Saturday, November 10, 2007

Writing style

This is one night when it's just muddy and cold and they haven't eaten, but they have a fire:

...they sat there in silence with their hands held out to the flames. He tried to think of something to say but he could not. He'd had this feeling before, beyond the numbness and the dull despair. The world shrinking down about a raw core of parsible entities. The names of things slowly following those things into oblivion. Colors. The names of birds. Things to eat. Finally the names of things one believed to be true. More fragile than he would have thought. How much was gone already? The sacred idiom shorn of its referents and so of its reality. Drawing down like something trying to preserve heat. In time to wink out forever.

And this was the morning after the passage Erin cited in the comment on the last post. I think it's insightful about his feeling for the woman and their past and how the past should be "handled." Normally we think the past is preserved in remembering and in story telling, but this is another take:

Rich dreams now which he was loathe to wake from. Things no longer known in the world. The cold drove him forth to mend the fire. Memory of her crossing the lawn toward the house in the early morning in a thin rose gown that clung to her breasts. He thought each memory recalled must do some violence to its origins. As in a party game. Say the word and pass it on. So be sparing. What you alter in the remembering has yet a reality, known or not.

I love that. It also seems relavant to his writing style, which is sparing — simple sentences, or often just sentence fragments, a plain, unassuming, yet stunning, vocabulary. I had the feeling, after reading the passage above, that when he's writing he's calling on a rich, probably overwhelming, storehouse of experience and distilling it to an essence, not just to create a story, but so as to do the least amount of violence to the original thing. There's the thing. And then there's the story of the thing. And the poetic feeling of "truth" that we readers experience is the emotional loyalty between those two.

(Trust me. That makes a lot more sense if you mull it at 2 a.m. in a hot bath with a cup of tea)

But, my question: Did you enjoy McCarthy's writing style? Was it hard to get used to? Did the unconventional prose, with all the fragments and contractions without apostrophes and direct speech without quotation marks sit well with you? Why do you think he drops quotation marks? Is it to integrate the speech fully into the narrative? (There must be a lot written about this because he seems to do it in all his books).

10 comments:

Erin said...

I enjoyed his writing style a lot. And strangely enough, I wasn't bothered by the unconventional prose and lack of punctuation. Usually I'm kind of a stickler about that stuff. But something about this story and the language he used just seemed to work with it. I didn't even notice it after the first few pages.

I also really like that part about memory and doing violence to the reality. What an amazing way to put that.

kc said...

I'm kind of a stickler about that stuff, too. Hehe. But I had the same experience of ceasing to notice it.

rev amy said...

I didn't rememebr that there were contractions w/o apostrophes. I do remember it taking a few pages to "hear" McCarthy's storytelling but once I was drawn into the story his choices about style faded to background.

I wonder too if that is because I don't pay a lot of attention to correct grammar or punctuation, especially when I preach. My sermon manuscripts need some serious copy-editing. But I can get away with it (I think, anyway) because it is actually an oral presentation and my listeners have gotten used to my narrative quirks.

One instance, I remember, where I never overcame a writer's unique style was an article...in a now forgotten place...by David Foster Wallace (author of Infinite Jest). He includes a barrage of footnotes and sidenotes that are often comedic, often helpful to the story, not to be missed. Yet your eyes have to jump all over the page to read them. It was so much work, page after page, that I found myself angry at him instead of amused. Too bad becuase he is rather witty.

kc said...

I tried to read David Foster Wallace once, as well as Dave Eggers ("A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius"), and I just could not get into either one, mainly because of the writing styles. Perhaps it's my background in editing, but I'm easily turned off when a style seems to lack restraint, when the writer seems unable to make choices so he just includes everything. Or he seems principally interested in "showing off" his command of the language and "textual density." (McCarthy's style in "The Road" is a masterpiece of self-control and editing, to me.) I'm not saying that's how they operate necessarily, but that's how it struck me at the time. I couldn't relate, and I admit it's probably just my own bias.

Have you heard all this brouhaha about the new translation of "War and Peace" that reduces the book's length by hundreds of pages? It's really fascinating.

kc said...

Also. I see on your profile page that "Middlesex" is one of your favorite books. Erin and I were just talking about that. I've never read it. What did you like so much about it? Should I check it out?

I also see that "coffee" is listed as your first interest. Ack! That is fantastic. I see a book-club Kaffee Klatsch in our future.

rev amy said...

I made it through "A heartbreaking..." but it wasn't easy. Not only for the writing, the story was also really weird. I'm glad I read it but I don't think I'll rush to any other Eggers work anytime soon.

I'll comment on Middlesex later, cause I've got a coffee appointment :)

rev amy said...

Rereading some passages I remember one thing that did really bother me about his writing style was that I occasionally got lost in the dialogue. The conversations were so short and easy to breeze over but without much punctuation or other text I would often lose the thread about who was saying what. More than once I had to go back to the start of a dialogue and count to see who had said which line.

Maybe that says more about sloppy reading than it does McCarthy's writing style.

rev amy said...

I have not heard about a new "war and peace." It is certainly tedious at points so a shortened version could be good. But how many people take on the project of reading "War and Peace" who are not willing to slog through the whole thing? I can't imagine Tolstoy would be pleased. But if we are looking for writers with self control, he doesn't make the cut.

As for "Middlesex" Read it. Oh, read it. It was a magical expereince for me. Most of my other friends have also loved it but one or two said they "couldn't get into it." I don't know. Sometimes books are about timing...I think. Anyway the story telling is fantastic as is the story itself. The main character is incredibly compelling and the themes are...well it's just a great book. (of course my gushing makes me fear an unrealistic build up).

But why don't you wait to read it. Pick it in a future month. I would love to reread and then discuss!

kc said...

Yeah, good call on going back and counting the lines. I was inconvenienced by that a few times myself. Luckily, all his words bear rereading.

I guess the deal with the Tolstoy is that he had different versions of the book, some shorter, and there's some discussion about what he intended. There seems to be a feud between this husband-wife translating team (she's actually Russian) and this other guy who translates a lot of the same material. They each claim to know the REAL spirit of Tolstoy. I don't know enough to tell where the chips should fall.

I have read Anna Karenina but not War and Peace. I think you're right that those who really want to read it know basically what they're in for and aren't daunted by a big book.

I think the longest book I've ever read was George Eliot's Middlemarch. I enjoyed every single second.

I'm reading Cormac McCarthy's Border Trilogy now. Just about to finish "All the Pretty Horses," the first novel in the trilogy. It's lovely and amazing, with a sassy Mexican noblewoman I can't get enough of — She says at one point: "I am not a society person. The societies to which I have been exposed seemed to me largely machines for the suppression of women," and you know the narrator is on her side. It's fantastic. Still, I may have to take a break before diving into another 700 pages of cowboys and cacti and mescal. timing, as you say.

Erin said...

I also got lost in McCarthy's dialogue a few times and found that mildly annoying.

I wouldn't mind picking "Middlesex." In fact, I almost picked it the last time.

I haven't read "War and Peace" either. But I can imagine a shortened version of "Anna Karenina" that could work.