cormac is right. You have to throw away a lot of stuff. Is P. G. Wodehouse not literature? Jane Austen? Alice In Wonderland? A Midsummer Night's Dream?

>>24545021
Henry James was an American larping as an Anglo. Cormac knew what he was. James, a homosexual snob, pretended all his life to be something he wasn't.

>>24545038
James was a proud American and never pretended otherwise. He only renounced his U.S. citizenship out of support for England in WW1. But his mind existed well beyond the primitive confines of American culture. Meanwhile McCarthy LARPed as a redneck southerner. McCarthy's fiction is utterly foreign to his real experiences and personality, whereas James was an honest portrayer of the life that he saw.

>>24545038
Naa, HJ never pretended to be English, but he did think America ought to follow a different path. He wouldn't or couldn't commit to the whole vigorous irreverent Whitman-Twain New World thing. He wanted the USA to be more of a continuation / expansion of the European tradition.

It was pretty normal to believe that Europe was basically the model to be copied, right up until 1914.

>>24545061
Yes, James' mind also existed in the realms of sodomy and snobbery, that's why he wrote long-winded melodramas for a female audience. Cormac wrote novels set in a historical post, excuse him for not being a violent outlaw in the 1800s.

>>24545073
historical past*

>>24545073
This is a cope. Cormac wasn't writing about real history, he was writing about themes and stories that teenagers find cool, dark and epic. No more realistic or centred on reality than a 50s Western, except it's le grimdark. It's a very shallow rhizome of ideas. It goes without saying the complexity of James' emotional life could never be reduced to such notions, and that is why you have to use so shockingly out of place a term as 'melodrama' to describe his novels. It's beyond your comprehension.

>>24545083
the psychological drama of an elite whitey separated from it all
the schizo epic of a thirdie who was knee deep in the culcha

>>24545083
James wrote pretentious melodramas about people getting cucked or married and women having to choose between Chad #1 and Chad #2. Who gives a fuck about that but women? And the prose is so awkward and overly Latinate to the point where it's better to just read it in French. And you're wrong, Cormac's work does have historical basis.

>Henry James writes fiction as if it were a painful duty.
----Oscar Wilde

>An idiot, and a Boston idiot to boot, than which there is nothing lower in the world.
----H. L. Mencken

>Despite the scruples and delicate complexities of James, his work suffers from a major defect: the absence of life.
---Jorge Luis Borges

>Would you rather read Henry James or be crushed to death by a great weight?
---Lawrence Durrell

>Please tell me what you find in Henry James. ... we have his works here, and I read, and I can't find anything but faintly tinged rose water, urbane and sleek, but vulgar and pale as Walter Lamb. Is there really any sense in it?
----Virginia Woolf

>Mark Twain said he would rather "be damned to John Bunyan's heaven" than read Henry James's novel The Bostonians.

>I read a collection of Henry James' short stories—miserable stuff, a complete fake, you ought to debunk that pale porpoise and his plush vulgarities some day.
>He writes with a very sharp nib and the ink is very pale and there is very little of it in his inkpot . . . The style is artistic but it is not the style of an artist . . . Henry James is definitely for non-smokers. He has charm (as the weak blond prose of Turgenev has), but that’s about all.
>I have read (or rather reread) 'What Maisie Knew.' It is terrible. Perhaps there is some other Henry James and I am continuously hitting upon the wrong one?
---Vladimir Nabokov

>Henry James? That's not literature.
---Cormac McCarthy

>>24545114
>Perhaps there is some other Henry James and I am continuously hitting upon the wrong one?
A good line, although I’m slightly surprised that VN says "continuously" when he means "continually". Generally his English is quite sound.

Henry James was an autistic closeted faggot with nothing interesting to say. Case closed

>>24545083
Blood meridian has the validity and research of a real historical document. You are completely out of your depth

They are both great. Writers are allowed to have an opinion. Henry James also hated Melville.

>>24545177
More reasons to hate James for me. Thanks.

>>24541842 (OP)
>>24543553
>>24543560
First coming of Updike.

>>24545114
Kitsch before kitsch became common coinage.

>>24545021
That parochialism dragged man to the moon. You can have him.

>>24545087
Le noble savage

>>24545102
>Who gives a fuck about that
Anyone who leaves his room and isn’t removed from the world.

>>24545189
German ballistics technology and a generation of Americans (many of whom were immigrants) with European sentiments did. You can see what the American order quickly degenerated into without these men.

>>24545137
If you think Blood Meridian is an accurate embodiment of the psychology of 19th century America then you have the iq of an Indian.

>>24545318
> an accurate embodiment of the psychology of 19th century America
That's not what he said, is it, faggot?

>>24545323
Another demonstrably low iq post. What do you think that anon's post is attempting to prove, if not that the real substance and attraction of Blood Meridian is in its historical setting?

Or did he just mean to say something vaguely positive about McCarthy that sounds like a retort but is nothing of the sort, having no logical sequence to what I had said, and you're an equally muddle-headed individual who sympathises with that kind of dopey recalcitrant non-argument and thus perfectly understood his vagueness for what it is?

