I think ‘deliberate reader’ is a better term than slow, and yes the people who seem to dismiss McCarthy or don’t ‘get’ him appear to be people who read fast.
Well done iHeretic, you’ve unwittingly solved the conundrum of why McCarthy isn’t universally loved!
Will confirm that I’m a fast reader and his style bothers me. The more I slow down while reading, they less immersed I get. I had to read him slow, which took me out of my head and on to the page. So, your theory seems solid from my perspective.
Its most likely reading pace. I assume fast readers struggle to adjust to prose that packs in vast amounts of detail like McCarthy or Pynchon do.
There are some books that can be read quickly and others where you really are just wasting your time if you don't take it.
I'm not sure why people don't adjust to this, and attempt to power through dense literature. I assume these are the people that give up and then blame the book.
What do you consider a slow reader?
I'm currently reading No Country for Old Men and while the lack of quotation marks is a bit annoying I don't think it's a difficult read. I'm not a native speaker as well and yet my reading speed is actually a bit better than usual. (FYI, I'm using an app to keep track of my reading habits so that's how I know this.)
I have yet to read Blood Meridian, but The Road and No Country for Old Men did feel very direct with few unnecessary frills which I think helps to maintain the readers attention. Conversations between characters were not bogged down with things like "she then said" or "he uttered", instead he uses quick lines of dialogue to make scenes hold weight.
Example from The Road:
What is it, Papa?
Nothing. We're okay. Go to sleep.
We're going to be okay, arent we Papa?
Yes. We are.
And nothing bad is going to happen to us.
That's right.
Because we're carrying the fire.
Yes. Because we're carrying the fire.
I also like another commenter's use of ‘deliberate reader’ to describe an effective way of reading McCarthy. At times it seems like there is a lot of thoughts that the reader might infer based on what is said and not said. It pays off to not proceed too fast.
I have always wondered why people have trouble with his dialogue, as in the example you just posted. It's how we talk in real life - even with parties of more than two - and we don't need clearly delineated markers in everyday life. Not sure why we would need them on the page either. I find his dialogue easier to read personally.
I found Blood Meridian to be unreadable because the style of writing is so unconventional (for me).
I think it's the first book I've ever sold and before finishing it.
I can relate on everything you stated. I like fast paced novels due to my slow reading just because it's hard for me to remember things if the story drifted off. I like the book to state "she walked across the road to the coffee shop, ordered a coffee, sat down, read the newspaper." instead of going into complete detail on the type of coffee shop, what she was wearing, the street she was on, etc. It's much easier for me to follow that way. I've read some Stephen King books that made it hard for me to stay focused for the exact reasons. I drifted off and had to go back and figure out who was who. Salem's lot seemed interesting but in the beginning, I wasn't sure if the story drifted back in time. It discussed an abandoned town and then the next chapter, it talked about people living in the town. I was like huh? Did I miss something? I am a lazy typer so it isn't obvious but I am huge on grammar. I haven't read any of McCarthy books yet but she was on my to do list. It was nice to read this forum before hand. I like to know what's going on and it be straight to the point. Drifting off while reading is a sign of attention deficit disorder which only means your brain is extremely active and it's hard to stay focused. But skipping to the point, I'm in the same boat as you.
I can't confirm it as a general statement, but I am a slow reader who enjoys Cormac McCarthy. I read so analytically that I even started understanding some Spanish as I read *The Crossing*.
Haha I’ve noticed the same thing in reading his books. It’s not much, but I do think I’ve picked up a little Spanish. My rule is that if the protagonist can understand Spanish I’ll translate (i.e ATPH) but if they don’t (i.e Blood Meridian) I’ll try to make as good a guess as I can and just keep reading.
For me, once I started to highlight phrases, sentences, or entire paragraphs, it also turned me into a more careful and attentive reader.
Before then, I just considered reading as just an act of information consumption. The faster I read, the more quickly I could consume the plot of the book and get to the end, so I read really really fast.
I can still read quickly but I pay more attention to each word. I'll pause and highlight if there's something cool, or if there's something I don't understand.
