[armitron]

There is a strong philosophical message in the works of McCarthy, but it's not explicit, you have to synthesize it. If you read his best works being totally oblivious to what he's really saying, then they'll feel like pointless exercises in sadism and cruelty.

Blood Meridian is perhaps the easiest of his works to understand in that regard, since he's as far from deliberate occultation as he can possibly be. The philosophy in that book reaches out and punches you in the face.

[ajcp]

-> If you read his best works being totally oblivious to what he's really saying

If you have to be briefed on what an author is "really saying" outside of the story conveying it, what's the point?

If you have to explain the joke it's not funny.

[beaned]

One theme seems like it's not that hard to distill. That aimless young men with no prospects and no philosophy are more inclined to participate in destruction, and end up destructed.

We have English literature classes for the very purpose of finding and discussing these and other themes. The point of Shakespeare, Dickens, and Orwell aren't always immediately understood to some readers, even if they sense that there's something to be taken from what they're reading.

[pringk02]

Being told something makes less of an impression than figuring it out. When an author explicitly states the theme of their work, there is nothing to think about or consider. Personally, I much prefer stuff that makes me do some of the legwork myself.

[beaned]

Yeah, this is a huge difference in, for example, 2 of Ayn Rand's books. The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. The first is a simpler story with fewer characters, and though their dialogue obviously matters, much of the message happens through their actions. The same is true for Atlas Shrugged, but it contains many more monologues that are really the author expressing her philosophy explicitly in words, and the story around them is much more just providing context. Both great (or terrible, if you hate her) books, but The Fountainhead is much more poetic for this reason.

[cratermoon]

> If you have to be briefed on what an author is "really saying" outside of the story conveying it, what's the point?

It's not about having it explained to the reader in a briefing. A sophisticated reader comes to a book with the cultural, literary, and historical understanding in which the themes of the book are in play. Understanding of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet at age 12-14, where it's commonly taught in the US, is pretty superficial. Studying it as an adult sheds light on subtle threads woven through story. What exactly are Friar Laurence's motivations in helping Romeo and Juliet? At the end, after he confesses his role, why does Prince Escalus say, "We have still known thee for a holy man"?

[MikeBVaughn]

> If you have to be briefed on what an author is "really saying" outside of the story conveying it, what's the point?

What armitron said was, "it's not explicit, you have to synthesize it." The verb 'synthesize' implies the exact opposite of what you've construed them as saying.