>>24545330
He was simply talking about Blood Meridian being historically accurate, not about your "accurate embodiment of 19th century psychology" goalpost or some other thing.

You write long-winded nonsense like the sodomite you idolize. This is sadly what happens when Henry James infects your brain.

>>24545318
You're a fucking retard. There is whole book detailing just how historically accurate the book is. Mccarthy in fact toned down the violence.
>psychology
Chimp brained retard, BM is not a psychological novel

>>24545330
Low IQ retard, the post was a response to a retard saying that BM doesn't represent reality but somebody's fancy. That is demonstrably false. Use the one functioning braincell you have and try to parse the sentences, ESL.

>>24545318
>poltard has no reading comprehension
Like clockwork lol

>>24545005
Cormac can’t write women at all, his Portrait would be unreadable

>>24545114
>Henry James is definitely for non-smokers.

>>24545018
>>24545102
>>24545129
>Grug not like complex sentence make Grug brain go hurty

>>24545620
He means it's for prudes and weaklings (e.g. homos and old women).

>>24545340
>>24545366
I repeated my statement that the essence of McCarthy and what attracts people to him, is ultimately nothing about real history or real life at any point ever lived. Someone responded that Blood Meridian is as 'valid' as an historical document. That is a vague statement, and obviously in the context a statement about the substance and thus psychology and atmosphere of the work. You two low iq monkeys were incapable of following this very simple chain of replies.

>saying that BM doesn't represent reality but somebody's fancy. That is demonstrably false
LOL, perhaps you are too stupid to realise, but now you ARE claiming that BM is an accurate embodiment of 19th century psychology. Can you make up your mind? Can you articulate yourself at all or with any consistency? What a retard. It's cartoonish pulp for teenagers that in no way reflects even a realistic thought process once in the entire novel.

>>24545636
Lol, I'm sure your pubescent shlock about le cruel world in the desert is really mature. That's definitely what he thought tough guys would enjoy. Really, I'm sure all those classic writers, Wilde, Nabokov, Woolf, etc. would think McCarthy was serious literature... LOL.

>>24541842 (OP)
I don't see to see my GOAT grinning in such a pedestrian way. It's unbecoming. Delete this.

>>24545636
You're neither old enough to smoke nor old enough to read and understand Henry James, McCarthy and Nabokov. Especially Nabokov.

love Henry James, and love how divisive he is with people. It helps to know who actually crossed to the other side of the experiential river. i really think HJ is inaccessible to an entire group of readers, it's just simply not for everyone. in the end it comes down to who you talk to when you're reading. do you talk to yourself? do you talk to the characters? do you talk to the author? HJ writes for the people who talk to the author. if you're in that camp, then everything folds into place.
by the way, if you can't see sick savant's aptitude for the development of literary horror, you're really fuckin missing out. makes me feel bad for you guys.

>>24545651
Most died before McCarthy published his best stuff so who cares but they did shit on Henry James and that's all that matters. Keep seething, homo lmao

>>24545660
>>24545664
>t. non-smokers

>>24545669
>t. can't focus on a book unless someone gets murdered, raped, or harangued by niggers

You don't smoke lmao imagine NOT smoking haha

>He doesn't even have a smoking cap
What a litteral faggot!

>>24545669
I feel so insulted by this remark that I shall straight-away begin to willingly destroy not just mine own body but that of all innocent children of God around me too! Oooh, you've hurt me so.

>I DON'T SMO- ACK!!!

>smokes a considerable amount
>likes henry james
I don't know where to sit. :(

>>24545122
Are both not grammatically correct, but with different meanings that make sense? Maybe he meant continuously? Or it was not written but a poor transcript.

Nothing less homosexual than putting fags in your mouth every day.

>>24545638
Look at all this coping retard word salad lol. Once again it's a fact that Blood meridian is historically accurate down to events, people and the general midset of the polpulace at time. You're a limpwristed retard who never read it and thinks it must be pulp because it deals with violence.

Notes on blood meridian is the book that goes into the historical accuracy of the book. If any non-retard wants to read it.

Lastly, retard it's not a psychological novel. It doesn't showcase thought process period. Only acts. Psychology is a reader's projection. Know jackshit about the work before seething.

>>24545638
>ESL retard trying to save face after being exposed
BM is 100% accurate in its portrayal of 19th century gringos, mexicans and indians. Meanwhile you don't know shit about them nor the book. Kill yourself

>>24545651
>retard with no reading comprehension projects his midwittery onto classic writers
Sure lol.

ITT: the closeted effete psychosensualist battles the hyperviolent battle-philosophaster

>>24545726
>Are both not grammatically correct, but with different meanings that make sense?
Sure, both are grammatically correct. But "continuously" means "in an unceasing stream" like water flowing from a tap and "continually" means "over and over again without stopping", like eating cookies one at a time repeatedly. So if you're talking about encountering one bad HJ novel after another, that's the second one.

