Why do people say McCarthy is a chud? He for sure is likely a liberal/leftist. Stupid fucks.

Why do people say McCarthy is a chud? He for sure is likely a liberal/leftist. Stupid fricks.

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Because he writes cowboy books. Cowboys are chud tier.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >hii yaa

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Most intellectuals are leftists, so probably.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Reality imposes artificial equality? Bullshit.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          This is the opposite of the materialism that leftism is built on. Read a book sometime.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Reality has a left wing bias

      Leftism is not built on materialism it is built on a israeli inversion of Christian concern for the victim in an anti-Christian manner

      Materialism is not reality anyways

      In summation: have a nice day

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >DA JOOOOOS

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Yes, Marxists and psychoanalysts, and bankers which have pushed this. I’m glad we could see you separate from reality within two posts

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Yes, Marxists and psychoanalysts, and bankers which have pushed this. I’m glad we could see you separate from reality within two posts

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Im an intellectual

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    He wrote a troony character in his last and jn a positive light. So you’re right.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous
  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    He is apolitical. He clearly likes the outcasts of society (bums, troonys, blacks etc.) but also says that Californian neo-liberals are an insufferable bunch.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      > also says that Californian neo-liberals are an insufferable bunch.
      Where?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2005/08/cormac-mccarthy-interview

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Idk, but it's funny

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The book is about the inevitability of violence and cruelty, something progressives not only don’t believe in but refuse to even consider. Since everyone who’s not a liberal progressive is a chud now, McCarthy is a chud. The fact that it’s a rustic Western only adds to the impression.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >He for sure is likely a liberal/leftist
      He was a registered Republican for at least 30 years before he started living in Mexico and is a deeply religious Christian conservative. He's almost definitely not a lefist you moron.

      it's odd that a book about the inescapable, nauseating violence of the american project -- a dream of westward expansion that required intense, unending, genocidal extermination of the native population -- with a central character who is the personification of evil itself described as fat and white and greedy, typical american appearance -- was written by an avowed christian conservative. book really works against his stated beliefs. he could be saying genocide is based and redpilled or whatever too I guess.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Well, you even admitted the book is about [thing] and not a condemnation of [thing].

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >westward expansion that required intense, unending, genocidal extermination of the native population
        that never happened and it's not in the book. here is how 99% of the "unending genocidal extermination" went by the way
        >some drunk, poor white settler is caught trapping beavers in indian territory by indians
        >he narrowly escapes
        >indian war chief beats war drum and whoops and hollers
        >he leads like 15 indians to fight maybe 12 white dudes
        >either the whites narrowly win because they have better firepower or the indians win, scalp the whites, and inadvertently bring small pox back to their camp by doing so, killing everyone

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >that never happened
          yes it did
          >it's not in the book
          yes it is
          >here's a story I just made up
          ok

          Well, you even admitted the book is about [thing] and not a condemnation of [thing].

          true, in more ways than one. the angle I identified is just one way to read the book. it's by no means the only angle of course. I would argue that the length and intensity of the violence itself is a condemnation of violence for any purpose, but I also recognize that mccarthy's saying that violence is an inescapable part of the human condition. like, it's not good, but we can't get rid of it kind of thing

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >like,
            oh you're a woman, that's why you sound like an idiot

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I'm sorry I've made you angry anon, I hope you feel better soon

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            i'll feel better when you show me those breasts

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        > McCarthy
        > "christian conservative"
        Wow, don't burn yourself with dem hot takes.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Christian conservative
        Read Outer Dark

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >The book is about the inevitability of violence and cruelty, something progressives not only don’t believe in but refuse to even consider.
      But that's just Marxism.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Marxism
        Red chuds.

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Who narrates this book?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The sun.

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >He for sure is likely a liberal/leftist
    He was a registered Republican for at least 30 years before he started living in Mexico and is a deeply religious Christian conservative. He's almost definitely not a lefist you moron.

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    name a more overrated piece of shit than this book

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The Alchemist

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The Alchemist

      I like both of those books. Maybe you guys just don't "get it".

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        The Alchemist is considered self-help schlock where I’m from (and rightfully so).

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          ok so that makes it bad? get off your high horse

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Where are you from? I've never been more disappointed to learn that a book was absolute garbage — exactly as you said, "self-help schlock" — than when I read The Alchemist. Yet in America, even among those whom I consider relatively well-read, it's praised to hell and back.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Moby dick

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Sure, Gravity’s Rainbow

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Probably because he uses period appropriate language for minorities in his books and rarely shows his characters through a moral lense. He seems pretty center left to me with some more progressive ideas in his last 2 novels.

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >this thread
    Will never understand how American literature is so good when the population is so utterly brain dead.

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I suspect many thoughtful and reflective people (which authors are)—especially when older—generally have more complex, hard-to-categorize political views than moronic 20-somethings on both Twitter and IQfy.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Dude, it’s a seesaw where you must be totally on one side or the other

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    McCarthy is deeply Catholic: the first hint is in the name. There are a class of people that get so far into Catholicism that they end up with seemingly heterodox beliefs; Gene Wolfe also springs to mind. But no, there's ultimately little difference between Corncob YeCarthy and Flannery O'Connor (at least in the works I've read of his), except that O'Connor is a much more economical — and better, IMHO — stylist.

    On a separate note, I'm reading Suttree and the belabored descriptions are brutal. Rarely you catch a glint of something worth remembering, like when he describes streetlights as "skullcolored," but the Black person really used the word "lubricity" twice in fewer than 50 pages. Look, I get that it's a fun word to say, but that doesn't make it necessary.

    These long passages of purple description — totally different from the enjoyable ones of Proust, perhaps because there, a narrator is taking us into his interior — without any punctuation were what made me dislike Blood Meridian. That, and the violence that somehow shocked a youth raised on BestGore and LiveLeak. But the dialogue in Suttree is fantastic! It's engaging, funny, natural... Why does he commit to overburdening his work with these passages? I accept that I might be midwit enough to not appreciate it, but I think I see what he's going for and I don't think it's necessary.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      why are IQfyners so cringe?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        For me, it's the amphetamines.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      It is no surprise that your premise is faulty from the get go as regards to his catholic beliefs, when you peddle such pseud trash such as Gene Wolfe and Proust!

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        It's no surprise that you are shitposting on IQfy, when you denigrate authors without cause in a sad attempt to appear smarter than you are!

        Here's a challenge: read the first 50pp. of Suttree and see how many references to Catholic practices and beliefs — I mean specifically Catholic, not just Christian — you can spot. If you want an extra challenge, try to connect each one to the theme of the book/scene. Good luck!

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Catholic reference =/= author is catholic

          Most religious references in McCarthy are either meant as futile or satire on the practice. He, like Faulkner, like many other writers from the era (Joyce, Beckett etc.), is a lapsed Catholic.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >On a separate note, I'm reading Suttree and the belabored descriptions are brutal. Rarely you catch a glint of something worth remembering
      You are probably low IQ anon.

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Everything is chud now. Get used to that. If it's good it's chud, because overlords only approve of YA fantasy books and vampire porn.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *