I don't know if you saw a link posted on the Odfellow discussion group a few days ago. It went to an Atlantic Monthly article on the subject of contemporary literary writing, and McCarthy was one of the authors that got dragged into the mud. I've deleted the post so I don't have the link anymore. I was interested to read it because I've read "No Country For Old Men" and have "The Road" in my to-read stack. The stack that never dwindles.
I did like "NCFOM", although it took me a long time to get past the lack of punctuation. I could live with out quotation marks, it was the absence of commas that drove me nuts, forcing me to reread paragraphs in order to comprehend. I suppose that is a deliberate device on McCarthy's part, but it one reason that I hesitate to start "The Road". After reading your review, it just slid farther down in my pile.
"No Country For Old Men" is worth reading though, imo, because the ending is very much of a genre-buster. The book reads like a thriller for the most part and also has a cinematic sweep to it. In fact, I've heard that it will be coming out as a movie with Tommy Lee Jones in the lead role. I'm anxious to see it, because I really want to see how Hollywood handles such a non-traditional ending. I also want to see the villain of the piece of screen, because he's a truly haunting and terrifying character in the book.
I'm just so impressed at how much material you read a month. Granted, I used to read at the same rate when I was young. But so much of it was just plain trash, that I can't even remember most of it.
I skim the Odfellows list for the most part, usually because I don't have the time to sit down and read the articles and really participate in the discussions as much as I'd like. I'm not surprised if McCarthy got dragged through the mud though. I've heard of a lot of SF readers being very unhappy with this particular book.
I'm not UNHAPPY, but I'm not happy with it either.
Deliberate or not, I think the deliberate use of lack of punctuation (quotation marks aside) is just plain lazy. Oh, a person can get all elitist and call it art, but give me a break: do you REALLY want to associate your art with everyone in the world who's illiterate? Or kids who don't know better? Meh.
THE ROAD was very quick to read, though, once you got used to the style, and that didn't take long, for me anyway.
I haven't read any more of his work, but I'm not too inclined no matter how good it is. I don't have time for authors who make me work too hard to sort out their sentences because they're too lazy or artsy to use commas and other punctuation properly.
Heh, I feel like I'm reading too much. But I do have to do SOMETHING during my breaks at work, and reading's the easiest thing, unless I bring my laptop to do critiques. :)
Well, I should clarify that article a bit. The writer (can't remember the name) wrote a very lengthy and detailed analysis of the work of several popular literary writers, among them, Annie Proulx and Cormac McCarthy. It had nothing to do with either of the books we are discussing, I believe the book that got torn apart was "All The Pretty Horses." The writer of the article is also of the opinion that dropping punctuation is just lazy.
I had my agreements and disagreements with the article, but it was certainly thorough--and so long that I gave up trying to read the whole thing, because it took up most of my morning as it was. He put down "Snow Falling On Cedars" by David Guterson, which happens to be a favorite book of mine. But at the same time, I appreciated his knocks on some of Proulx's prose.
I'll try to find that article and bookmark it for future reference. I was surprised it didn't start a defense war on the mail group, since the article clearly attacked a lot of the styles that many Odfellows admire. While I admire literary style, I also feel it can be excessive and overwrought, and drown out the aspects of a story that i enjoy: characters and plot.
I almost miss working full-time at Borders, because I could read anything in the store during break. I covered a lot of children's books that way, including Neil Gaiman's "Coraline". Emphasis on the "almost" though.
To my understanding, the whole POINT of the literary style of fiction SHOULD be its focus on character. And of course, the prose itself, but it's very hard for prose to shine if the author isn't following the basic rules, or at the very least, doesn't have a good reason for breaking them.
I feel bad, because I'm worried I'm staring to become a genre snob and missing out on what makes literary fiction so great. Maybe I am, maybe I'm not. I've still got some literary tales on my shelf, and time will tell. :)
If you find that article, do send it my way, if you don't mind. And I'll do the same, if I get the chance to look for it myself. :)
>the whole POINT of the literary style of fiction SHOULD be its focus on character
it does, sometimes.
It's probably worth keeping in mind that a lot of adherents and fans of a style or genre can very much also be mistaken as to what their genre/style is about.
Literary does not = dense and obscure, and impenetrable; it does not equal a flurry of metaphors and purple prose, although care with language is supposed to be a more immediate concern for literary writers than non-literary. It's really hard to put it in words, "I'll know it when I see it", really is the only genuine explanation. the primary focus is on the internal (which does not equate a bugger-all happens type of plot; that is still boring), whereas non-literary is on the external. How to define those, is difficult though.
lack of punctuation - I am sorry, but if there are writers who still insist that this is a mark of excellence, they should get their heads (I would feel crass saying asses..nevermind) out of the timewarp, and realize the Beats et al are done and past. In the modern era, there is a MUCH stronger case to be made that precision of punctuation is a hallmark of a literary/skilled writer than vice versa. Spend a wee bit of time on message boards/ forums and cell phone texts, and it's apparent that misspelling and ignorace of commas and periods have become the domain of the non-literary.