>Maybe he meant continuously?
I suppose he *might* have used "continuously" deliberately, to mean he's forever reading HJ, like literally a continuous stream of HJ with no break, as a humorous exaggeration, but it seems unlikely. That would be a risky joke to make because lots of people mix the words up so you just sound as though you're getting it wrong.

>Or it was not written but a poor transcript.
Could be. I always assumed it was a letter since most of his rude remarks about other writers are in letters, but it could be reported speech.

NABOKOV MADE A MISTAKE
QUICKLY, BURN HIS BOOKS

>>24545743
>>24545745
>Blood meridian is historically accurate down to events, people and the general midset of the polpulace at time
LOL, yes I'm sure Judge Holden existed in 19th century America. I'm sure what he has to say was certainly in the vocabulary of 19th America. Totally. McCarthy uses an historical time period as a skin to throw over his pulpy edgelord novel with a style that could only appeal to teenagers, a style which no one with a brain could ever assume to be an authentic 19th century style. But you are such low iq posters, and your low iq is the only reason you love a mediocre author like McCarthy so much, because you fail to discern between something being called historical, or something using an historical name, and what is genuinely historical. It's embarrassing. If you actually read 19th century authors like James and were interested in real history then you wouldn't be taken in by this pubescent trash.

>>24545778
Such waste of words. Not even gonna read your trash. You don't have one functioning braincell nor the knowledge yet you want to fight. Tiresome.

The very first sentence of your post is wrong.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge_Holden

You're a retard who still doesn't get it. Blood meridian isn't loosely historical. It's the most holistic aggregate of glanton gang's exploits and the people they met and how those people were that yet exists. Being fiction doesn't change that fact. You're a low IQ chimp who knows jackshit about the book. Kill yourself.

You're so retarded I am surprised you can even read James lol. Go and learn what historical accuracy means, low IQ ape.
>In 1974, McCarthy moved from his native Tennessee to El Paso, Texas, to immerse himself in the culture and geography of the American Southwest. He taught himself Spanish, which many of the characters of Blood Meridian speak.[6] McCarthy conducted considerable research to write the book. Critics have repeatedly demonstrated that even brief and seemingly inconsequential passages of Blood Meridian rely on historical evidence. The book has been described as "as close to history as novels generally get".[26]

>>24545778
>which no one with a brain could ever assume to be an authentic 19th century style.
How do you even read literature with a room temperature IQ? Omniscient narration is not meant to represent the time period, dumbass. The story already does that.

>>24541842 (OP)
This insult against James and Proust is so much more impotent and stupid than the Nabokov insults everyone loves because it says nothing against the actual content of the writers and just insults them in an impotent, feckless fashion.

>>24545811
Again, LOL, you actually thought I was saying that someone called Judge Holden, someone that McCarthy based his character off, didn't exist, but as I made very clear, if you had an even average iq, McCarthy was only using history as a skin for his own style and vision. Now, yes, I know you're going to cope and accuse me of lying, but if your argument is so weak that you need to resort to accusing me of lying, in other words not granting me even the smallest amount of goodwill in this discussion, which is always the resort of the low iq when, at such a slow pace, they believe they've discovered something secret and hidden, then you shouldn't be talking in this thread.

Let me rephrase myself so your low iq isn't led astray any further: do you really think that McCarthy's Judge Holden is an accurate representation of the actual Judge Holden? Do you really think he's a personality that could have existed in 19th century America?

>>24545813
His style also includes the words spoken by his characters, or what, you don't believe the words of characters are an expression of an author's style? Monkey-brain on full display. If your arguments weren't so weak, you wouldn't have to resort to these bad faith arguments.

two fags quarreling over which daddy has the bigger dick

>>24545861
No one knows what the actual Judge holden was like, retard. There are 5 other people in the glanton gang that are accurate to history. The actual Holden was also called the most educated man in northern mexico and gave speeches on geology.

Imagine being this much of a chimp brained retard that you can't understand what historical accuracy means. It's not non-fiction, retard.

>>24545861
>the words spoken by his characters, or what, you don't believe the words of characters are an expression of an author's style?
All the characters speak in dialect that is perfectly accurate for the time period and place. No one knows what Holden talked like except that he was erudite. Mccarthy still kept that as close to history. You're a massive, pedantic retard. You didn't know shit about the book now you're trying to salvage some dignity by waffling about how he took artistic liberties with one personage nobody knows much about. It's so retarded.

>>24545876
It's just one limpwristed chimp who thinks that violence doesn't exist in the real world.

>>24545861
You deserve being run over by an automobile. Not goodwill. You fell on your face. Now you're yapping trying to save face.

>>24545903
>>24545909
>>24545913
Lol, the seethe is palpable. Of course the talk of a character like Holden is not realistic to 19th century America, as perhaps the most egregious example, but none of it really is. It all reeks of McCarthy's personal interests and themes and psychological atmosphere that could not possibly be more opposed to the world and experiences of 19th century America. Continue to cope, this is a fact, and your lack of argumentation, your incessant statement of irrelevancies, only confirms this. 'No one knows what Holden talked like', well durr, but that's not very well a reply to my statement that MCCARTHY makes him talk is not accurate, fundamentally, spiritually and empirically, to 19th century America. etc, etc, seethe more.