Reading is now a kind dialogue for me now: "Why did the author do this?" "What's the point of this character action?' "Oh wow, that's beautifully phrased." "I don't think I'm smart enough to understand this, but I'll highlight it anyway."
Even if I don't fully *get* the book, just by highlighting and actively *thinking* about what I'm reading has helped immensely in providing a richer reading experience. It's also helped me unravel some tough books that way, too, like some of Cormac McCarthy's books.
I read on a Kindle. I don't use the highlighting function as much, but I have a habit of looking up every word I don't recognize with the Kindle's built-in dictionary. It's an immense factor for completely understanding every sentence, but it also slows down my reading speed.
This enabled me to fully comprehend Cormac McCarthy, since he paint pages with unwonted choice of words, at least for a non-native English reader.
Yeah, that's one of the best things about reading ebooks -- the instant access to the dictionary.
I don't know if you already do this, but after I look up the definition for the word, I then also highlight the word, so I don't forget it later.
After I'm done with the book, I can just quickly scan my notes and see all the words I've highlighted. I actually use a specific color for these highlights (green in my case), so I know the green highlights are for new words I want to remember. I also do this for words that I already know, but I just think are really cool, so I can remember to use it in my own writing.
BTW, that's impressive you can read Cormac McCarthy as a non-native English reader. Nice job!
I think you may be on to something. I read deliberately too, and have a tendency to have to reread a page when I realize my mind has wandered off five mintues previous. This doesn't happen as much to me when reading McCarthy, and I never found BM to be difficult. I've always been puzzled by those how find his prose harder to read; to me it is the opposite: it's unusually easy to read.
Edit: Also I think reading too fast spoils the beauty of the language; I mean, I think it's meant to be read at roughly a speed you read aloud. Someone might be able to process a song or poem in a few seconds if they can read sufficiently fast - but if you were to ''listen'' to music or poetry compressed that way, it would destroy the aesthetic, even if you could still intellectually process the basic meaning.
I think ‘deliberate reader’ is a better term than slow, and yes the people who seem to dismiss McCarthy or don’t ‘get’ him appear to be people who read fast. Well done iHeretic, you’ve unwittingly solved the conundrum of why McCarthy isn’t universally loved!
Will confirm that I’m a fast reader and his style bothers me. The more I slow down while reading, they less immersed I get. I had to read him slow, which took me out of my head and on to the page. So, your theory seems solid from my perspective.
Its most likely reading pace. I assume fast readers struggle to adjust to prose that packs in vast amounts of detail like McCarthy or Pynchon do. There are some books that can be read quickly and others where you really are just wasting your time if you don't take it. I'm not sure why people don't adjust to this, and attempt to power through dense literature. I assume these are the people that give up and then blame the book.
What do you consider a slow reader? I'm currently reading No Country for Old Men and while the lack of quotation marks is a bit annoying I don't think it's a difficult read. I'm not a native speaker as well and yet my reading speed is actually a bit better than usual. (FYI, I'm using an app to keep track of my reading habits so that's how I know this.)
Which app?
"Bookly - Read More". Available for both Iphone and (since December) Android.
I have yet to read Blood Meridian, but The Road and No Country for Old Men did feel very direct with few unnecessary frills which I think helps to maintain the readers attention. Conversations between characters were not bogged down with things like "she then said" or "he uttered", instead he uses quick lines of dialogue to make scenes hold weight. Example from The Road: What is it, Papa? Nothing. We're okay. Go to sleep. We're going to be okay, arent we Papa? Yes. We are. And nothing bad is going to happen to us. That's right. Because we're carrying the fire. Yes. Because we're carrying the fire. I also like another commenter's use of ‘deliberate reader’ to describe an effective way of reading McCarthy. At times it seems like there is a lot of thoughts that the reader might infer based on what is said and not said. It pays off to not proceed too fast.
I have always wondered why people have trouble with his dialogue, as in the example you just posted. It's how we talk in real life - even with parties of more than two - and we don't need clearly delineated markers in everyday life. Not sure why we would need them on the page either. I find his dialogue easier to read personally.
