The Road
discussion
Did anyone find the writing style an absolute turn off?
message 51:
by
Mal
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mar 13, 2012 03:37PM
I was replying to your first paragraph. The rest of your rant was pseudointellectual masturbation.
reply
|
flag
I love the writing style. It's the reason I fell in love with this writer.
Mal wrote: "I was replying to your first paragraph. The rest of your rant was pseudointellectual masturbation."
Yep literary criticism beyond "I liked it!" is definitely pseudointellectual masturbation. Sorry if I am trying to bring a level of discussion beyond your dogmatic literary snobbery.
I'm snarky but your initial post reeks of literary elitism and that's why I unleashed both barrels of academic discourse. If you think what I wrote was "pseudointellectual masturbation" then you obviously haven't engaged with any serious literary criticism beyond first year English courses at uni. I was reiterating an argument that's considered highly influential and quite important in modern day theory. One cannot do an English degree without touching on postmodernism and postmodernity.
Yep literary criticism beyond "I liked it!" is definitely pseudointellectual masturbation. Sorry if I am trying to bring a level of discussion beyond your dogmatic literary snobbery.
I'm snarky but your initial post reeks of literary elitism and that's why I unleashed both barrels of academic discourse. If you think what I wrote was "pseudointellectual masturbation" then you obviously haven't engaged with any serious literary criticism beyond first year English courses at uni. I was reiterating an argument that's considered highly influential and quite important in modern day theory. One cannot do an English degree without touching on postmodernism and postmodernity.
Why take that tone? We are all here because we share a love for books and we feel a need to connect with each other.
It has been awhile since I read this book, don't remember about the writing, I just know I had a really hard time finishing this book. Maybe it was the writing.
Jeremy wrote: "His non-existent punctuation, endless adjectives and basic dialogue killed this for me about 5 pages in. Did anyone else find the same?"I found his style aggravating, yes. And I love Faulkner.
Yeah, thought it was an enforced minimalism, maybe an experiment, which I theorized in my review:http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
I generally like his books very much, especially Blood Meridian and Child of God
The writing is my favorite part of this book.
No hope eh? So why would one want to read this book?
@Martin ("...Not everybody has the same critical capacity for literature. It's a skill you have to develop...")To paraphrase the great American philosopher Ron White:
"Let me tell you what I'm looking for in a novel. I'm looking for a novel that I can enjoy even if I don't have a critical capacity for literature."
:)
Seriously, The Road (along with Willy Wonka...) is one of those rare cases where I actually like the book more than the movie!
@Lydia "No hope eh? So why would one want to read this book?"I think there is hope in this book. Or if not hope, at least beauty. Re-read the last page, and the passage about the trout in the stream. Is it an accident that we're suddenly experiencing such rich colors, when up to now the palate has been nothing but greys and blacks?
What the book caused me to do was to think long and hard about this sublime planet we live on, and what we risk doing to it if we continue on the current Road.
@macregor I'm not sure about all this postmodernist jargon about "historicity" and "self-narrativization." I seriously doubt McCarthy set out to do any of that, but then again, contemporary literary theory in general leaves me cold. Seems like you might be letting theoretical analysis get in the way of any true emotional engagement with the story. But then, that's your prerogative.
Tim wrote: "@macregor I'm not sure about all this postmodernist jargon about "historicity" and "self-narrativization." I seriously doubt McCarthy set out to do any of that, but then again, contemporary literar..."
Authorial intention has little bearing on analysis of a text. In fact, it's a faux pas in academic discourse unless the author's biography has specific bearing on a reading. The writer is not a privileged "reader" of their own text.
Secondly, theoretical analysis and "true" emotional engagement are not mutually exclusive. I like The Road. I don't love The Road. It's not All The Pretty Horses level of quality. Whether or not I like a text doesn't mean that I cannot apply my critical tool set in order to better appreciate or understand a text. Some of the novels I love the most are the ones that I have done the most academic work in.
What Martin said above thread perfectly captures my own thoughts. Anybody can look at a painting, say something difficult like Jackson Pollock, but not everybody can understand what Pollock is doing. The same can be said of literature. Learning how to read a text is integral to deeper engagement with the text beyond a level of "I like it".
Authorial intention has little bearing on analysis of a text. In fact, it's a faux pas in academic discourse unless the author's biography has specific bearing on a reading. The writer is not a privileged "reader" of their own text.
