Cormac McCarthy’s The Road won the 2006 Pulitzer Prize. It also currently has 312 one-star reviews at Amazon and over 8,000 one-star reviews on Goodreads.
Pulitzer Prize. Lotsa one- star reviews.
Best book of the year. Worst book of the year.
Classic! Piece of crap!
I read the book when it first came out. It was my first (and only) Cormac McCarthy novel. I loved it. I enjoyed the minimalist use of language, the sparse, bleak, apocalypse the characters traversed. The Road was my favorite book of that year. It won numerous awards and critical praise, which I thought McCarthy deserved.
As expected, there were many five-star reviews calling it a masterpiece, a literary achievement, a work of art. And then there were the dissenters. No, not the readers who just couldn’t get into the story and didn’t like the punctuated, staccato, cadence. Not those who tried to be objective and weigh positives and negatives. Not those who retained a semblance of composure. No. I’m talking about reviewers who utterly, completely, quite perfectly, despised The Road.
The antipathy towards The Road seems to fall into one (if not all) of three gripes:
- It’s too bleak
- It’s stylistically bad
- It’s really over-hyped
So there’s lots of Grammar Nazis and Establishment Haters in the mix.
You want some examples? Okay.
This book is vile. This book is a lie. It is a festering wasteland of despair and sadistic pathos pretending to contain some freakish remnant of love. — Richard
Recall a urinal displayed as art? This is similar, but less thoughtful. — slithy tove
The Road, I can honestly say, is the worst book I have ever read.– Robin
I can only recommend this book to aspiring writers wanting to know what it takes to win the Pulitzer Prize. Clearly, punctuation, plot, character development and consistent narrative aren’t necessary, but drawing vague metaphors regarding human nature and the declination of western society are encouraged. — C. Maxwell
tragedy porn — Keely
Apparently, once you’re a famous author you can say, “f*** the rules of the English language, I’ll do what I want.” — John
This is my first Cormac McCarthy novel, and I have little doubt it will be my last. It is not hyperbole to say that *I* could write better. If freestanding gerund phrases, missing apostrophes, and minimal character development are all it takes to win the Pulitzer Prize, then “I weep for the future” of American Literature. — axeeugene
the literary equivalent of The Emperor’s New Clothes — W. Morris
interminably dreary and interminably repetitious, repetitious, repetitious, repetitious, repetitious, repetitious… — K. Bunker
I don’t have the stomach to wade through poor english and even poorer logic — ever for a supposedly good story. My God, what has happened to our language, to our critical faculities (sic)? — Jonas
A tedious and dreary book — John
…a tour through a macabre mind, a desolate wilderness of the desperate soul. If by some feat of technology or magic, one could take a guided tour through the hell of another’s life, any sane person would ask – of all human experience why go here? McCarthy scores for those who are such tourists of despair. But even on technical merit, there is no redemption for this exercise in spiritual torture. Get it out of my head – it’s like the mind chewing grubs from the Wrath of Khan.– Michael
linguistic debauchery — John Doe
Perhaps this is just the downside of democracy. I mean, if everybody’s got an opinion and can publicly air it, then bring on the torches and pitchforks. Maybe it’s a backlash against snooty critics trying to jam “literature” down our throats. Or perhaps we have a terminal case of the “writing rules.”
Whatever the reason for the revulsion, I can see not calling The Road a masterpiece. But calling it “a festering wasteland of despair and sadistic pathos” just seems, well, a little over the top.
I enjoyed McCarthy’s other novels more, especially the trilogy he wrote, but I agree with you: I thought “The Road” was a great book.
I think the reason the reviews hit such opposite ends of the spectrum is because you have a pop celebrity icon (Oprah) recommending a literary work to the masses. So people read it because she said so or because of the popularity gained by her recommendation, not because it’s the kind of book they would usually choose to read on their own.
The Road is one of my absolute favorites, and I loved McCarthy’s style. He could pack more punch in just a few words than most authors could put in a page of verbiage.
Reviewers have a right to their opinion, and some that you’ve listed here just don’t seem to “get” McCarthy’s work. But I wonder about those calling the story “bleak,” etc. What is it they don’t get about “apocalyptic”? Aren’t all such books are dark and bleak?