I do not in particular like the term literary, tbh, since it gets appropriated by both snobs and their accusers as either a (automatic) badge of supremacy or a sneer of derision.
One way to look at it, is that non-literary strives to reach the widest audience, even the non-readers. Draw them in as it were. Literary assumes you can read, and that you love reading, and that you love being challenged to read. Again, that's only part of it, and certainly not all.
Look at SF - in non-literary, cleverness and neat plot tricks is more vital and valued; the ability to competently and expertly execute a story is all important. In literary, it's about language, and a story can be driven by Voice alone. Thing about Voice, that's very odd -in most cases, what we would call a "strong voice" is in truth nothing more really than a confident narrative voice and a somewhat distinctive one. Rather badly put, it is not a weak voice. Narrative Voice is that bizarre element which really cannot be quantified, and is possibly the only "innate" ability that a writer has or has not. Perhaps this is the measure of raw talent; but it's no guarantee for success. Asimov is one of the greats of SF, revolutionised a genre with his ideas. A clever and skilled writer. But not a remarkable voice, not like Philip Dick, for example.
Kind of like Idols - a lot of people are totally tone-deaf; some are not completely but they need to do a hell of a lot of work to be satisfactory singers. A few are inherently strong, but success depends less on the power of their voices and completely to what use they put it.
In writing, the tone-deaf can still sing and even sing with success. But their love is the literal lyrics and not the note (I am in rather strident metaphor mode today, it seems). I truly believe that writers with genuinely inherent, powerful voices are a very rare breed, and the literary style would be a big pull on them, with its promise for them to unleash Voice, not just story. Or, put another way, a style that encourages voice, and a story that can be driven on voice alone. Unfortunately, the literary genre is probably also the style that draws the largest amounts of the complete tone-deaf. Some of these may be so awful they could even have success for a while! We do have Britney Spears and Paris Hilton and Lindsey Lohan after all, in pop music.
sorry, got sidetracked wiht musings; ta for an excellent review as always.
the primary focus is on the internal (which does not equate a bugger-all happens type of plot; that is still boring), whereas non-literary is on the external.
I could agree with that. Totally.
Spend a wee bit of time on message boards/ forums and cell phone texts, and it's apparent that misspelling and ignorace of commas and periods have become the domain of the non-literary.
AMEN.
sorry, got sidetracked wiht musings; ta for an excellent review as always
*laughs*
That's quite all right. I will disagree with you on one point, and only because I'm a former classical voice major and my voice teacher once imparted this gem to me: there is NO such thing as being tone-deaf unless one is actually DEAF. :) But your point about some people have to work harder to sing on key than others is right on. :)
I did like "NCFOM", although it took me a long time to get past the lack of punctuation. I could live with out quotation marks, it was the absence of commas that drove me nuts, forcing me to reread paragraphs in order to comprehend. I suppose that is a deliberate device on McCarthy's part, but it one reason that I hesitate to start "The Road". After reading your review, it just slid farther down in my pile.
"No Country For Old Men" is worth reading though, imo, because the ending is very much of a genre-buster. The book reads like a thriller for the most part and also has a cinematic sweep to it. In fact, I've heard that it will be coming out as a movie with Tommy Lee Jones in the lead role. I'm anxious to see it, because I really want to see how Hollywood handles such a non-traditional ending. I also want to see the villain of the piece of screen, because he's a truly haunting and terrifying character in the book.
I'm just so impressed at how much material you read a month. Granted, I used to read at the same rate when I was young. But so much of it was just plain trash, that I can't even remember most of it.
Reply
I'm not UNHAPPY, but I'm not happy with it either.
Deliberate or not, I think the deliberate use of lack of punctuation (quotation marks aside) is just plain lazy. Oh, a person can get all elitist and call it art, but give me a break: do you REALLY want to associate your art with everyone in the world who's illiterate? Or kids who don't know better? Meh.
THE ROAD was very quick to read, though, once you got used to the style, and that didn't take long, for me anyway.
I haven't read any more of his work, but I'm not too inclined no matter how good it is. I don't have time for authors who make me work too hard to sort out their sentences because they're too lazy or artsy to use commas and other punctuation properly.