Secondly, theoretical analysis and "true" emotional engagement are not mutually exclusive. I like The Road. I don't love The Road. It's not All The Pretty Horses level of quality. Whether or not I like a text doesn't mean that I cannot apply my critical tool set in order to better appreciate or understand a text. Some of the novels I love the most are the ones that I have done the most academic work in.
What Martin said above thread perfectly captures my own thoughts. Anybody can look at a painting, say something difficult like Jackson Pollock, but not everybody can understand what Pollock is doing. The same can be said of literature. Learning how to read a text is integral to deeper engagement with the text beyond a level of "I like it".
...McCarthy's writing style in 'The Road' was definately a shock to the system and had me gritting my teeth for the first five or six pages.
@macgregor I profoundly disagree. One can engage with a text beyond the "I like it" level without buying into modern deconstructivist literary theory, which is recent, highly ideological, and rooted in dismal social science. People have been engaging with literature beyond the "I like it" level since Homer. All it takes is an open mind and a human soul. It doesn't take a Ph.D.The same is true of Pollock, by the way, although I'll grant you that some contemporary "art" does require theoretical grounding to appreciate. Note the quote marks.
On the question of hope I would focus less on that in terms of survival but rather hope for humanity at a moral/ethical level.The world is bleak and the chance for survival seems dim indeed, but I found the book incredibly uplifting when it came to showing the triumph of human spirit and dignity. That for me was the greatest hope for humanity; humanity is real and not just an enforced construct of social laws and conventions. I would like to believe that if it is all stripped away then there are some strong enough to make the hardest of choices.
The prose in its style strips away all convention and lays the reader open to the bone, much like the content. The writing style is part of a glorious whole that completes the work. I honestly believe that if it had been conventionally written it would have less impact.
I have no idea whether this was intentional on McCarthy's part, but if it is accident then it is a happy one.
Tim wrote: "@macgregor I profoundly disagree. One can engage with a text beyond the "I like it" level without buying into modern deconstructivist literary theory, which is recent, highly ideological, and roote..."
Of course, everything we do is rooted in ideology so it is inescapable. The theory that I was reiterating above thread is not based on deconstruction or Derrida but borrows mostly from Fredric Jameson and Foucault. I also suppose our definition of "recent" might be different as Jameson's influential essay was published almost 30 years ago.
People can engage with literature on an emotional level without a PhD - that I do not dispute. Whether or not they are understanding the text is a different story. Knowing that a book employs symbolism is different than understanding that those symbols work within signification. Superficial details like how McCarthy arranges his sentences are good to know, but are superficial. The text is infinite. To understand it, one needs to learn to vocabulary of criticism to dig deeper. Souls not required.
Of course, everything we do is rooted in ideology so it is inescapable. The theory that I was reiterating above thread is not based on deconstruction or Derrida but borrows mostly from Fredric Jameson and Foucault. I also suppose our definition of "recent" might be different as Jameson's influential essay was published almost 30 years ago.
People can engage with literature on an emotional level without a PhD - that I do not dispute. Whether or not they are understanding the text is a different story. Knowing that a book employs symbolism is different than understanding that those symbols work within signification. Superficial details like how McCarthy arranges his sentences are good to know, but are superficial. The text is infinite. To understand it, one needs to learn to vocabulary of criticism to dig deeper. Souls not required.
I would argue that it's your theoretical approach (however you choose to categorize it) that is superficial. Or if not superficial, it certainly has the effect of distancing the reader from the gritty substance of the story. Although writers may not be "privileged readers" of their own texts (and academics are?), very few that I know of indulge in the kind of literary theory you espouse. The reason for this is that such over-intellectualization has a deadening effect on art.
Nobody is a privileged reader of a text. That's the whole point of why the writer isn't a privileged reader.
Your language in this argument is couched in emotion: "indulge" "deadening" etc. Art is more than simply a visceral reaction to the piece and that there is far more to it than simply "engaging" with the text in some nebulous way that has hereto been undefined. My critical approach is systematic and builds on a foundation of philosophers (stretching back to classical thinking) and great thinkers including Marx and Freud. My critical approach is rational and logical.
Now, the logical argument for you to make right now is that "art isn't rational or logical - emotions aren't logical and rational" or that I am unfeeling and Vulcan-like. To this, my rebuttal to this imagined retort is that all art can fundamentally be understood at a logical level. If all one can say about a work is that it created a visceral reaction, then that reaction in of itself can be understood in a logical manner. While there is a lot left to be learned about how the brain functions, how and why our emotions work the way the do is fairly well understood.