>>24545917
>yapyapyapyapyapyapyapyap

>>24545917
>"hey this one character no one knew about is not accurate to history. That means the rest of book is not either even though there are 300-pages-long supplementary texts detailing just how historically accurate the book is. I win."
A retard trying to save face. Kill yourself. You don't know jackshit about the book nor about 19th century America.

Blood Meridian is an important book because it deals with war. The Golden Bowl is an insignificant book because it deals with the feelings of women

>>24545917
>It all reeks of McCarthy's personal interests and themes and psychological atmosphere that could not possibly be more opposed to the world and experiences of 19th century America.
This is a demonstrably false argument. It's argument for the sake of argument because you're too butthurt he insulted your autistic idol. Blood meridian is as accurate as fiction can be to a time, a place and its people. You have zero evidence that it is not except for seething. The book also primarily takes place in Mexico, which you would know if you had actually read it. God you're embarrassing.
>>24545943
And low IQ faggots like this guy>>24545917
>>24545861
>>24545778
>>24545638

>>24545114
quite unironically, how do i reach nabokovs powerlevel in terms of word usage??

>>24545928
>>24545938
Expected copouts from the conversation.

>>24545946
>Blood meridian is as accurate as fiction can be to a time, a place and its people.
Except, for one example, it bears the traces of a philosophical outlook that never existed in 19th century America. You're just really, reeeeally, too low iq to pick up on something like this and take everyone characters say for granted as accurate for some reason. Very bizarre lack of critical thought. Also, again, weak and bad faith arguments, like assuming by America I meant U.S.A. Blood Meridian is pulpy, and your intellectual level is pulpy, so you're never aware of what should exist above the pulpy and what should share no similarities with the pulpy. You have no gauge for real accuracy. And I think it's worth pointing out the usage of the word 'demonstrably' twice after my initial usage, perhaps both times by you, which shows a rather low verbal iq dominated by its linguistic environment.

>>24545967
You waffle way too much and you're coping really hard that you got exposed for a fraud who didn't even know the most basic premise of the book. 19th century America wasn't just boston retards drinking tea. The philosophical outlook is expressed by Holden and Holden alone, nothing is known about the real Holden except that he was extremely erudite and a child molester, which are accurately depicted in the book. You're too smoothbrained to understand that this is still an aspirational work of fiction and not a period piece. Mccarthy only cared about the 19th century for its history, not for its themes. You have to be retarded to criticize his artistic decision and over a false premise like historical inaccuracy no less.

Talk about limited vocabulary. You have been spamming the same retarded argument in the most contrived manner with the same ad hominems for 5 hours and you still can't pretend well enough to realistically defend your low IQ assumptions.

Go dribble a ball in traffic, you're too low IQ to debate with

>>24545967
>copout
Talk about hyprocrisy. Henry James was shit and it seems he spawned an army of drooling retards that can't even skim the wiki properly.
>like assuming by America I meant U.S.A
>yet another strawman
You better be trolling or you might need to check in with a doctor for your genuine clinical retardation. It's quite clear that even you don't know what you're talking about. You keep changing the target just because your previous assumptions come crumbling down. It's like talking to an aspie, except this time he has no intelligence to speak of.

Poor guy never read The Princess Casamassima I guess.

>>24545967
>An ESL throwing a fit over a book he didn't and couldn't read
What else is new? Mccarthy really destroys the midwit types, doesn't he?

>>24545750
Hard to think of two more opposed writers
>perfect dramatic structures
>studies of consciousness and inferiority
>dissection of social cues and the discourses of unspoken power
Vs
>unconcerned with structure
>incapable of entering the consciousness of others
>individualist fantasies of men untethered to social conditions or relationships
Strange that their fanbases don’t align

>>24546022
>interiority

>>24546023
You got it rightvthe first time. A retarded jamesfag is even providing evidence with his melty itt.

>>24545981
Again, you're really just evading what is being discussed. For no reason at all, morons have continued to insist that McCarthy is thoroughly historically accurate in every way, only because I have asserted the fact that the substance, style, themes, atmosphere and character psychology of the novel do not belong to the historical period that they are set in. Because McCarthy as a writer is not rooted in reality, whereas James is. I never said writers have to write about the world they have literally lived in, and I never said that violence or barbarism is ahistorical in the period in which Blood Meridian is set, as always these frail, bad faith accusations you are always setting up instead of tackling the main point of disagreement. Because, quite obviously, you are moronically insisting that McCarthy is historically accurate in every single way because you think it is a riposte to my criticism of his pulpy disconnection from reality. But you, nor anyone else, have never yet explained how that is a proper response to what I have said, or how exactly he is or isn't historically accurate, only playing fast and loose with the phrase, such as appealing to it just being fiction when something ahistorical is brought up, all while asserting that it's still historically accurate in every way... It's very poor form, very disingenuous, and very low iq arguing. The violence of McCarthy's world is pulpy, indulgent and clearly an expression of his personal and semi-fantastic view of the world. It's not a realistic expression of people's lives or thoughts. And you should really, if you want to defend McCarthy so much, be appealing to the idea that realism is not his ultimate aim and that he's writing a different type of novel. But in response to that, I will only affirm that, in this comparison, the realism of James offers a vastly greater amount of depth and vitality. But I will not go so far as to claim that realism is always superior in literature or art.

