Jacques Debierue (MRT) said:
>>The only rule is provided by the reader: if the reader gets into the writing, if he's absorbed by it, the writing is effective. Readers don't usually read to absorb "technique", they read because the story interests them.<<
Probably no reason to open this as part of the subject. I am a very slow reader, but as a writer I often stop and think about why I am reading something. Each reading of Cormac McCarthy makes me think not only about his story, which is absorbing, but about how he makes me stay with the violence.
In "The Road," my first McCarthy, I read for story, but could not help but stop and look at the way the author managed to get away without traditional punctuation yet keep me knowing who was doing and saying what.
It's my personal belief that the ending was just "tacked on." A man who has had two sons, I think Cormac McCarthy may have done that to spare his real-life, very young son trauma.
In "No Country," it was the characters that intrigued me. I don't remember much about the style. What I do remember is that I wanted to keep reading, and was shocked when the main protagonist, as far as I was concerned, was murdered far too short of the end. I was also intrigued that when the book ended, it just "ended."
In "Blood Meridian" the first section of about two and a half pages was a true prose poem. It drew me into the rest. If not finished the book yet but don't think the writing has yet come up to those first few pages. Although the writing in the rest of the book is outstanding, I don't think it has yet come to that level of perfection.
My intent was to make this a personal post, but what the hell,
"Jacques, have a beer ... Anybody else?"
Read, read, read. Write, write, write.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 14 Jul 2009 EDT