# The Road, by Cormac McCarthy



## SparkyLT (Jan 24, 2009)

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.


----------



## AccountanteDeMussolini (Jan 24, 2009)

I think you'd absolutely love Finnegans Wake!


----------



## Trekkie (Jan 24, 2009)

SparkyLT said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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.


----------



## David C. (Jan 24, 2009)

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.


----------



## SparkyLT (Jan 24, 2009)

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.


----------



## garmar (Jan 24, 2009)

Trekkie said:


> 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.


----------



## SparkyLT (Jan 24, 2009)

Well, it's one thing if you're just not _good_ at 'techy shit', Candrah :razz:. 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.


----------



## David C. (Jan 24, 2009)

SparkyLT said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## SparkyLT (Jan 24, 2009)

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?


----------



## David C. (Jan 24, 2009)

> 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.


----------



## Talia_Brie (Feb 6, 2009)

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.


----------



## SparkyLT (Feb 7, 2009)

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.


----------



## David C. (Feb 7, 2009)

Wow, Sparky! So, tell us how you _really_ feel about McCarthy :lol:


----------



## Shawn (Feb 7, 2009)

SparkyLT said:


> 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.


----------



## SparkyLT (Feb 7, 2009)

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



> 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.")


----------



## Shawn (Feb 7, 2009)

SparkyLT said:


> 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.



I understand. I was put off a bit when I began reading it; but I strongly urge you to finish the book and take time to understand it. There's a very sweet and good message about life that I think is really important to hear, even if one has heard it before.


----------



## David C. (Feb 7, 2009)

SparkyLT said:
			
		

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


 
LOL. I've got matches (and lighter fluid).:razz:


----------



## SparkyLT (Feb 7, 2009)

Now really - you _know_ lighters are better.

Shawn: Since I'm over my initial extreme disgust, I might try it again. No promises though.


----------



## Shawn (Feb 7, 2009)

SparkyLT said:


> Now really - you _know_ lighters are better.
> 
> Shawn: Since I'm over my initial extreme disgust, I might try it again. No promises though.



There's a huge world of literature out there. The only person you're going to hurt by not stepping out of your comfort zone is yourself.


----------



## SparkyLT (Feb 7, 2009)

I need to learn to no have such high expectations, that's all. For now I'll keep grumbling about how McCarthy is highly overrated, though.

Mind you, I call a lot of things overrated.  People, talking, blah blah blah.


----------



## Swamp Thing (Feb 8, 2009)

Sparky -

Just tossing in my opinion here - I couldn't put the book down.  I read it in one sitting and the kids ate left over pizza.  The lack of punctuation was a little offputting at first, but that lasted about 2 pages and then I was hooked.  Try it again, I think that you will find it worth the effort and that the effort will evaporate quickly.


----------



## Magick (Feb 24, 2009)

I believe that I read somewhere that if you know grammar to the word, you can afford to break it for stylist purposes.

Personally, I never noticed the lack of punctuation and other grammatical "problems". The main reason for this is that it made the work feel much more candid and real to me. We aren't so much given a description of what the father is feeling, we are seeing it.

But, then again, the way I read may contribute to my reading of this particular style.

P.S. I apologize for resurrecting a dead thread. I don't think I saw anything in the rules against it in particular, and I felt that this was a good discussion to keep alive.


----------



## inna (Feb 24, 2009)

> 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.



Sorry to say this Sparky, but it seems that you don't know how to appreciate literature altogether, so it comes as no surprise that you wouldn't like The Road. McCarthy is by no means the only author to break grammar and punctuation rules. This is a writing technique used quite frequently by authors to accomplish certain stylistic purposes. In The Road, it sets a certain tone and mood, which would be completely ruined were proper punctuation and grammar in place. Perhaps you have to have some knowledge of literature, however, and an understanding of it in order to appreciate such 'non-traditional' styles. It also takes more than 3 pages to understand _anything_ about any book.