And, please, let's be honest anon, your use of the word 'demonstrable' was because you read me use it. You have a short memory, and you subconsciously absorbed the word for lack of your own solid vocabulary. This is a clear cut, easily observable case, there is no other psychological process to explain it here.

>>24545994
>Talk about hyprocrisy. Henry James was shit
A truly well seasoned argument.

>You better be trolling or you might need to check in with a doctor
I understand that Americans aren't very intelligent, but surely you're aware that U.S.A is not the only part of America? Or perhaps this is another one of your low iq quibbles that arise from your having to resort to bad faith argument in the place of any real, substantial argument, on top of the evident but irrational malice that motivates you against me. If that is the case, then, to put you at ease, 'Americas' can be used interchangeably with 'America', and it speaks volumes if you did not already know that.

>>24546030
‘Can’t write women’ doesn’t mean there are no women in his fiction. It means he’s bad at writing them, as you admit, and as the man himself admitted. His only attempt at centring a book on a woman is a failure. For me it was the violin skills - it’s never the tuba is it?

i don't read americans on principle, is henry james a good read? this thread made me wonder if he might be worth a shot

>>24546028
Believe what you want. You haven't even read the book as has been extremely obvious itt. You're too low IQ to debate with
>character psychology of the novel do not belong to the historical period that they are set in
Except this is 100% false (see i changed it). All the members of Glanton gang behave and talk like their historical counterparts. All the people behave and act like how people did in that place. Multiple pieces of evidence have already been posted itt as testimony. You have no other argument but calling it pulpy because it's another one of your assumptions that you can't even prove. You're the one who is evading having to substantiate all the garbage you post here.

While it's true Mccarthy is not going for realism. That doesn't mean his world is unreal. He doesn't psychologize but because he doesn't need to. The narration already carries great depth of universal truths that don't have to be channeled through character consciousnesses. The characters are still realistic, just as people are in the real world. Surely you don't hear the internal monologues of the people you meet? You see what they do, you hear what they say. Mccarthy's "irrealism" is more accurate to the real world than James' in fact. It just has different intentions. You won't know because you never read the book to begin with. Let's be honest.

Once again this low IQ argument. Mccarthy's violence has accurate historical basis. To the point the actual minutia of violent acts matches up with Chamberlain's sketches of war, the only living witness of glanton gang's exploits. You're a fraud. Now you will move the goalpost again. The truth is that you're just asshurt he insulted your autistic idol. Now you're waffling to try and insult him too and doing a horrible job at it. You fell on your face in the very first post you made. You can't even be honest about books what the fuck would you know about real life?! I am not entertaining you any further. Keep waffling about the fanfiction version of blood meridian which only you have read.

Finally, you have to be an ESL to think that demonstrably is a 10 dollar word lol. It's common as shit. Even more common in formal discussions. Perhaps that's your problem with Mccarthy to begin with

>>24546053
henry james is very european, and difficult. you know the old technique of never repeating a word per page? this guy believes in never repeating a sentence per lifetime. the guy just comes up with endless configurations of words, his writing style is a sort of impressionistic process, i've found myself struggling over a sentence for several minutes, and feeling the same pleasure of finally intuiting its meaning as i would from solving a crossword puzzle. he's an author's author. my favorite stuff of his are his short stories where some guy fails in horrifying ways at trying to secure this or that legacy, or this or that fortune, or this or that woman. the guy is villainous. you'd be hard pressed to find people more prone to destruction than the jamesian character. in fact, the idea that he's some gentle faggot is bizarre to me, because i can think of no darker monster than the ones that slept below henry james' bed. he is brutal in ways that slip well below some superficial bruise, some lopped limb. torture, prying apart who you are, what you are. what composes you, what your emotional motivations are, this is the type of world henry james writes. he writes the violence inherent in propriety.

>>24546028
>low iq
>bad faith
>"well seasoned" argument
>low iq arguing
Kek. An ESL retard with limited vocabulary and a defective brain. Everything is in bad faith because that is the limit of your vocabulary. Learn a new, less contrived insult, retard.

>>24546042
Sorry, I posted a reply and then deleted it because I had some other things to say but you somehow managed to answer it in the meantime. That always happens. Let me post the new improved version.

>>24545460
>>24546042
>Cormac can’t write women at all

I disagree. There are more women in CM novels than people think and they’re done pretty well. They’re just not usually the protagonist.

His problem with women is not that he can’t write them but that he tends to idealize them. In all his books there are many saintly perfect martyrs. Rinthy, Magdalena, all those Mexicans who help the protagonist in the Border Trilogy. Most of the old-timers’ wives (dead or not) are spoken of as being perfect. Carla Jean Moss is 100% sympathetic. The grandmother in The Passenger, likewise.

How many wicked or flawed women are there?