Heh, I feel like I'm reading too much. But I do have to do SOMETHING during my breaks at work, and reading's the easiest thing, unless I bring my laptop to do critiques. :)
Reply
I had my agreements and disagreements with the article, but it was certainly thorough--and so long that I gave up trying to read the whole thing, because it took up most of my morning as it was. He put down "Snow Falling On Cedars" by David Guterson, which happens to be a favorite book of mine. But at the same time, I appreciated his knocks on some of Proulx's prose.
I'll try to find that article and bookmark it for future reference. I was surprised it didn't start a defense war on the mail group, since the article clearly attacked a lot of the styles that many Odfellows admire. While I admire literary style, I also feel it can be excessive and overwrought, and drown out the aspects of a story that i enjoy: characters and plot.
I almost miss working full-time at Borders, because I could read anything in the store during break. I covered a lot of children's books that way, including Neil Gaiman's "Coraline". Emphasis on the "almost" though.
Reply
I feel bad, because I'm worried I'm staring to become a genre snob and missing out on what makes literary fiction so great. Maybe I am, maybe I'm not. I've still got some literary tales on my shelf, and time will tell. :)
If you find that article, do send it my way, if you don't mind. And I'll do the same, if I get the chance to look for it myself. :)
Reply
it does, sometimes.
It's probably worth keeping in mind that a lot of adherents and fans of a style or genre can very much also be mistaken as to what their genre/style is about.
Literary does not = dense and obscure, and impenetrable; it does not equal a flurry of metaphors and purple prose, although care with language is supposed to be a more immediate concern for literary writers than non-literary.
It's really hard to put it in words, "I'll know it when I see it", really is the only genuine explanation.
the primary focus is on the internal (which does not equate a bugger-all happens type of plot; that is still boring), whereas non-literary is on the external. How to define those, is difficult though.
lack of punctuation - I am sorry, but if there are writers who still insist that this is a mark of excellence, they should get their heads (I would feel crass saying asses..nevermind) out of the timewarp, and realize the Beats et al are done and past. In the modern era, there is a MUCH stronger case to be made that precision of punctuation is a hallmark of a literary/skilled writer than vice versa.
Spend a wee bit of time on message boards/ forums and cell phone texts, and it's apparent that misspelling and ignorace of commas and periods have become the domain of the non-literary.
I do not in particular like the term literary, tbh, since it gets appropriated by both snobs and their accusers as either a (automatic) badge of supremacy or a sneer of derision.
One way to look at it, is that non-literary strives to reach the widest audience, even the non-readers. Draw them in as it were. Literary assumes you can read, and that you love reading, and that you love being challenged to read.
Again, that's only part of it, and certainly not all.
Look at SF - in non-literary, cleverness and neat plot tricks is more vital and valued; the ability to competently and expertly execute a story is all important.
In literary, it's about language, and a story can be driven by Voice alone.
Thing about Voice, that's very odd -in most cases, what we would call a "strong voice" is in truth nothing more really than a confident narrative voice and a somewhat distinctive one. Rather badly put, it is not a weak voice.
Narrative Voice is that bizarre element which really cannot be quantified, and is possibly the only "innate" ability that a writer has or has not. Perhaps this is the measure of raw talent; but it's no guarantee for success. Asimov is one of the greats of SF, revolutionised a genre with his ideas. A clever and skilled writer. But not a remarkable voice, not like Philip Dick, for example.
Kind of like Idols - a lot of people are totally tone-deaf; some are not completely but they need to do a hell of a lot of work to be satisfactory singers. A few are inherently strong, but success depends less on the power of their voices and completely to what use they put it.
In writing, the tone-deaf can still sing and even sing with success. But their love is the literal lyrics and not the note (I am in rather strident metaphor mode today, it seems).
I truly believe that writers with genuinely inherent, powerful voices are a very rare breed, and the literary style would be a big pull on them, with its promise for them to unleash Voice, not just story. Or, put another way, a style that encourages voice, and a story that can be driven on voice alone.
Unfortunately, the literary genre is probably also the style that draws the largest amounts of the complete tone-deaf. Some of these may be so awful they could even have success for a while!
We do have Britney Spears and Paris Hilton and Lindsey Lohan after all, in pop music.
sorry, got sidetracked wiht musings; ta for an excellent review as always.
Reply
I could agree with that. Totally.
Spend a wee bit of time on message boards/ forums and cell phone texts, and it's apparent that misspelling and ignorace of commas and periods have become the domain of the non-literary.
AMEN.
sorry, got sidetracked wiht musings; ta for an excellent review as always
*laughs*
That's quite all right. I will disagree with you on one point, and only because I'm a former classical voice major and my voice teacher once imparted this gem to me: there is NO such thing as being tone-deaf unless one is actually DEAF. :) But your point about some people have to work harder to sing on key than others is right on. :)
Reply
Leave a comment