I read All the Pretty Horses for a class a few years back and absolutely fell in love with his style.
They do. In Saramago's case, I think that elements of the purpose of magic realism come into play and may have lent to the feeling of having to "work through" that story. Magic Realism has, as a core function of the genre, the intent to impress upon the reader a facet of the culture about which it speaks, and usually in a sympathetic way. Saramago - for me - in that story, was trying to present the interconnected social structures that are so important to latin cultures. The never-ending rain of characters (I agree, there were SO MANY) is part of his showing the network of person-to-person support latin people naturally rely on and for which the occurrence of blindness in the book serves as a metaphorical juxtaposition of what would happen were we to let this go by the wayside. I don't think The Road fits into the tradition of magic realism and doesn't have this underlying element to it. You're right in that it's a simpler story, more focused, more intense and in many ways, more visceral and personal because of it. It almost has the opposite message to Blindness, until the end, where I think the message in both stories converge to a certain extent, the idea that survival is not the same as living, that being a person is not the same as being part of a People.
I dunno, maybe it's me, but @thirdwind example on the previous page is practically impossible to read. It doesn't add anything to the experience of reading it, other than confusion, mental exhaustion and irritation.
That really speaks to the truly subjective nature of writing. Some people will really love a particular aspect, some will despise it. I love to hear about different things that some people can't stand versus what I really enjoy. It's interesting.
I'm re-reading Stars in My Pocket Like Grains of Sand (1984) just now and I think Delany defo falls into this category. You either worship his strange genius with words or you put his work down before finishing Chapter 1. I belong to the former of the two groups.
I've never had a problem with McCarthy's style. I found it a bit more unsettling in The Road that none of the characters, particularly the two MCs, have names. But even that issue wore off in just a few pages. "The man" and "the boy" became just fine.
I think I judged this book too early. I've persisted and I'm finally beginning to see what all the fuss is about. It's quite incredible, and goes from reading like it was written by a seven year-old child, to demonstrating an incredible understanding and knowledge of the English language, with phrases, metaphors and similes that are so good I read them twice. To be able to sustain my interest and keep the momentum in a story which is essentially nothing more than a daily routine of get up, walk, find food, camp, is quite a remarkable achievement.
Huh. Does this mean that I can claim that my writing style in Bitter Oranges is an attempt to emulate McCarthy? Excerpt from Bitter Oranges: And finally the mouse ran to the kibble bowl and scrabbled up its outside and down its inside and snatched the piece of kibble and tried to scrabble back up the inside and slid down and tried again and then he saw the cat above him and he squeaked and tried to hide under the piece of kibble. OK, probably not. But I may try reading McCarthy now.
Well the similarity is striking, and if you've not read McCarthy it comes as an even bigger surprise. Would a typical exchange of dialogue in Bitter Oranges go anything like this: Where are we going? said the boy To the coast. To the coast? Yes, to the coast. How long will it take? It will take a long time. A very long time? Yes, a very long time. Try to sleep now. Okay. I made all that up, it's not an extract, but that's pretty typical of his dialogue exchanges.
Never ever read him. I realized that Caveat Emptor, another mini-story that I wrote at the same time, uses much the same style: He played music from the eighties for it because that was what his mother had and his father only liked classical and there was a skull and crossbones on the door of his brother's room and his brother meant it. This seems to be my mini-story style. I've written stories in other styles, but I enjoy them less. Well, I use quotes and dialogue tags, but...hmm. I'm adding a link to Caveat Emptor from the Review Room. https://www.writingforums.org/threads/story-caveat-emptor.53137/
Yes, speech marks and more tags than McCarthy, but the similarities are there; short, sharp exchanges. Go to amazon and use the Look Inside feature for The Road... see if you can see any similarities for yourself.
I read the road a few months back. Reading his long sentences I was a bit puzzled in the beginning, but I can't say it bothered me. I'm glad we're all not writing in the same way. I can't imagine how it would be if everyone kept to the same rules. Who decides how we are to write anyhow?
Came across another McCarthyisum today while reading this book. It's another one that stopped me in my tracks, and even now I still don't understand. I'm fast coming to the conclusion that when this happens it's best to simply accept it in a kind of, "What d'you expect? It's McCarthy" kind of way and move on. Anyway, this is the mind-mashing sentence in question: The snow fell nor did it continue to fall. Oi, Cormac! Is it bloody snowing or not??
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the sentence is "The snow fell nor did it cease to fall." Which would mean it was snowing and did not stop snowing.
Yes, sorry, you're quite correct. It's still a head-scratcher, though, even though I agree with and understand your interpretation.
it's different, that's certain. I think it adds a weight to the scene that wouldn't be there had the sentence read "The snow fell and kept falling" (or something similar). Kind of feeds the post-apocalyptic feel of the novel. I quite like the poetic nature of some of his sentences.
I haven't read any of his work, but from your description, I don't think I would like it. Call me old fashioned, but I believe those "speech marks" were invented to add clarity, same as the convention of using uppercase to start a sentence. This type of artistic approach reminds me of the atonal music of Yoko Ono or the first-year colour instructor at my art college and her course entitled, "Exploring Colour Through Sound." (It was all well and good for the four percent of the student body who had synesthesia, but for everyone else, it was a waste of time.) It may work for some and there may be those who find it fascinating, but I'd rather listen to music with a tune, look at paintings rather than watch someone dressed in black strike bells in random order, and read prose that uses all available tools to make its meaning clear. But what do I know? I'm just a country boy with a grade nine edge-a-ma-cation.
His argument is that if the writing is clear enough, flags that show when someone is talking shouldn't be needed, and in his defence I've not been caught out by the absence of speech marks once. But I know what you mean. He definitely splits opinion. I typed one of his lines (The snow fell nor did it cease to fall) into google and the heading for one of the results was 'Is McCarthy a shit writer?'. A little extreme - he's clearly not - but I have to admit to having a grin at that one.
You're probably younger than either William Faulkner or James Joyce. Don't both of them have works that also don't use quotation marks for speech?
LOL, yeah I'm likely younger than either of them. However, I haven't read their stuff, either. I think I tried one of Joyce's way back when, but simply didn't connect with it. My reading roots are in comic books and perhaps that has influenced me. Hell, let's get real: it has influenced me, and maybe not in a good way, but there it is. If, while reading, I have to spend as much (or more) time thinking about the connotations and permutations of the prose as I do enjoying the story, I'm of two minds about continuing. I don't mind spending hours thinking about it after I've read it, but while reading? No, especially not if meaning and story substance are buried so deep as to necessitate using a pick axe to dig it up.
Fair enough. Clarity is the first thing I go for in rewrites. I cut back on punctuation as much as I can, but maybe it's a testament to my prowess as a writer that I can't (not yet, anyway) throw it out completely. I guess I misunderstood the original assertion. I assumed (oops!) that he threw punctuation out the window the way magazine editors started doing in the 1980s. Now that was a mess, especially in technical journals.
I wouldn't say that was the case for one second. If it is, then you can include probably 80% of published writers
He writes how Christopher Walken speaks. I have read a few books my Cormac, but they have all been audiobooks
