"The subject matter of a pure literary piece is secondary and, ideally, mundane."
This is an interesting, albeit unsurprising, designation. I say that because I feel like the absolute mundanity or complete lack of plot in literary fiction is a relatively recent determination. For one thing, the literary classics that literary style is derived from was almost always extremely plot-based. I'd go even further to say that the divorce of literary style from plot in "pure" literary fiction was likely a large factor in why readership declined so greatly towards the end of the last century and continues to do so.
Write beautifully about interesting things. Otherwise you're just an author trying to flex on mundanity.
Great insight into one of my favourite books. After 20 years of simple-sentence, active-voice journalism, I can only read and bask in the wonder of its imagery.
It reminds me of Heart of Darkness, a descent into hell.
I recant. Go deep dive and read up on the use of similes in fiction in the approximate timeframe the novel takes place during (1849-1850) especially the influences on the general timeframe of Romanticism, Victorian realism, and serialized novels. If you take that into account the number of similes he uses isn't that far off in verisimilitude compared to other books taken written in the same general timeframe.
My suggestion, we're using the ENTIRE wrong measuring stick here. McCarthy was anything BUT fastidious and detail oriented, well read, and whip smart... In his later years he liked to hang out at the Santa Fe Institute with people so smart they make geniuses look dumb by comparison.
I portend that he was writing a bloody satirical take on a western novel which could have been written in 1849-50 in a slightly exaggerated style and the point is being missed because he actually WAS that good.
To assume that McCarthy, who wrote the Road so stylistically, and was nothing if not an explosive prose stylist, wouldn't do something of this nature as formalist experimentation within the context of a work that is a period piece, is silly. I could absolutely see him doing it.
This is an excellent article, and I read it with great satisfaction. Last year I read "Blood Meridian," for the first time in a book club of two. I am an educator and the other reader is a clinical psychologist. We both loved the book and were slightly revolted by it. Having read several other McCarthy books, I wasn't really surprised by the amount of gore and the violence, but I was sometimes overwhelmed by it to nausea. That being said, the power of his prose kept me reading intently. Whether you can tolerate the themes that McCarthy explores in "Blood Meridian," and how viscerally he explores them, you can't dismiss his incredible writing. I am so glad that you focused on that.
You read the book of similes twice, like masochist seeking a new punishment? I am in awe of you stamina, like doe admiring a buck from afar while her hoof is caught in a trapper's trap, her blood spilling into the dusty dust, but ignored like a squashed frog. Like that one second of a cold breeze on a summer day, you've warned me not to drink from the flagon with the dragon.
I was so happy to see this. Blood Meridian is my favorite book that I will never shut up about. I loved the note about using these tools as contrasts rather than redundancies. Blood Meridian paints such lurid pictures in such bold strokes. As just one example, the finale in Griffon makes constant reference to childhood and childish images.
In retrospect, the fact that these juxtaposing descriptions could make writing more dimensional rather than just absurd is the most important thing I learned from reading McCarthy. Even if I still think describing frozen shrubs as "polar isomers" is going way too far.
Theory 1: in a pre-theoretical fashion, he was using similes the same way choruses work in minimalist theory. Use it enough and the like becomes birdsong, repetition leads to subvocalization, it's no longer a word as we understand it, but logos in the Greek sense of a unifying force.
Theory 2: Cormac, completist that he was, and stylist that he was, read a smattering of popular genre books from the period or thereabouts that he was writing about, found them rife with similes, and so aped it.
Theory 3: The brutality of the source material transcends the abuse of similes. A book where the judge exists can have as many fucking similes as it wants.
immediately i wrote the line "...taken out of their context and put back in" i had a despicable simile or metaphor form in my mind along the lines of you cant get the full measure of the scene when you pull the dick out until you've seen what it was being pushed into on the other side of the glory hole.
but i thought that would cheapen the intelligent conversation. however, for me, that kinda works
"The subject matter of a pure literary piece is secondary and, ideally, mundane."
This is an interesting, albeit unsurprising, designation. I say that because I feel like the absolute mundanity or complete lack of plot in literary fiction is a relatively recent determination. For one thing, the literary classics that literary style is derived from was almost always extremely plot-based. I'd go even further to say that the divorce of literary style from plot in "pure" literary fiction was likely a large factor in why readership declined so greatly towards the end of the last century and continues to do so.