I love the classics, and am an avid reader of them. I have a tough time appreciating many of the moderns, but found The Road to be a modern classic - I couldn't put the book down and have given it as a gift to many people. Many of the modern books that I read are hard for me to get into, but I often see the talent in them. I attribute this discrepancy to my own shortcomings and lack of knowledge (even though I have a degree in literature).


----------



## SparkyLT (Feb 27, 2009)

I like what I like. Can you define 'appreciate' for me, please? If you have to stop and savor every word and phrase, it sounds to me more like you're being brainwashed. It doesn't sound enjoyable, and I rarely do things I don't enjoy. To me, good writing isn't 'appreciated' - you just read it. It's something you do, not something you spend hours 

Why is it some of you find it neccesary to assume I'm an idiot simply because I don't think grammatically incorrect writing should be published? "It sets a certain tone and mood" you tell me, but this can be done with words. You don't have to abuse the basic rules - the _only_ rules - of writing. It's lazy to throw in fragments and run-ons and over-dramatize things instead of using the skills you should have as a writer to create the desired atmosphere.

Oh what the hell, one last thing:


> . . . I have a degree in literature . . .


Good for you. After your mother taught you to read, you needed some professor to tell you how to interpret what you read? Don't you find that a little...pathetic?


Fine. Rant over. I didn't expect to be popular for knocking McCarthy, but I didn't think there would be more personal stabs involved. And yes, that last comment was my own slightly personal stab, but I really do think that such things as literature degrees are pointless.


----------



## inna (Feb 28, 2009)

lol....sorry, I was laughing during most of your post. I guess ignorance is bliss. 

A degree in literature pathetic? It's fine that you think that. I suppose education is overrated, in general, right? ....lol....


----------



## qwertyman (Feb 28, 2009)

SparkyLT said:


> I like what I like. Can you define 'appreciate' for me, please? If you have to stop and savor every word and phrase, it sounds to me more like you're being brainwashed. It doesn't sound enjoyable, and I rarely do things I don't enjoy. To me, good writing isn't 'appreciated' - you just read it. It's something you do, not something you spend hours


 
Nicely put Sparky, I agree with you. I don't know why everything has to be interlectualised. What is Shawn talking about, 'messages'? 

You didn't like it, you said so, and you said why. Ignore the patronising twaddle.

However, having said that, I think McCarthy is the finest living American author.


----------



## SparkyLT (Feb 28, 2009)

inna said:


> lol....sorry, I was laughing during most of your post. I guess ignorance is bliss.
> 
> A degree in literature pathetic? It's fine that you think that. I suppose education is overrated, in general, right? ....lol....


So sue me. I guess ignorance is bliss, and your form of enlightenment seems to bring blissful arrogance. Education in general isn't overrated, no - being educated is one of the most important things to me - but I really don't see the point of learning (as an example) algebra II when I'll never have to use it in my day-to-day life. Knowledge for it's own sake, in my opinion, is fairly useless.

But that's a different topic, and probably also one we would disagree on. By the way, why is it the woman with the degree feels the need to use 'lol'?


Qwerty (and Candrah):

Thanks. At least someone can respect my opinion. I'll think you're crazy for liking McCarthy, and you can think I'm crazy for not liking him. Deal?


----------



## Lester Burnham (Mar 1, 2009)

David C. said:


> He must be doing something right, because he's getting published and has recieved numerous of writing grants.


 
What he did right was get an endorsement by Oprah.

I thought the book was substandard.  I didn't mind the writing style so much as the predictability, the oversimplified relationship between the father and son, and the disappointingly anticlimactic ending.

For me, it was generally a yawner.


----------



## SparkyLT (Mar 1, 2009)

Lester Burnham said:


> What he did right was get an endorsement by Oprah.


I cringe at this statement and pray to god it isn't true.


----------



## Lester Burnham (Mar 1, 2009)

SparkyLT said:


> I cringe at this statement and pray to god it isn't true.


 
I cringe at it as well.  But it is true.  

Sad, isn't it?


