People who like this guy -- why? I am not exaggerating when

>>9112342
Here's your reply

>>9112342
Here's your reply

Have another. Oh, and I have an excellent grammar book to sell you.

>>9112342
He is a hack but there are reasons for things like using and instead of commas. His writing style is set of really douchey and pretentious affectations meant to resemble the King James bible. Blood Meridian and a lot of his other shit is meant to evoke a sort of "mythical spirit" of the American West as well as put forth his vapid musings on the nature of war/violence, fate, man, knowledge, etc.

>>9112379
>>9112366
>>9112346

It's sad that you think I'm trolling.

Why not simply explain why you think he's a good writer?

>>9112554
I'm not even going to take the stance that I think he is a good writer.
I'm sort of embarrassed to be on a board with someone who is so excited about improper use of punctuation and grammar that they cite it as the main reason they call someone a poor professional writer.
You're a really silly pedant.

>>9112554
You're just retarded anon. It does not matter.

>>9112581
Especially since he isn't the only writer out there to do this. I'm looking at you Faulkner.

>>9112581

It's not that he doesn't use proper punctuation and grammar, it's that his choice not to do so takes away from his work.

It's more so that he obviously tries so god damn hard to give his words so much weight.

All puffed up purple prose with zero substance.

>>9112393
>>9112342
ITT: i dont like something therefore its bad

>>9112591
>>9112591

Lots of writers do this but like I said in
>>9112594
>>9112594

He does it to the point where it seriously detracts from his work. Not that it was any good to begin with

>>9112587

On the contrary, you're retarded if you think he's a good writer. He's a hack who uses cheap tropes for emotional effect. He really really likes using dead babies for that reason which is on par with the trope of showing a female character is strong by having her physically overcome guys who accost her with the implied threat of rape. Just low effort, amateur bullshit.

>>9112597

>using tarot cards as a literary device to convey foreboding
>not a bad writer

lol

>>9112606
>He does it to the point where it seriously detracts from his work.
If what you mean is that he does it so much that it detracts from his work then surely that also applies to Faulkner. If you mean something else by what you mean when you say "to the point where it seriously detracts from his work" then you need to explain clearly what you mean. I'm presuming by what you have previously said that you like Faulkner. So please tell us what is so different from a page long run on sentence made from multiple ands when done by McCarthy and when done by Faulkner.

Going back to what you said in the first post.
>All it did was make simple sentences confusing as fuck to read.
No, it didn't. I have never had problem reading him.

>Half the time you can't even tell if what you're reading is supposed to be dialogue
This is all supplied by context. I'm not trying to be a dick, but I just never found McCarthy difficult.

I recently tried reading Blood Meridian and I had to stop short of halfway through simply because virtually nothing about it was appealing to me. Glad I'm not alone in feeling this way.

>They rode horses the entire day.
>Then they rode for another day.
>Then two more days after that they continued to ride horses through the arid lands.
>Then someone shot an indian.
>They then resumed riding their horses for a few days.
*END OF CHAPTER*

>>9112668

You mean

>The boy kicked up his spurs and stood up and said to the Judge the setting of the sun brings out the evils of the world as darkness ensconces the earth so does it hide the secrets in the hearts of men and he got on his horse and rode

>>9112654

Faulkner uses it comparatively sparingly and too effect. Cormac just does it because he fucking feels like it

>>9112654
>This is all supplied by context

In a way, yes but oftentimes a passage will be entirely ambiguous as to whether it's the narrator or a character until you read further along. It's not clear from context until after you read it then you have to go back and reprocess what you thought happened because you attributed it to the wrong speaker.

>>9112342

Prose beyond genius and metaphysical depth

>>9112702
>Faulkner uses it comparatively sparingly and too effect.
I am assuming you meant to effect, not too effect. This is only true for some of his works. Other works have substantial portions that disregard anything that can be called correct grammar.

>Faulkner uses it... too effect.
>Cormac just does it because he fucking feels like it
His lack of punctuation creates a driving energy that propels the reader through passages. It has a purpose. The cadence that his use (or lack thereof) of grammar creates is the desired end.
Hemingway does the same thing, as does Gaddis and Beckett. It is also common device in modern poetry. And you can't tell me that Beckett and Gaddis used it more sparingly when they wrote entire books in such a style.

It's fine not to like McCarthy, I just want you to properly articulate why if you are going to make a thread to bash him.

I ask for clarification on why you dislike him. Your answer is he has absolutely zero purpose with his style, and that his style contributes nothing at all to anything. This is not a clarification, especially towards the people in this thread who are skeptical and unsympathetic towards your position.