No outright monsters; nothing to compare with Holden or Chigurh or the three strangers in Outer Dark or Eduardo in Cities of the Plain.

There are a few flawed / equivocal women. The manipulative aunt in All The Pretty Horses. The hysterical prostitute in Suttree (even then, she just gets fed-up with Suttree leeching off her, which isn’t unreasonable).

The girl Boyd falls in love with in The Crossing is a very good character because she starts off as this helpless waif and then as soon as she knows she has Boyd wrapped around her little finger she starts treating Billy with little respect. And she has no compunction about taking Boyd away from Billy without so much as a goodbye when she knows Boyd is the only thing Billy has in the world.

The wife in The Road is pretty annoying, but she’s little more than a two-dimensional plot device. (CM’s one real failure of female characterization, in my opinion.)

I’m not sure where to put Alicia Western, because I’m not sure how gaga CM was by that point. I find her interesting and well-drawn but annoying and I’m not sure that was the intention. Bobby goes on and on about how she has a good heart. But she acts selfishly almost all the time, and the unselfish things she does (giving the woman the TV; identifying the retinal cancer) are not things that require any great effort. And in SM she’s insufferable. Snarky intellectual bullying punctuated with self-pity. (She does say at one point towards the end, “Why do you let me bully you?” so CM was obviously aware of this. I think he misjudged, though. I think the book would work better if she were just a smidgeon less obnoxious.)

I suppose CM’s closest thing to a pure evil woman is Malkina in The Counselor. (‘Mal’ is Spanish for ‘bad’; ‘Malkina’ ought to mean something, I guess?) Unfortunately, my love of evil women makes it hard for me to analyze further. I think she’s great. Also she isn’t really evil, just utterly ruthless. Go Malkina!


--


Returning to the main point: CM is much better at women than people realize. His main problem is he assumes 90% of women are saints. But if you think he can’t do female nuance and psychological depth you need to read his books again. He could write Isabel Archer with no difficulty.

>>24546064
cont.
he also writes what i'd say are syntactically french sentences in english. much like beckett did when he went into his bleakness. there's something about the texture of an author whose mind thinks in fluent french, but wishes to express in english, and it sort of gives a vivacity to the language that isn't present elsewhere. a sort of synthesyncratic style emerges.
there is also the famous late period james which involves him going loopy from whatever drugs they had him on, and his interesting amanuensis, who is worth looking into.

>>24546028
>Because, quite obviously, you are moronically insisting that McCarthy is historically accurate in every single way because you think it is a riposte to my criticism of his pulpy disconnection from reality. But you, nor anyone else, have never yet explained how that is a proper response to what I have said, or how exactly he is or isn't historically accurate, only playing fast and loose with the phrase, such as appealing to it just being fiction when something ahistorical is brought up, all while asserting that it's still historically accurate in every way
It seems you simply don't understand what historical accuracy in historical fiction means. I will keep it easy that even someone slow like you can get: Blood meridian is one of the if not the most historically accurate texts. That is to say the speech, events, people, setting, behavior etc. are very accurate to the period and to known biographical information. That doesn't mean it doesn't indulge in fiction. But if you are going to call it unrealistic and not an accurate representation of the time period and people, then you can never praise another book for the same. That's how "historically accurate" it is. It makes war and peace look as if researched by a middle schooler. Let's keep it relative.

>>24546028
>The violence of McCarthy's world is pulpy, indulgent and clearly an expression of his personal and semi-fantastic view of the world. It's not a realistic expression of people's lives or thoughts. And you should really, if you want to defend McCarthy so much, be appealing to the idea that realism is not his ultimate aim and that he's writing a different type of novel
The insane amounts of bullshit you have been posting in this thread that no basis whatsoever would kill Pinocchio. There is absolutely nothing pulpy about Mccarthy's violence. It's accurate, horrid and, in Blood meridian, extremely boring, 2/3rds into the book. The book even accurately captures the repetitiveness of violent acts and its effect on the reader and its characters. You assume its pulpy because the only shit you know about the book is that it's a western. Never knew Jamesfags were so insanely dishonest and retarded. This nigger is really trying to post bullshit about one of the most popular and most read books on the board lol.

>>24546042
There we are.

>It means he’s bad at writing them, as you admit, and as the man himself admitted
I didn't admit this. And he didn't quite say this; he just said he didn't feel he was ready to write a female protagonist.

>His only attempt at centring a book on a woman is a failure.
Well, a partial failure, but his being a hundred and six years old and trying to talk about completely new stuff that he only started learning in the last third of his life might have something to do with it. If we're imagining this Portrait Of A Lady he's writing, I think we are allowed to have him in his prime (say, late 1980s) for it.

>For me it was the violin skills
You are allowed to be annoyed about her being too amazingly capable, but not really in the violin thing. We're never told that she was THAT good at it. She just said she wasn't prepared to do it if she couldn't be world top ten, but that might mean anything. And she doesn't have a bunch of other hobbies that would have taken too much time. She's not a world-class cook AND a world-class chess player AND a world-class ballerina AND a world-class portrait painter. Quite plausible that a talented girl without friends would get decent at the violin.

