| > It was, I'm told, a very good book that I noped out of about ten pages in. That's strange. The book grabs your attention from the get go. It starts strong. Stays strong. Ends strong. > I made it that far before becoming incredibly annoyed at the way literature critics were praising his new invention of post-apocalyptic stories which nobody had ever read before ever. This makes absolutely no sense. Were you reading the book and reading reviews at the same time? > Also, if I remember correctly, he felt that the rules of punctuation didn't apply to him. Maybe that paid off if I'd read more than ten pages. His punctuation was fine. The book reads well. His words and sentences flow. I found it easily one of the most accessible. > it's just not a story I want to hear. If I want to be depressed and angry Hacker News. Ah there it is. People with petty gripes always have an agenda. So your "gripes" above are just because you want don't like apocalytic stories and want to warn people off it? Why not just say so instead of making up silly criticisms? Also, it's a work of fiction. It isn't real. Really nothing to get depressed or angry about. If anything, it should make you happy since we don't like in such a hopeless world. But really, like all great literature, it should make you think. |
No, this is a fair criticism.
It's true this is done for literary effect, but it does make it harder to read.
To quote McCarthy himself:
> James Joyce is a good model for punctuation. He keeps it to an absolute minimum. There’s no reason to blot the page up with weird little marks. I mean, if you write properly you shouldn’t have to punctuate.[1]
Whilst this might be true, his punctuation style is non-conventional and that does break our expectations making it harder to follow.
[1] https://www.openculture.com/2013/08/cormac-mccarthys-punctua...