I have never even heard of this author, but I have to say the negative reviews you highlighted on here make me think of Atlas Shrugged, as most them reflect how I felt about that book (after trying twice to read it and both times giving up about 1/4 of the way through). The rating distribution is about the same for both books, too.
Which brings me to another point. The rating distribution doesn’t seem terribly out of the ordinary here. Sure, there’s 312 1-star reviews, but there’s also like 1500 5-star. And a few hundred each of 4-, 3-, and 2-star reviews as well. If there were fewer in the middle and closer to equal on each end of the rating spectrum, I would consider this a polarizing book, but it’s not.
I agree with Shawn–it’s an “Oprah” book so likely it just got more exposure than it would otherwise and readers who would normally pass it by read it because she put her seal of approval on it.
Also, I think the more acclaimed a book is the more vehement its negative reviews will be because of all the hype. People don’t like feeling duped.
(FTR–I just read the first few pages of The Road on Amazon. I can kinda see what some of the comments refer to. His sentence structuring annoys me with all that “and he did this and he did that and he did this and he did that.” And there IS a missing apostrophe right there on the second page, not that a book should be slammed for typos, but come on dear line editor, if it’d been a snake it’d-a bit ya. Also, my guess would be by the very vocabularious–yes, I made that word up–reviews the readers didn’t like the author’s use of simple words. )
With the run-on sentences he is stylistically mimicking the atmosphere of his story, because their lives go on and one, same thing every day…always walking down the road. He uses the run-ons right out of the gate to quickly establish mood. And the lack of punctuation where we would otherwise expect it also reflects the starkness of the environment. So, I thought both techniques were pretty brilliant myself. Such techniques can become gimmicky after awhile, but McCarthy is able to maintain a non-gimmicky feel throughout the book. There were only a few instances where I felt he might have relaxed the style a bit.
Initially, I gave the books 4-stars because it’s so depressing. That’s exactly what he set out to do–to immerse the reader in the utter desolation of the landscape–and he certainly accomplished it. As the days and weeks wore on after finishing The Road, I couldn’t get the imagery out of my head, and even while I was writing, I found myself striving to attain his level of artistry, where every word, even seemingly unimportant articles are sweated over. (Should “the” be in that sentence? Is it necessary? How does it positively or negatively affect the ebb and flow of the prose? etc.) I finally decided if The Road isn’t a 5-star book the rest of us are doomed to be hacks, so I changed my Goodreads rating.
Kindred spirits, Jessica. My thoughts exactly pertaining to his style. Early in the book, the frequent use of “and” illustrated the drudgery of their lives, as you indicate. There’s a place in later in the book where the “ands” emphasize the pace. Reading the passage out loud illustrates my point. You can’t help but to pick up the pace as you read, and in doing so, reflect the urgency and terror he’s trying to reflect. It works far better than the short, choppy sentences some use to illustrate the same. His writing style in this book (I haven’t read anything else by him) still amazes me.
“A Reader’s Manifesto” by B.R. Myers takes McCarthy to task among others, and argues that many literary novels are written poorly:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/07/a-readers-manifesto/302270/
I haven’t read McCarthy, but if his style is anything like the clips from “All the Pretty Horses,” I’d find it hard to start.
That blog post is crazy-long, but I skimmed through a bunch of it and it made me laugh so hard. I kept thinking of what Stephen King says in “On Writing” about the ridiculous poetry he was forced to listen to in college.
And I agree with the author’s claims that there really is some “literary” writing that seems to be there just to try and *sound* deep. I think a lot of readers are wowed by wording they really don’t understand and assume the author must be deep and brilliant…the same way a primitive culture might think a guy with a Bic lighter must be magic. (Wow, that sounds kinda snotty of me, but in all fairness many of those same people would likely say I’m just too thick to understand the words. I guess I’ll go sit in the corner with my “lowbrow” hat on.)
(PS–from the sample I read of The Road, I wouldn’t put that book in the same category as what I’m talking about in this comment. If anything, his writing seems very straightforward and simple, and I will shut my mouth further as I cannot critique an entire book on three Amazon sample pages.)