Over-intellectualization may have a deadening effect for you, but for me and for many other readers, it actually opens up the text further. Texts that I do not like can be opened up and explored and neat things can be found no matter my emotional reaction.
Frankly, it's a fallacy to assume that readers are distanced from the "story" if they employ theory. Since we are both employing analogies to make our argument, let me put forth another. Architecture is based largely on geometry and mathematics. In order to better understand a particular building, it helps if the "reader" of the building understands that it's the math that makes the building stand. One would never say that knowing the math distances the "reader" from appreciating the building.
Your language in this argument is couched in emotion: "indulge" "deadening" etc. Art is more than simply a visceral reaction to the piece and that there is far more to it than simply "engaging" with the text in some nebulous way that has hereto been undefined. My critical approach is systematic and builds on a foundation of philosophers (stretching back to classical thinking) and great thinkers including Marx and Freud. My critical approach is rational and logical.
Now, the logical argument for you to make right now is that "art isn't rational or logical - emotions aren't logical and rational" or that I am unfeeling and Vulcan-like. To this, my rebuttal to this imagined retort is that all art can fundamentally be understood at a logical level. If all one can say about a work is that it created a visceral reaction, then that reaction in of itself can be understood in a logical manner. While there is a lot left to be learned about how the brain functions, how and why our emotions work the way the do is fairly well understood.
Over-intellectualization may have a deadening effect for you, but for me and for many other readers, it actually opens up the text further. Texts that I do not like can be opened up and explored and neat things can be found no matter my emotional reaction.
Frankly, it's a fallacy to assume that readers are distanced from the "story" if they employ theory. Since we are both employing analogies to make our argument, let me put forth another. Architecture is based largely on geometry and mathematics. In order to better understand a particular building, it helps if the "reader" of the building understands that it's the math that makes the building stand. One would never say that knowing the math distances the "reader" from appreciating the building.
"My critical approach is rational and logical." Exactly. That's my problem with it. There are some things in life, like literature, that are too deep and important to be subjected to such a dry and clinical approach. I assume you would analyze love the same way? The real fallacy is the modern humans' supremely arrogant belief that we are capable of understanding everything about the world. There are and always will be mysteries about the universe that science can't plumb - Einstein for one understood this. To believe otherwise is every bit as naive as the uncritical acceptance of the tenets of organized religion.
Theoretical analysis has its place, but it's inherently reductive. It's useful in math and science. It may be useful in understanding politics and economics too, but it's of limited use when applied to understanding the profound roots and deeper meanings of literature. That's my opinion. I respect yours, but will never share it.
As for your architecture metaphor, I would agree that it's useful to try to understand what makes a particular building stand. My blog is actually dedicated to that practice, but from an authorial rather than an academic perspective. I find that analyzing the way literature works from a practical (vs theoretical) perspective is helpful to those who dream of creating it.
For any aspiring writers reading this, here's the link: http://bit.ly/wZlVx7
Martin, I agree with you. The whole book is poetry, which is why reductive analysis is useless in understanding it. Like a great poem, the book sings the meaning of itself.
About the architecture metaphor...the architect is the artist. It's the structural engineer that knows the math and physics. It's the structural engineer that analyzes the architect's vision and makes it a physical reality. It's the structural engineer that must be rational and logical so buildings don't fall on our heads. Read literature like an architect not a structural engineer.
macgregor wrote: "Hmmm... Not sure you are citing the correct logical fallacy or if indeed my defense is even logically fallacious. I mean, my propositions aren't individually fallacious: postmodernism signals an at..."reductio ad absurdum isn't a logical fallacy; it's a rhetorical device.
I'm with macgregor on this one; I can't be arsed w/talking theory, but having a critical framework in mind, ESPECIALLY with a writer of McCarthy's calibre, helps me appreciate the work a great deal.
For example, I first took it as an anti-nuke work, although I've since read that McCarthy imagined the cataclysm as an asteroid. Even that bit drastically alters my appreciation of the book. You could argue that the author's intentions are outside the text. You could argue that I'm just a geek who digs spoilers. I would argue along with you that both are true, but such arguments have nothing to do with how I enjoy a good book.
