Recent reviews
Recent lists
Recent writings
✦
✦
✦
So many words and he said nothing. Very big ego, thinking his words are so important that he has to stretch them out so. I don't care what a writer did or what they believed in. I care about the work. In the 20th century our moral framework changed so drastically that most people living before the shift probably would be considered despicable by today's standards.
Annoying anecdotal nonsense... I'm not sure what his point is, and neither is he. Probably the reason I don't understand is that have absolutely no interest in meeting writers, learning about writers, or in the art vs. artist debate.
I agree, I couldn't quite understand the heart of the matter. It seems like he's just listing out his accomplishments according to him. I'm curious why you're not interested in the art versus artist debate.
To me it seems disrespectful to the work to see it through a biographical lens. The work should speak for itself. For me, a book should contain everything you need to enjoy it. That's also why I avoid companion books/concordances for complicated works, at least on the first read. Of course different people enjoy books in different ways, and familiarity with a person's body of work can enhance your enjoyment of it overall. But I like it to be a one-on-one encounter between me and the book, without the author looking over my shoulder while I read.
I feel similarly about introductions and reviews too. I don't enjoy being robbed of the opportunity to form an uninfluenced view which I can keep sculpting as and when I learn more. Looking through the biographical lens does give another layer of understanding. But only after I've read a work. But largely, it's important for me to separate the two. Catherine Belsey says it best: “Read! Understand how words hang together, know the history of language, familiarise yourself with the range of possible genres - and don't worry about the personality of the author.” “What we look for as critics has a major influence on what we find. If we seek the author behind the writing, we shall uncover something, but it won't be the writing itself. If we want to understand the work, that is surely where we need to look: at the writing, not elsewhere.”
That's a good quote.
This man is not qualified to teach writing
but the cormac thing does not come as much of a shock to me
Art v. Artist debate, installment #499, this one written by an insipid, limp-wristed dork who wants the world to know about all the writers he's emailed and probably describes himself as a feminist to every woman he meets in a bar. All in all, who gives a fuck. Life is ugly.
Lol that's a scathing review. Absolutely.. I've been shunned so many times for expressing the same. So thank you for that last line. 🤝
There's something that's been bothering me about the discourse around the original "Vanity Fair" piece. People seem to believe that we need to either accept the piece's framing of McCarthy and Britt's relationship as a "love story" or throw McCarthy out entirely. Why can't we see this relationship for what it is--creepy, illegal by that day's standards, occurring against a backdrop of Britt's neglect and abuse--and incorporate it into our understanding of who he was as a person and writer? Although I can understand the dissonance this writer's feeling, I feel like the premise of this piece is quite naive. ("I met and liked x, so how could they possibly do y?"). Something I'm noticing about the reaction to this McCarthy news in general is how people have tried to defend his character in a way that feels protective of their own psyches; they need their hero to be good, or at least caught up in a complicated situation, all while the facts of the situation have emerged with a queasy clarity. Again, I'm not at all saying that we need to stop reading McCarthy--I read Tolstoy, etc--but why all this obfuscation? Why not be honest about who this person was and what he did?
I guess one of the reasons why it's either this or that is because the internet is fairly polarising. The realistic and honest "it is what it is" doesn't quite garner the same attention. Another thing that's been slowly happening (imho) is the death of nuance— generating more confusion than ever.