There are much better things to be annoyed about re. the Mary Sue hypercompetence, in my opinion. Her remembering every single word of every book ever gets a bit tiresome. Also when she describes that one day from when she was three in perfect detail, etc. [Of course she COULD have been slightly faking that just to bully the therapist . . . not sure how subtle CM is being sometimes.]

> - it’s never the tuba is it?
That's a bit unfair. Pick a hundred high-IQ (half-)jewish girls. How many of them are learning the violin? How many the tuba? (Also think where she grew up. Not absurd that she might have got hold of a violin. A tuba is way less likely.)

>>24546028
This post proves why you failed. You assume that McCarthy's violence must be unrealistic, because it just has to be. Admitting it is real would seem absurd. Surely no one could be that violent and that devious. But that's precisely why the book is great. It's absurdism not due to its unreality. It's absurd because it is hyperreal. The acts described were real and they were just as violent. Sepich says in his research that McCarthy toned down the violence of the real events. That's why the book is great, it forces people to acknowledge something they instinctively don't want to believe in, just like you don't, except much less pretentiously and without grammatical mistakes in every other sentence. That's the brilliance of the book; It successfully combines absurdism and realism in a genuine way. James wouldn't get it, nor most of the modernists tbf, but that's why McCarthy was a special writer. He trod ground most other greats were not even willing to acknowledge, and i am not even just talking about the violence.

>>24546106
The violin is just the grace note of silliness on top of the rest. Of course she plays the violin too. It’s so on the nose. At least he didn’t make her fluent in Chinese.
We can speculate all we like, but Cormac had his entire life to write a book centred on female interiority, and he never did. We can only look at what he did write, not what he possibly could have written.
Perhaps PG Wodehouse could have written Blood Meridian? You can’t prove he couldn’t.

>>24546128
>trod ground <...> greats were not even willing to acknowledge
such as?

>>24546142
The style of writing, the refusal to interiority (very rare for books in a post-hamlet world), the detailed violence of course.

>>24546064
>>24546076
you sold me, i think i'll start with turn of the screw since it's likely hard not to at least enjoy, unless there's a better entry point

>>24546146
what makes you think they weren't willing to acknowledge them exactly? do you think gratuitous violence or a variety of experimental styles didn't exist for the greats you dismiss? you should probably look into the french a bit more if you like those sorts of things, by the way.

>>24546150
excellent choice. the lesson of the master and the figure in the carpet are also good (and haunting). for a book, i'd definitely recommend diving into something like The Ambassadors first, so you can really see what the guy is. if you want a gentle entrance, The Bostonians, The European, The Spoils of Poynton.
Have fun!

>>24546189
sorry, the american, not the european.

>>24546165
I am not dismissing anyone. And I am already aware of de sade, lautreamont, artaud etc. All great but they are nothing like Mccarthy. Who is really gonna bring these guys up when talking about greats anyway? You say greats they think of dickens, hardy, tolstoy, dosto, joyce, proust, faulkner, woolf, mann etc. They are more like each other in their intent and obsessions than they are like Mccarthy, especially Mccarthy of Blood meridian.

>>24546197
i think it's a dismissal to say that greats don't acknowledge things like violence, "the refusal to interiority", and "styles of writing".
honestly you haven't explained yourself sufficiently.
i mean other french writers, by the way. especially your comments about interiority. no, if we're trying to aim for ultraviolence you'd have to go elsewhere, british, american, greek, but these things aren't new treatments. you act like writing about it is groundbreaking, that no one in the wide world has done so. i understand being a fan of an author, but this seems more idolatrous than anything else. i've read mccarthy, it's hard for me to see what you see in him, which suggests to me you read him when you were a bit young, a bit more impressionable. those works that reach us then tend to be improved by what we've poured into them of ourselves. it's difficult when we must confront the fact that we probably contributed more than the author to the work when all is finished. anyway. i appreciate your adoration, but he's nothing inimitable, nothing mindboggling.

>>24546219
I think you're just mad at me praising Mccarthy. I like him as much as i did when i was young. You probably just don't understand him, which is okay. Most don't.

>>24546219
Name one book that's as violent as Blood meridian which also happens to be narrated from a detached, non-human perspective.

>>24546223
Why would I be mad at you praising an author? I couldn't think of a sillier thing to spend my time doing. No, i think it's unfortunate that you think that the greatest authors in literature were blind to one of the most written about and intrinsic aspects of humanity.

>>24546227
again, i urge you to read more of the french if you think that particular connection is unique.

>>24546219
>no, if we're trying to aim for ultraviolence you'd have to go elsewhere, british, american, greek, but these things aren't new treatments. you act like writing about it is groundbreaking, that no one in the wide world has done so.
Think you fundamentally misunderstood what he was trying to say. He wasn't saying Mccarthy was the first to show ultraviolence. He said he was unique in his depictions of ultraviolence which seem absurd yet are real. You are trying to dismiss Mccarthy much harder than anyone is trying to dismiss the greats. Perhaps you should have read him when you were young. Now you are just angry at any writer that doesn't seem too similar to ones you feel comfortable fellating. Ain't that the truth?