Anyway, one thing I found fascinating about The Road is how the "enforced minimalism," as someone else in this thread called it, underscored the obliteration of culture. There's very little of McCarthy's brilliant evocation of the peoples who inhabited the landscape before the narrative because all such considerations are rendered moot. If you compare the richness of themes and symbols from cultures-in-collision in his other works (including the Tarot in Blood Meridian!) to the stark world of The Road, all you really have is death and remembrance, until that final chilling bit about the fish that reminds us what's been lost.
Damned fine writing, and it's an important story about love and sacrifice. I read it in the hospital while my son was on oxygen in early 2008. I can't recommend is as reading when your son's machinery is beeping in the next bed, but it worked out well, actually.
Kendley, let us all enjoy it according to our own lights. For me the experience took place over several dark days of horrified, awestruck immersion. I admire you for being able to read it at all under such circumstances - very glad to hear that it worked out well!
Tim wrote: ""My critical approach is rational and logical." Exactly. That's my problem with it. There are some things in life, like literature, that are too deep and important to be subjected to such a dry and..."
Too deep and too important? I correctly predicted this response and provided a rebuttal in preparation above.
At no point does any serious scientist say that they have all the answers. The difference between faith and science is that science asks how and why of everything. It's the methodology that's important. But this is moving the goalposts of the discussion I think.
You say that theory is inherently reductive. And yet, when earlier in the thread, you say that theory distances the reader from the "gritty substance of story" and that it is over-intellectualization. They cannot be both. I think we can all agree that theory is not reductive. The reason why people find it so off-putting is because it is dense, obtuse, difficult and complicates things.
To tie to the two previous paragraphs together, literary theory isn't about pinning down a text like a butterfly in a frame. Literary theory is about introducing the text to different lenses and seeing what is refracted.
It feels like your vision of literature (based off this discussion and reading the McCarthy post on your blog) matches somewhat with Reader-response criticism, something that has fallen out of favour in academic circles but I think still has some valid points to make.
Also, can we not agree that poetry is not "above" analysis as has been pointed at above thread? Like any work of art, it is subject to theory and analysis - maybe more than novels as it is much much much older.
One last point. If The Road sings its own meaning or whatever, and announces its themes so plainly, why doesn't everybody have the same interpretation of it?
To Mal, I take your point on the architecture analogy. It wasn't perfect.
Too deep and too important? I correctly predicted this response and provided a rebuttal in preparation above.
At no point does any serious scientist say that they have all the answers. The difference between faith and science is that science asks how and why of everything. It's the methodology that's important. But this is moving the goalposts of the discussion I think.
You say that theory is inherently reductive. And yet, when earlier in the thread, you say that theory distances the reader from the "gritty substance of story" and that it is over-intellectualization. They cannot be both. I think we can all agree that theory is not reductive. The reason why people find it so off-putting is because it is dense, obtuse, difficult and complicates things.
To tie to the two previous paragraphs together, literary theory isn't about pinning down a text like a butterfly in a frame. Literary theory is about introducing the text to different lenses and seeing what is refracted.
It feels like your vision of literature (based off this discussion and reading the McCarthy post on your blog) matches somewhat with Reader-response criticism, something that has fallen out of favour in academic circles but I think still has some valid points to make.
Also, can we not agree that poetry is not "above" analysis as has been pointed at above thread? Like any work of art, it is subject to theory and analysis - maybe more than novels as it is much much much older.
One last point. If The Road sings its own meaning or whatever, and announces its themes so plainly, why doesn't everybody have the same interpretation of it?
To Mal, I take your point on the architecture analogy. It wasn't perfect.
@ macgregor "I think we can all agree that theory is not reductive. The reason why people find it so off-putting is because it is dense, obtuse, difficult and complicates things."No, we emphatically cannot all agree on that. The whole POINT of theory is to be reductive - to explain complex or confusing matters by drawing insightful generalizations. Literature is vastly bigger than literary theory; literary theory is therefore inherently reductive.
What I find even more off-putting than contemporary literary theory is the assumption that people outside academia just aren't bright enough to understand it. Your tone is stunningly arrogant, especially given the meagerness of your insight. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but that's what "it feels like" to me.
Poetry is not "above" analysis - but if theoretical analysis is the only or primary way you appreciate it, I believe you are missing the point.
I never said I wasn't arrogant. It even says so on my profile ;)
I am not arguing theory is the only way to understand something, whether it be poetry or literature. I said that it is a way of opening up a text, complicating the text beyond our emotional reaction. In my personal hierarchy, my emotional gut reaction comes first then a more practical approach (is the prose weak? is the dialogue flat?) and then a theoretical approach.
