Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemurion
I personally think there's a difference between using a technique to evoke an effect, and using a technique so the reader can see that you're using the technique. I'll agree that good literary fiction is concerned with far more than simply plot and telling a story; but I'll also argue that the good writers don't write so that the readers pay attention to their technique.
Cormac McCarthy does the former, but he's also good enough to pull it off.
|
I agree there is a difference between using a literary or typographical device to evoke an effect, and using such a device for some other reason. I just don't know that I have sufficient access to a writer's intentions to be able to make such a definitive judgement about what they intend, and so I am am not sure that speculation about their intention can play a proper role in forming judgements about the value of their work.
I also agree that reading Cormac McCarthy one can experience effects that go beyond, what one might call for want of a better phrase, the content of the story, and that these often result from the stylistic devices that he uses, and that he is masterful in his use of such devices; but even then, I am still not sure what his intentions might be, or how much is can or does affect my judgement.