>>24546233
>i think it's unfortunate that you think that the greatest authors in literature were blind to one of the most written about and intrinsic aspects of humanity
Not a good reader are you? Reread what i wrote.

>>24546236
Yeah I knew you couldn't name anything. You aren't the only one familiar with french literature, smarty ass.

>>24546237
Nope. Most of the authors I praise for taste, the public and even /lit/ disdains. Being contranatant is no problem for me. If he is saying that what makes McCarthy special is the specific concept of making true violent events *seem* surreal, we can point to someone mentioned earlier in the thread. Dickens. just read his riot in the tale of two cities. perfect example of what you're describing.
>>24546240
it may not be what you wrote, but it's what you've done. you can't recognize it, but you don't have to. i won't try and force you. i will say you should be careful who you idolize.

>>24546247
i have two or three off the top of my head, but is it really important for you to find more gore lit? maybe you've had enough.

>>24546261
>he is saying that what makes McCarthy special is the specific concept of making true violent events *seem* surreal, we can point to someone mentioned earlier in the thread. Dickens. just read his riot in the tale of two cities. perfect example of what you're describing.
It's quite obvious you have never read Blood meridian. Why would anyone waste time fighting people over praising a writer they never read?

Just for the record, the violence in BM is not surreal. You lack the nuance for this discussion. You haven't read the book.

>>24546263
>gore lit
You have already failed. You think what makes BM unique is the ultraviolence. I seriously don't think you have read the book. You're just clambering to demythologize it because it hurts you for some reason. You can mince words but the attitude is very clear.

>>24546272
Of course not. I don't read graphic depictions of violence. I'm not sick in the head and sensationalize it now that I live in a world with some modicum of a reprieve available. Imagine spending ample peacetime pleasure on libertinism and depravity, all for the sake of calling it high art. I wouldn't read it any more than I would read conan the barbarian or whatever guro shit you flinch off to.
No, I'm here to try to reason with you from the perspective of a man who has never touched heroin trying to rescue the junkie.

>>24546261
>it may not be what you wrote, but it's what you've done
You're just a bad reader who is way out of his depth. Your response to these posters is very telling. You got hung up on trying to find the most tenuos connections for "ultraviolence" because you hope the book will fall into those categories. Your example in dickens is quite telling. If you thought the riot was ultraviolent, then BM will knock you over. Let's not even talk about the reality, dickens had no care for history relative to Mccarthy. You keep missing the point which has been clearly stated multiple times now.

>>24546278
that's all you can ask for when you want classical comparisons. you pule for your hyperviolence like any crackbaby. also, you did admit to reading it when you were young so you probably think these modes of thought were normal. no. i'm here to tell you that it's not normal, this is a sick man who was given the ability to groom you, and nobody tried to stop it, or mediate the content you were consuming. you probably should seek therapy.

>>24546289
>these posters
oh i thought you were all the same dude. you seem like the same guy over and over again. if you're trying to pretend, you're doing a terrible job

>>24546285
>>24546296
You are a man who is not serious about reading or literature trying to discredit a novel he never read. There is no point in this discussion. It's quite ironic you want to get into this debate when the initial point of contention was that McCarthy trod ground that other greats didn't. And your refusal to engage the work while advocating for the greats literally proved the claim correct.

>>24546306
>i want my hyperviolence
>give me my hyperviolence

wait, let me guess, you're muslim too

>>24545018
There hasn't been a more singular and inventive stylist since, I despise this constant devaluation of James because plebs can't admit being filtered.

>>24546301
So you're delusional too.

>>24546320
>people don't pretend to be multiple people on this forum
???

>>24546323
>just because some people pretend must mean everyone does it everytime they call out my retardation
???

>>24546329
no, but there are two people involved at most in this instance. the simple fact is that not many people give a shit, or even use this site. anyway, it's fun to have the dogpiling effect, but call me schizo all you want. i'm immune. the fact of the matter is that crackbaby like hyperviolence, crackbaby want hyperviolence. your resentment and why you're so active in creating threads like these is due mainly to your inability to enact your own bouts of hyperviolence. you're waiting for someone big and strong to come and whip you up into a rage so you can finally go on that rampage you've been planning all these years.
sorry buddy. you'll have to grow that pair all on your own.

>>24546342
Not reading that shit. I am happy for you or sorry that happened. Holy shit the autism.

>>24546346
oh, i'm sorry. did i mess up your hatethread?

James is a lifeless slog, Corncob is pretentious pulp. American literature, apart from a very select few, was a mistake

>>24546390
>says the guy who enjoys updike

>>24546395
That was my first post itt but I agree Updike is one of the select few.

bros have no problem ripping themselves apart with roasts. but the roasts sit a in sewing circle gassing each other up.

Holy shit, God please save and prevent me from having a personality like some /lit/ posters do. Amen.

Holy shit, God please save and prevent me from having a personality that’s like the personality some /lit/ posters have. Amen.

>>24546319
lmao this has to be bait