I do not assume people outside academic aren't bright enough to understand theory. It is not a question of intelligence but time and inclination. Many people on Goodreads read "for fun" which is vague way of saying that they read to be distracted or to pass the time. When I read for fun, I read with my critical eye in order to pull out as much as I can from the book. The most value for my money, if I can put it crudely.
When I recommended Reader-response criticism, I was trying to draw a line between your opinion and theory, an attempt to illustrate that your approach is not far off from contemporary theory that you dismiss seemingly in totality.
It does not surprise me that I am defending literary theory as it is amazingly unpopular on Goodreads, a site devoted to literature. However I am consistently surprised that many people tend to see literature as apart from other discourses, as if it was not subject to academic scrutiny (such as science or math or architecture or economics).
I am not arguing theory is the only way to understand something, whether it be poetry or literature. I said that it is a way of opening up a text, complicating the text beyond our emotional reaction. In my personal hierarchy, my emotional gut reaction comes first then a more practical approach (is the prose weak? is the dialogue flat?) and then a theoretical approach.
I do not assume people outside academic aren't bright enough to understand theory. It is not a question of intelligence but time and inclination. Many people on Goodreads read "for fun" which is vague way of saying that they read to be distracted or to pass the time. When I read for fun, I read with my critical eye in order to pull out as much as I can from the book. The most value for my money, if I can put it crudely.
When I recommended Reader-response criticism, I was trying to draw a line between your opinion and theory, an attempt to illustrate that your approach is not far off from contemporary theory that you dismiss seemingly in totality.
It does not surprise me that I am defending literary theory as it is amazingly unpopular on Goodreads, a site devoted to literature. However I am consistently surprised that many people tend to see literature as apart from other discourses, as if it was not subject to academic scrutiny (such as science or math or architecture or economics).
@macgregor By all means, appreciate literature any way you can. But please don't assume that people who don't buy into the more theoretical approaches are reading "just for fun." (Though there's nothing wrong with that, either.)The wonderful thing about great literature is that it feeds something deep within us, and its meaning flows directly from the author to the reader. The import of any given literary work is hugely subjective and, yes, it often strikes readers on levels that can't be fully articulated. My point is that we don't need academic priests to mediate between ourselves and the books we love.
That doesn't mean your theories are useless or without value. If they help you understand and appreciate literature, that's great. Have fun with your theories, enjoy them, but don't try to force them on others, and don't make the mistake of congratulating yourself on your brilliance because you happen to have bought into them.
this is one of the few books where i cried at the end, and i NEVER do that...
Almost scared to comment on here as some people seem to be taking themselves way too seriously on this thread. But I came in here because I was interested and wanted to add my two cents (sorry, I don't have a PHD and lack the vocabulary of literary criticism but I do have a passion for literature).I loved this book, and his writing style drew me in from the very first page. It was incredibly raw and moving; the sparse and (deceptively) simple structures all flowed beautifully for me. I didn't want to put it down and I too cried at the end.
i couldn't disagree with the OP more. I found the style of The Road perfectly simple. It's a story that doesn't require grandeur or heady writing. One of my favorite books!
Tim wrote: "@macgregor By all means, appreciate literature any way you can. But please don't assume that people who don't buy into the more theoretical approaches are reading "just for fun." (Though there's no..."
The reverse can be said of you. Don't congratulate yourself on rejecting academic standards of discourse in some attempt to get "closer" to the text like the Beat writers imagined themselves doing. The strain of self-satisfied anti-intellectualism in the greater American zeitgeist is truly disheartening. Symptomatic of this is the lack of support from the institutions for the humanities departments in academia. Without the support of higher learning institutions, many authors won't have day jobs (teaching, writing criticism) to write their novels (cf Tolkien).
All of our engagement with reality is mediated through representation, whether it be through the symbolic or through ideology.
The reverse can be said of you. Don't congratulate yourself on rejecting academic standards of discourse in some attempt to get "closer" to the text like the Beat writers imagined themselves doing. The strain of self-satisfied anti-intellectualism in the greater American zeitgeist is truly disheartening. Symptomatic of this is the lack of support from the institutions for the humanities departments in academia. Without the support of higher learning institutions, many authors won't have day jobs (teaching, writing criticism) to write their novels (cf Tolkien).
All of our engagement with reality is mediated through representation, whether it be through the symbolic or through ideology.