----------



## Shawn (Mar 1, 2009)

Lester Burnham said:


> I thought the book was substandard.  I didn't mind the writing style so much as the predictability, the oversimplified relationship between the father and son, and the disappointingly anticlimactic ending.



Literature is generally about theme, not characterization or... interesting devices. The Road, on that point, succeeds immensely, which is why it has been well received.



> I really don't see the point of learning (as an example) algebra II when I'll never have to use it in my day-to-day life.



You will. Graph theory is extremely important for finance and basically anything involving statistics or constantly changing values... which is everything.

As for literature... there's quite a bit more to analysis and interpretation than I think you suspect. I doubt a reader without at least a little college instruction will be able to find important patterns in Hazlitt's essays, or De Quincey's.

Actually...

Thomas De Quincey - On the Knocking at the Gate

What is the importance of structure and organization in this essay?

There is a very careful and deliberate use of organization in it. It's really the only thing in the essay that makes the point. And there's a pretty important point about life, which you should think about in relation to your maths.

To put in my own words:

When faced with life's questions, wait for life's answers.


----------



## inna (Mar 1, 2009)

Just to clarify, I never actually suggested that anyone else doesn't have a right to read whatever he/she chooses, and have his own opinion on the matter. In fact, what the intention of my original post was, which seemed to offend and aggravate so much, was only to say that one should look within oneself (with more self-criticism) as to why something that's so acclaimed seems such 'garbage'. It remains my opinion that having a knowledge about how to interpret and read books (properly) is a very significant skill to acquire, whether from your mom or a professor. I allow for the fact that others have a different opinion - I think they're missing out on a lot!


----------



## qwertyman (Mar 1, 2009)

Shawn said:


> Literature is generally about theme, not characterization or... interesting devices. The Road, on that point, succeeds immensely, which is why it has been well received.


 
We obviously aproach this subject from different poles; but I'm listening. 

In the context of the above statement: what is the theme of The Road?


----------



## Shawn (Mar 1, 2009)

qwertyman said:


> In the context of the above statement: what is the theme of The Road?



Which one? The persistence of the human spirit. Consequences. Altruism. Filial responsibility. The journey. Coming of age. Change. Acceptance. Truth. 

The first of which is the theme that I refer to in my post.


----------



## qwertyman (Mar 2, 2009)

Ok, so what  is the message?


----------



## Shawn (Mar 2, 2009)

qwertyman said:


> Ok, so what  is the message?



That's interpretation; and I really don't feel like providing excerpts to support any argument I would make on that.

So my answer is: read the book and decide for yourself.


----------



## qwertyman (Mar 2, 2009)

That's difficult because I don't think there is a message. 

Why does there have to be?
What makes you think there is one? 
Why can't it just be a story?

I think it's a story.


----------



## Shawn (Mar 2, 2009)

qwertyman said:


> Why does there have to be?
> What makes you think there is one?



Because the really good authors are the ones that have something to say; and, regardless of intent, every story has a message.

The mistake people make with literary analysis is that they assume that the practice is decoding the author's intended composition. That's not the case. Literary analysis is about finding what is in a piece of text, extracting meaning, finding patterns, and making connections with other works.

That's why I think there is meaning in The Road; because there has to be... no story can come to denouement without saying something.


----------



## qwertyman (Mar 3, 2009)

Shawn said:


> Because the really good authors are the ones that have something to say; and, regardless of intent, every story has a message.


 
No it doesn't. I asked you what you thought the theme was because I wanted to be sure that you were making a distinction between theme and 'message'. But as you won't tell me what your interpretation of the message is, just that there is one, and it may not be the same as somebody else's... I can't see that being resolved.



> The mistake people make with literary analysis is that they assume that the practice is decoding the author's intended composition. That's not the case. Literary analysis is about finding what is in a piece of text, extracting meaning, finding patterns, and making connections with other works.


 
I must be thick because, apart from the last phrase, I don't understand the difference. 



