Thread: The Road, by Cormac McCarthy

I had heard so much good about McCarthy. I was really looking forward to reading this book. And you know what? Complete disappointment. I read the first three pages and felt like throwing it across the room. Instead I carefully placed it back on the shelf and proceeded to bang my head on the wall, wondering how the hell this man got published.

The first sentence put me off. I had the read it four times to get my head around it. But, since it was about 3:30 and my brain was fried, I gave it the benefit of the doubt and kept going.

But the sentence fragments! The run-ons! The utter lack of punctuation! I don't mind not having quotes - I'm not stupid, I can still follow it. It's was the fragments, mainly, that got to me. Grammar should be like the drum in a band, in my opinion: so flawless, you don't even notice it's there. Not glaringly, obviously terrible.

I've seen such writing on here or other sites and tried to kindly point the authors towards their high school grammar books, but when Cormac McCarthy can get published...what's to be expected of tomorrows writers? I read so that I can more fully understand the way things are done. I learn by example. With McCarthy setting the examples - good god, we're better of with Stephanie Meyer, and that ain't saying much.

I think you'd absolutely love Finnegans Wake!

Originally Posted by SparkyLT

I had heard so much good about McCarthy. I was really looking forward to reading this book. And you know what? Complete disappointment. I read the first three pages and felt like throwing it across the room. Instead I carefully placed it back on the shelf and proceeded to bang my head on the wall, wondering how the hell this man got published.

The first sentence put me off. I had the read it four times to get my head around it. But, since it was about 3:30 and my brain was fried, I gave it the benefit of the doubt and kept going.

But the sentence fragments! The run-ons! The utter lack of punctuation! I don't mind not having quotes - I'm not stupid, I can still follow it. It's was the fragments, mainly, that got to me. Grammar should be like the drum in a band, in my opinion: so flawless, you don't even notice it's there. Not glaringly, obviously terrible.

I've seen such writing on here or other sites and tried to kindly point the authors towards their high school grammar books, but when Cormac McCarthy can get published...what's to be expected of tomorrows writers? I read so that I can more fully understand the way things are done. I learn by example. With McCarthy setting the examples - good god, we're better of with Stephanie Meyer, and that ain't saying much.

It's not the writer's fault that you couldn't fully appreciate the book. Don't blame people for your shortcomings--not everyone is a retard.

Sparky -- McCarthy wrote in that style on purpose. Why? I haven't yet found an explanation. Perhaps he did it for artistic merit or as an experiment as James Joyce did with Finnegans Wake. However, something you should understand is that McCarthy has been writing for over forty years. He's published ten novels and a few screenplays. Now, that may not excuse the grammatical errors you pointed out or set the example for aspiring writers, but it is his style nonetheless.

Then again, maybe Trekkie, since he has a complete appreciation of the book, would care to offer an explanation of McCarthy's style. How 'bout it Trekkie? Care to bestow upon us your profound knowledge of modern literary criticism and analysis? You know, help those of us with such shortcomings.

I think you'd absolutely love Finnegans Wake!

Ouch! That's painful just thinking about it.

Indeed, Trekkie...why not explain the book to the poor retard?

I don't see how grammatically incorrect can be termed his 'style'. Just because he's been a writer for forty years, doesn't mean he's brilliant at his job - even a well-known author should be rejected if his work is bad. Perhaps I'm being hard-headed, but reading those run-ons and fragments (even early in the morning when the rest of the universe makes sense to a sleep deprived mind) made me feel like I'd been terribly cheated. Or maybe that my eyes were being raped.

Really, how can someone just say, "It's his style," like that makes it all better? If I, a nobody, sumbitted it for publishment, I don't doubt I would be rejected.

Originally Posted by Trekkie

It's not the writer's fault that you couldn't fully appreciate the book. Don't blame people for your shortcomings--not everyone is a retard.

I would also love to hear an analysis from you. I'm very familiar with McCarthy's work and find his stories to be vivid and concise.

Maybe you have some lucid thoughts about his use of punctuation? Or lack thereof? You seem to be the definitive authority on all things to do with writing. And since I must be 'on crack', as you so eloquently pointed out in my first review on this site, then feel free to enlighten us.