@macgregor Accusing me of anti-intellectualism just because, as a reader and writer, I "reject academic standards of discourse" with regard to literary theory is like accusing someone of being against ice cream because they don't like Cherry Garcia. I believe strongly in intellectual inquiry and academic freedom, in universities and beyond. I just don't believe modern literary theory has much to add to my appreciation for and understanding of literature. Got a problem with that?Now, I'm tired of this conversation, and I'll bet others are too. I'll read books my way, and you can read them yours. Okay?
It took me about thirty pages or so before I started to like the way it was written. I haven't read anything else of McCarthy's, so I can't judge it from the rest of his books.Once I got used to the no the absence of punctuation I loved it. It is one of favorite books. I let my wife read it after I finished and it took her a few pages to get used to it as well.
It's now one of our favorite books.
Tim wrote: "@macgregor Accusing me of anti-intellectualism just because, as a reader and writer, I "reject academic standards of discourse" with regard to literary theory is like accusing someone of being agai..."
How can you say it adds nothing to your understanding when you dismiss it in its totality?
How can you say it adds nothing to your understanding when you dismiss it in its totality?
Absolutely not, I love McCormack's style. I have read them all his books. But it is a personal choice, we can't all be the same - how boring would the world be?
To eschew the technical aspects of written language only served to make the book harder for me to read. I liked the story, hated his writing style. I kept having to re-read sentences to figure out what he meant. Punctuation and grammar exist for a reason; so that everyone has a common frame of reference.
Cormac is a genius when it comes to getting his point across with as few words as possible. I appreciate his style and envy his passion.
Lydia wrote: "what's wrong with using words?"Lydia, I suspect the spare language in "The Road" was to add to the post-apocalyptic world father and son were traveling through. If you were to try, for example, "All The Pretty Horses," the first in a triolgy, you'll encounter some of the most stunningly descriptive writing I believe you'll ever encouter. As for dialogue, McCarthy has always tended toward the terse.
I'm only about five pages in too, and i agree with you. I mean how many times can McCarthy say the word 'road' and 'ash'. I get it, the world is ashy and they're walking on a road. More so, I feel like everything this guys says is a hyperbole. The prose is a definite turn-off. However, I'll keep reading for the story rather than the way its presented.
I loved this book. I think the writing is just something that clicks with a reader or doesn't. I also read No Country for Old Men, which I also thought was good but was extremely violent in a way that didn't make me think much. The Road is a novel containing great food for thought. I guess with The Walking Dead and other apocalyptic movies it is tough to see how amazing The Road is in terms of illustrating the end of the world. And the way dialogue has no quotation marks I found especially good for this kind of story.
Mal wrote: "Sigh...this is what you get when Oprah's Book Club meets literary fiction. The Road is no more a post-apocalyptic story than Blood Meridian is a western. I'll bet people that picked up The Sound an..."What exactly did you not like about The Road?
Sandra wrote: "Absolutely not. His writing style is beautiful and flows. You have to just let it roll and stop worrying about details. I haven't read No Country, but All the Pretty Horses is the same. Have yo..."There's a difference between writing style and prose. His writing style was descriptive and engaging, yet his prose was stilted, lacked proper grammatical flow, and was choppy at best. There were more moments than I could count when reading this short novel where my eyes were forcibly halted, not by imagery or visceral detail, but by poor phrase structure. It's a book where the reader has to make a constant effort to continue reading through frequent schizms in sentence structure, fighting to discern what is thought and what is (repetitive and bland) dialogue.
Also, the ending was pretty much a big "Fuck you!" to the reader. That random Wyatt Earp showing up last minute to adopt the kid at the end was so out of the blue it felt like Cormack didn't know how to end it and just threw his hands up and said "Fuck it!"
I felt the flow was very poetic. I know at the time I read it I was deep into writing a lot of poetry, but there's definitely a rhythm to it. I can't be that crazy.
"Sublime" captures it for me as well. This is one of the most beautifully written novels I've read.
Sandra wrote: "Absolutely not. His writing style is beautiful and flows. You have to just let it roll and stop worrying about details. I haven't read No Country, but All the Pretty Horses is the same. Have yo..."I feel exactly the same way. While reading "THE ROAD" I simply allowed the book to be told as if it was being actively recounted by somebody. This allows the dialogue to blend and become more fluent, in my opinion.
I had to take a vitamin B shot to recover.