> That's why I think there is meaning in The Road; because there has to be... no story can come to denouement without saying something


 
So what did it say? Don't describe the story. Don't say, 'the persistence of the human spirit', that's the theme. What did it say?


----------



## Shawn (Mar 3, 2009)

qwertyman said:


> What did it say?



It _said_ that human pursuits are worthwhile, even in the direst of circumstances. But that's what it said to _me_.

Asking a question like "what's the message of the story?" is ridiculous because there are such an infinite number of reactions to a bit of text that... it's just ridiculous.



> I must be thick because, apart from the last phrase, I don't understand the difference.



They're different because the message isn't always intentional; because the author doesn't always know what they're writing. That's why, as I've stated before, that regardless of intent, there is a message in a story. It is up to the individual to find it for themselves.

Understanding that there is a bit of depth to the ordinary doesn't diminish the enjoyment of the surface currents. It might actually bring about enlightenment and _enrich_ an experience.


----------



## qwertyman (Mar 3, 2009)

Shawn said:


> It _said_ that human pursuits are worthwhile, even in the direst of circumstances. But that's what it said to _me_.


 
THAT'S A MESSAGE!



> Asking a question like "what's the message of the story?" is ridiculous because there are such an infinite number of reactions to a bit of text that... it's just ridiculous.


 
I would be very disappointed if there were an infinite number of reactions to a piece of text I wrote. I would think I had failed.

Ridiculous? Come on Shawn, you said there is a message and I asked what is it because I can't see one. 
'Human pursuits are worthwhile', that's not a message that's the status quo. People eat when they are hungry...they sleep when they're tired...



> Understanding that there is a bit of depth to the ordinary doesn't diminish the enjoyment of the surface currents. It might actually bring about enlightenment and _enrich_ an experience


 
I think this is where the basic difference in our aproach lies, you interlectualise and analyse and I read. 

I don't suppose we will convince each other. Themes are fine, but messages, I find them patronising, even more so when words like 'enlightenment' are associated with them.


----------



## Lester Burnham (Mar 4, 2009)

Shawn said:


> Literature is generally about theme, not characterization or... interesting devices. The Road, on that point, succeeds immensely, which is why it has been well received.


 
I wasn't offering a literary critique. It was just a comment on what I thought of the book. I'll leave the theme analysis to the academics. I generally read for pleasure and escape.

_Treasure Island _received great literary acclaim. I had to force myself to finish it.


----------



## The Backward OX (Mar 4, 2009)

wrong thread


----------



## Shawn (Mar 4, 2009)

qwertyman said:


> I don't suppose we will convince each other. Themes are fine, but messages, I find them patronising, even more so when words like 'enlightenment' are associated with them.



I can understand that. Just my opinion... I mean, I've often found books to help me rationalize and make good decisions, but, as you said, I analyze instead of entertain myself.

I don't think we actually have to disagree. Because, even though I _think_ I can find messages in the "mainstream" novels and such, it may very well be that I am wrong; and that the only (intentional or unintentional) messages reside in literature.

In any case, I would urge anybody looking to entertain themselves to not look to literature for it. It's much more useful when one is seeking to be informed.


----------



## Shawn (Mar 4, 2009)

Lester Burnham said:


> I wasn't offering a literary critique. It was just a comment on what I thought of the book.



The problem is that _The Road_ is literature that's found its way into a best-seller's list.

*shrug* I read it because it was recommended by my future English professor.


----------



## Black_Board (Mar 5, 2009)

This is why Shawn will never improve as a writer. He'll be condemned to make the same mistakes because every sentence must mean something and have a hidden message which will actually stymie the flow of his prose. He's so worried about crafting the sentences to what he believes is important and, consequently, misses the story entirely. We all go through this phase. But in order to get better as a writer, we need to shift or completely change our ideas to what the readers want. Readers want to be entertained, not preached to. That's how Christ worked miracles. He didn't just preach; he told stories. I believe we all can learn somethng from the Bible.