McCarthy knows what he’s doing. Nothing’s by accident. That’s why his writing is brilliant…and I’m saying that objectively. His execution is brilliant whether one likes it or not. I think the one-star reviewers are merely expressing their literary ignorance. Which is fine. I’m not meaning to sound snobby. It just is what it is. They are allowed not to like it, just like I don’t have to enjoy genre fluff.
I’m not sure “brilliant” is a word that can be used in an *objective* assessment. I’m not saying his work isn’t brilliant–again, I’ve only read three pages and if I read the whole thing I might adore it, missing apostrophes and all ;). And I’m sure he did think it through and that it is all purposeful, but those are facts and “brilliant” is opinion.
And the thing I find ironic about the negative reviews Mike has highlighted here: Some of them sound like readers who simply don’t “get” McCarthy (lowbrows all a-skerred of the Bic lighter because they don’t understand how it works), and some of them sound like literary snobs who consider his book genre fluff. *shrugs*
Oh, it’s definitely not genre. It’s more like a very long-winded free verse poem. 🙂 The attention to detail required to produce a book like The Road is similar to what is required to write poetry, anyway. (Translation: it’s incredibly labor intensive and exhausting, which is another reason I appreciate McCarthy’s efforts in this book.)
To be honest, a large part of me didn’t “like” it and I was hesitant to suggest it to anyone else. The reader has to be in the proper frame of mind, preferably a healthy, relatively happy one, or it’s just too much. I picked it up post partum and I knew after the second page it wasn’t the right time to read it, then picked it up three years later and was able to read through it, although it was difficult because of the shear weight of it. Nevertheless, I don’t find that a valid reason to knock off stars. Well, I guess I did at first, until the story stuck with me. Which is when I decided it was 5-star despite my negative visceral reaction…
I think when writing reaches a certain level of craft, “brilliant” is much less subjective. There are certain qualities required to acheive that status and either a work has it or it doesn’t. If we are judging soley on personal tastes, then that’s an entire scale all together. Problem with places like Amazon and Goodreads is you get people who are judging based on literary merit and others who are judging based on personal preference, and the two are apples and oranges. Both are valid.
“I think when writing reaches a certain level of craft, “brilliant” is much less subjective. ”
I agree….to a point. I guess in situations like literary fiction and poetry and such, the level of craft comes into question. Such as, is leaving out punctuation really an effective literary device or just someone trying to toss the rules?
And trust me, I’m not a rule nazi! I believe in learning them so you can learn how to properly break them. My beef isn’t so much with whether or not *this* book is brilliant, but that all too often brilliance is accredited simply for being different.
For example–I’ll admit I’ve never been into poetry. But even I can see a huge difference between what was forced on me in high school (as “great work”) and some of the stuff I see now. Like, I really, really don’t get the concept that breaking prose into separate lines somehow makes it poetry. Some people find it brilliant. I
find it
annoying and
nothing more than
paragraphs
chopped up.
Randomly.
“Such as, is leaving out punctuation really an effective literary device or just someone trying to toss the rules?”
I agree, Kat. I can very easily be overdone to the point of annoying pretention. I think McCarthy skims the edge in The Road and almost topples over a few times. The fact that he’s able to pull back tells me he’s aware of what he’s doing, and therein lies the difference between art and pretention, in my opinion.
I don’t read a lot of poetry, I just spent a lot of years writing it, and I’m a total geek when it comes to language mechanics. I get the chopped up phrases because it affects the poem’s pacing and causes the reader to linger on a particular phrase and consider how those words contribute to the whole. But, it’s another thing that can be overdone, and a lot of poetry annoys me to be quite frank.
The only poetry form I have managed to understand and master at any level is the limerick… 😛
And I like your point about McCarthy obviously holding back. Yes, I’d agree that is a sign that he understands what he’s doing. (You may get me to read the book yet–although I might have to write in the missing apostrophes…)
There’s never a good reason not to include quotation marks with dialogue, for one. They exist to clue the reader that “Hey, this person is talking,” and ignoring that rule does little but give the reader a headache. Especially if you include dialogue in the middle of paragraphs. A lot of the sentences he reduces to fragments could easily be recast without any loss of meaning, from the sample:
In the knapsacks there were essential things. In case they had to run for it.