Write beautifully about interesting things. Otherwise you're just an author trying to flex on mundanity.
It’s the art school mentality.
very interesting. it was enlightening to see the similes taken out of their context and then put back in. alone some of them were frankly ridiculous.
I’m having difficulty not clicking on this. I’ve enjoyed his work so much I really can’t engage with anything about it until I’ve read it.
You’re going to have to wait but till then here’s an entire page describing how the earth raised stars above horses.
Great insight into one of my favourite books. After 20 years of simple-sentence, active-voice journalism, I can only read and bask in the wonder of its imagery.
It reminds me of Heart of Darkness, a descent into hell.
I recant. Go deep dive and read up on the use of similes in fiction in the approximate timeframe the novel takes place during (1849-1850) especially the influences on the general timeframe of Romanticism, Victorian realism, and serialized novels. If you take that into account the number of similes he uses isn't that far off in verisimilitude compared to other books taken written in the same general timeframe.
My suggestion, we're using the ENTIRE wrong measuring stick here. McCarthy was anything BUT fastidious and detail oriented, well read, and whip smart... In his later years he liked to hang out at the Santa Fe Institute with people so smart they make geniuses look dumb by comparison.
I portend that he was writing a bloody satirical take on a western novel which could have been written in 1849-50 in a slightly exaggerated style and the point is being missed because he actually WAS that good.
To assume that McCarthy, who wrote the Road so stylistically, and was nothing if not an explosive prose stylist, wouldn't do something of this nature as formalist experimentation within the context of a work that is a period piece, is silly. I could absolutely see him doing it.
I don't know how I have time to do all this shit either. (secret, I don't. I have horrible time management skills.)
This is an excellent article, and I read it with great satisfaction. Last year I read "Blood Meridian," for the first time in a book club of two. I am an educator and the other reader is a clinical psychologist. We both loved the book and were slightly revolted by it. Having read several other McCarthy books, I wasn't really surprised by the amount of gore and the violence, but I was sometimes overwhelmed by it to nausea. That being said, the power of his prose kept me reading intently. Whether you can tolerate the themes that McCarthy explores in "Blood Meridian," and how viscerally he explores them, you can't dismiss his incredible writing. I am so glad that you focused on that.
It was the first time I had to use a content warning for a quote.
You read the book of similes twice, like masochist seeking a new punishment? I am in awe of you stamina, like doe admiring a buck from afar while her hoof is caught in a trapper's trap, her blood spilling into the dusty dust, but ignored like a squashed frog. Like that one second of a cold breeze on a summer day, you've warned me not to drink from the flagon with the dragon.
I was so happy to see this. Blood Meridian is my favorite book that I will never shut up about. I loved the note about using these tools as contrasts rather than redundancies. Blood Meridian paints such lurid pictures in such bold strokes. As just one example, the finale in Griffon makes constant reference to childhood and childish images.
In retrospect, the fact that these juxtaposing descriptions could make writing more dimensional rather than just absurd is the most important thing I learned from reading McCarthy. Even if I still think describing frozen shrubs as "polar isomers" is going way too far.
😆 He was bound to reach too far on occasion. I suppose it was unavoidable
Go big or go home I guess 😆
I'm trending towards theory number one, just from reading your excerpts, and not wanting to go digging in my shelves.
Theory 1: in a pre-theoretical fashion, he was using similes the same way choruses work in minimalist theory. Use it enough and the like becomes birdsong, repetition leads to subvocalization, it's no longer a word as we understand it, but logos in the Greek sense of a unifying force.
Theory 2: Cormac, completist that he was, and stylist that he was, read a smattering of popular genre books from the period or thereabouts that he was writing about, found them rife with similes, and so aped it.
Theory 3: The brutality of the source material transcends the abuse of similes. A book where the judge exists can have as many fucking similes as it wants.
immediately i wrote the line "...taken out of their context and put back in" i had a despicable simile or metaphor form in my mind along the lines of you cant get the full measure of the scene when you pull the dick out until you've seen what it was being pushed into on the other side of the glory hole.
but i thought that would cheapen the intelligent conversation. however, for me, that kinda works