The floor is yours.

Well, it's one thing if you're just not good at 'techy shit', Candrah . Heck, if this guy can get away with it - and do quite well for himself, apparently - you may be our next big writer, eh?

I'm fine, by the way. Completely recovered from my holiday blues. Thanks for asking.

Originally Posted by SparkyLT

Just because he's been a writer for forty years, doesn't mean he's brilliant at his job - even a well-known author should be rejected if his work is bad.

He must be doing something right, because he's getting published and has recieved numerous of writing grants. And yeah, even the well known and established authors do get rejected. But, for the most part, it's the editors and literary critics that are most likely going to define if the work is genius or not, and the "sheeple" will follow. Which may explain why The Road was acknowledged with a Pulitzer Prize.

I agree with you. If a newbie submitted a novel or short story written "in the style" of McCarthy, the odds of it being accepted and published are astronomical. And it may even be the same for an established writer who's never written "in the style" of McCarthy.

As I said before, I don't understand it anymore than you and can only speculate to the reasons why. I often read short stories and poems in literary journals and they make no sense and yet, there they are -- published. It's leaves me scratching my head and asking, "What the frack?"

Perhaps Trekkie can shed some light on this, as well. I still eagerly await his critical analysis on McCarthy's novel.

Bah. In other words, there is no damn explanation. At least not one us poor retarded folks can understand... So hey, Trekkie, I know you're embarrassed about making a fool of yourself, but come on back and explain it to us, hm?

Bah. In other words, there is no damn explanation.

None that I can find. I even looked at his website. There may be some explanation buried within the depths of that site's forum, but I'm not about to go digging.

I haven't read The Road, although I want to. I have read No Country for Old Men, which was similarly sparse on punctuation, and I thought it was brilliant.

I think there's a difference between ignoring the rules of punctuation, and deliberately avoiding them. No Country absolutely drew me into the text, exactly because I had to work on it. The difference between some noob trying that style is that McCarthy can do it and make the novel readable. Candrah said earlier on that after the first few pages you stopped noticing the lack of punc., because you were already inside the story.

McCarthy can do it and make it readable, you say.

I must be the biggest Grammar Nazi meteor to ever hit this planet - because to me, it's not readable. It's the just the same as some newbie fumbling along in the dark. Makes me want to light a match, though whether to light his way or burn his book, I couldn't say.

Hell. I've very rarely found classics etc. to be all they're cracked up to be, but I'd always put it down to the fact that they were written way before I was born. McCarthy doens't have that excuse, so I find him untolerable.

Wow, Sparky! So, tell us how you really feel about McCarthy

Originally Posted by SparkyLT

Grammar should be like the drum in a band, in my opinion: so flawless, you don't even notice it's there.

You know, to somebody who's almost always up to his eyeballs in baroque music, that means that grammar should be used sparingly.

There are so many different styles of writing, I don't think there could possibly be a wrong way, save not getting the message across. The Road was very clear, thematically, and it actually gave a good assessment of the human spirit, despite the bleak setting.

Oh shush, David C. - don't tempt the pyro

There are so many different styles of writing, I don't think there could possibly be a wrong way, save not getting the message across. The Road was very clear, thematically, and it actually gave a good assessment of the human spirit, despite the bleak setting.

There are different styles of writing, but I still think they leave room for wrong ways. I've been reading avidly ever since I was able - for about ten years, I suppose - and everything from children's books to YA books to adult's books have proper grammar. Tanith Lee, if I remember correctly, uses some fragments for dramatic effect. It got on my nerves after a while, but by then I was always interested in the story so I kept ploughing through. McCarthy, on the other hand: The Road's first half-page must've have four or five fragments. I'm sure the story was quite fascinating, but I was put off my the grammatical stupidity, not to mention ticked-off that this man got published and so famous with writing like this.

(My comment about the drums probably had something to do with the fact that I'd just watched an interview with a drummer. He said something along the lines of, "Drumming is harder than people think. If you don't do it perfectly, they jump all over you, but if you do it right, no one even know's you're there.")