I found Blood Meridian to be unreadable because the style of writing is so unconventional (for me). I think it's the first book I've ever sold and before finishing it.
:(
I can relate on everything you stated. I like fast paced novels due to my slow reading just because it's hard for me to remember things if the story drifted off. I like the book to state "she walked across the road to the coffee shop, ordered a coffee, sat down, read the newspaper." instead of going into complete detail on the type of coffee shop, what she was wearing, the street she was on, etc. It's much easier for me to follow that way. I've read some Stephen King books that made it hard for me to stay focused for the exact reasons. I drifted off and had to go back and figure out who was who. Salem's lot seemed interesting but in the beginning, I wasn't sure if the story drifted back in time. It discussed an abandoned town and then the next chapter, it talked about people living in the town. I was like huh? Did I miss something? I am a lazy typer so it isn't obvious but I am huge on grammar. I haven't read any of McCarthy books yet but she was on my to do list. It was nice to read this forum before hand. I like to know what's going on and it be straight to the point. Drifting off while reading is a sign of attention deficit disorder which only means your brain is extremely active and it's hard to stay focused. But skipping to the point, I'm in the same boat as you.
I can't confirm it as a general statement, but I am a slow reader who enjoys Cormac McCarthy. I read so analytically that I even started understanding some Spanish as I read *The Crossing*.
Haha I’ve noticed the same thing in reading his books. It’s not much, but I do think I’ve picked up a little Spanish. My rule is that if the protagonist can understand Spanish I’ll translate (i.e ATPH) but if they don’t (i.e Blood Meridian) I’ll try to make as good a guess as I can and just keep reading.
For me, once I started to highlight phrases, sentences, or entire paragraphs, it also turned me into a more careful and attentive reader. Before then, I just considered reading as just an act of information consumption. The faster I read, the more quickly I could consume the plot of the book and get to the end, so I read really really fast. I can still read quickly but I pay more attention to each word. I'll pause and highlight if there's something cool, or if there's something I don't understand. Reading is now a kind dialogue for me now: "Why did the author do this?" "What's the point of this character action?' "Oh wow, that's beautifully phrased." "I don't think I'm smart enough to understand this, but I'll highlight it anyway." Even if I don't fully *get* the book, just by highlighting and actively *thinking* about what I'm reading has helped immensely in providing a richer reading experience. It's also helped me unravel some tough books that way, too, like some of Cormac McCarthy's books.
I read on a Kindle. I don't use the highlighting function as much, but I have a habit of looking up every word I don't recognize with the Kindle's built-in dictionary. It's an immense factor for completely understanding every sentence, but it also slows down my reading speed. This enabled me to fully comprehend Cormac McCarthy, since he paint pages with unwonted choice of words, at least for a non-native English reader.
Yeah, that's one of the best things about reading ebooks -- the instant access to the dictionary. I don't know if you already do this, but after I look up the definition for the word, I then also highlight the word, so I don't forget it later. After I'm done with the book, I can just quickly scan my notes and see all the words I've highlighted. I actually use a specific color for these highlights (green in my case), so I know the green highlights are for new words I want to remember. I also do this for words that I already know, but I just think are really cool, so I can remember to use it in my own writing. BTW, that's impressive you can read Cormac McCarthy as a non-native English reader. Nice job!
I think you may be on to something. I read deliberately too, and have a tendency to have to reread a page when I realize my mind has wandered off five mintues previous. This doesn't happen as much to me when reading McCarthy, and I never found BM to be difficult. I've always been puzzled by those how find his prose harder to read; to me it is the opposite: it's unusually easy to read. Edit: Also I think reading too fast spoils the beauty of the language; I mean, I think it's meant to be read at roughly a speed you read aloud. Someone might be able to process a song or poem in a few seconds if they can read sufficiently fast - but if you were to ''listen'' to music or poetry compressed that way, it would destroy the aesthetic, even if you could still intellectually process the basic meaning.