----------



## Shawn (Mar 5, 2009)

Candrah said:


> Do you mean that all "literature" has to be pedantic, academic, informative and contain hidden messages and themes that only a "student of literature" can discover?



I don't mean that at all. I mean that if you're reading to only be entertained, then don't complain when you read academic literature... which I sort of resent being bunched in with "pedantic." 

I find that most of the things that seem pedantic in academics is actually attempted emulation. I think there's a distinct difference between a top student attempting to write the best essay, and a scholar writing an essay. That is, they both know the elements and patterns in good writing; but only one of them knows how to arrange them for effect.


----------



## Shawn (Mar 5, 2009)

Black_Board said:


> But in order to get better as a writer, we need to shift or completely change our ideas to what the readers want.



More easily sold is not equal to "better."

If you think there isn't any merit to academics, then it is no wonder that you are not aware that you cannot "get" better as a writer; but you can only _become_ a better writer.

A writer's ideas are the only elements on which to base writing. If a writer were to switch their ideas to those that readers want, how would one inform, change, or grow? In order for me to become a better writer, would you not agree that I need to grow? If I need to grow to become a better writer, would I not need to read about others' ideas? Would not those _better_ writers I must read already have the ideas that I want, since I am the reader?

According to your definition of a better writer, Blackboard, _nobody_ can become a better writer, so I would think myself amongst many in your opinion.


----------



## Lester Burnham (Mar 6, 2009)

Shawn said:


> The problem is that _The Road_ is literature that's found its way into a best-seller's list.


 
Indeed.  Thus my mention of Oprah's endorsement.  A nod of the head from her can sell a truckload of books and, as in this case, inflict literature on those just looking for a good read.


----------



## Brendan M (Mar 15, 2009)

Shawn's half right - most novels do have hidden/blatant messages.  They're only there for those who wish to interpret them though.  I believe the first and foremost thing a novel must do is entertain the reader.  It's the same with movies: you wouldn't go and see one if it was absolutely confusing and utterly rubbish just to get the hidden meaning.  There's usually a meaning there, but it's on the table.  Take it or leave it; it's your choice.

Sometimes I actually laugh in my English class because some of the analysis the teacher guides us towards is fucking ridiculous.  I wonder, though, if the particular author did intend to create some comparisons mentioned in class.  It's crazy.


----------



## Ghost.X (May 18, 2009)

Well this has all been an interesting read.

Some of the art and beauty I see in writing, is the personal connection you make with the reader. You could try to make your points obvious, or complicated and sublime, but either way, you can't please every reader (like spike to cormac; personally I thought it was brilliant). It's your book when your writing and revising, but once you get lucky and publish that sucker, and the reader pays his due over the counter, its his/her book and he/she can say whatever they damn well want about it. Overall I think a book can be better in skill and merit, like comparing 'The Road' to some cliche fantasy novel, but somewhere, while The Road might touch a lot more people then the fantasy novel, that fantasy novel has touched a reader more then The Road ever will. That however would make a poor excuse for publishing crap.

For me personally the holy grail is 'The End of Evangelion'. It's an anime movie, but it was a real catalyst in my style and the way I view a story. Many critics might call it down and those opinions may even be well founded, but I couldn't care less, to me it was genius. They have their cup of tea, and I have mine.

Of course as a writer, I want my success to be more then some obscure discovery, but even if I touch one person the way End of Evangelion touched me, and someone can say they were glad to have picked up my book, I'll be smiling.


----------



## antinous.gray (May 19, 2009)

Brendan M said:


> Sometimes I actually laugh in my English class because some of the analysis the teacher guides us towards is fucking ridiculous.




I think that, in most cases, meaning within a particular work is invented, rather than discovered. Given that all art and thought is generated from limited human experience, I would loathe to dismiss any literary explication that could further shine light on life. For instance, how else other than analysis does one know how to look for the "Knocking at the Gates" in times of trouble?

It's pure speculation, of course. However, where else will one be offered insurance of speculative thought in life without consequence, other than in literature?


----------