In the knapsacks there were essential things, in case they had to run for it.
Or:
Below in the valley the still grey serpentine of a river. Motionless and precise.
Below in the valley was the still grey serpentine of a river, motionless and precise.
He constantly hits us over the head with his style to the point where it pulls me out of the story. I count how many times the man and the boy stood looking at things rather than get inside of their heads. Try reading him aloud sometime, and you’ll see what I mean.
I totally disagree D.M. With literary fiction like The Road, we are in a different territory, similar to poetry, where even punctuation is used for manipulative purposes in order to create emotional response. Without the punctuation, the prose reads differently. It blends together, which is symbolic of the landscape in The Road where everything is dark, cloudy, and gray. Yes, you have to work harder, which forces the reader to become more intimate with the language. For those who have no fascination with how subtle linguistical alterations can affect reader experience, I can see why The Road would be annoying.
Heh. And the staccato, hitting you over the head sentences further enhances the overall discomfort caused by this book. I agree. That’s why I say, he nailed it.
Let me put it this way. Here is Cormac McCarthy doing dialogue:
Yes. Of course.
Are we going to die?
Sometime. Not now.
And we’re still going south?
Yes.
So we’ll be warm.
Yes.
Okay.
Okay what?
Nothing. Just okay.
Go to sleep.
Here is Richard Adams doing dialogue, in the Plague Dogs.
“Rowf,” said the terrier. “Rowf? They’ve taken away all the rhododendrons and just left the maggots. O, spin like a ball isn’t it dark? There’s just this one star shining down my throat, that’s all. You know, my master—”
This is the mad dog Snitter, addressing Rowf, who was just drowned and resuscitated in the name of science.
I don’t think you’ll ever convince me the first is poetry, or the effect of no punctuation, no identifying the speaker, or no description of what they actually do while talking is somehow superior to the latter example. I guess that’s why I always harp on the rules so much, because breaking them doesn’t fix things.
I’m not saying one is superior to the other, I’m saying they both communicate different moods and cause subtle shifts in the way the reader processes the text, which the skilled writer can use to their advantage.
The second one bugs me more. I like minimalism. 🙂 I’ve never read Richard Adams though.
You haven’t read Watership Down? If so, go read it fast, it’s an amazing book. The Plague Dogs isn’t as good, but I was trying to think of a bleak novel to compare The Road too, and it was the only one that came to mind.
This highlights one of the main pitfalls of writing: subjectivity. One man’s steak is another man’s hamburger (or trip to the trash bin, based on the comments you listed).
Someone recommended The Road to me. It took two attempts to get past the first 50 pages, but then I enjoyed the book. I have since read it again with an even better appreciation for what McCarthy did.
While McCarthy’s literary style obviously upset some folks, it didn’t bother the Pulitzer committee. I daresay any of the critics would love to have the Pulitzer endorsement on their resume of works. And for those who claim they could write better–give it a try. You’ll find it’s much harder than it looks.
I wouldn’t go so far to call it a masterpiece, but it was one of the bleakest, most grim books I’ve ever read. I’ve got emotions of steel but this book really dragged me down…I’ve never felt so crushed beneath fictional tragedy. The movie was forgettable, but this book will stay with me forever.
Well, I wouldn’t be me if I didn’t laugh at the irony of this statement:
“So there’s lots of Grammar Nazis and Establishment Haters in the mix.”
That’d be there ARE lots of….etc.
I haven’t read the book because I struggle with depression periodically and am especially sensitive to reading material. I didn’t think I’d chance it on this book.
I will say that I know Keely pretty well (he’s the one you quote as calling the book “tragedy porn”) and his shtick has been to find a reason to hate books that everyone else loves.
I imagine many of the other negative reviews are coming from a similar place.
When I get those pesky one and two star reviews, I just remind myself of comments like you’ve mentioned above. Plus this: http://www.themorningnews.org/article/lone-star-statements – lol
Thanks to watching a coworker react to The Road several years ago, I have not read it so I can’t weigh in on this debate, other than to say didn’t James Joyce break a lot of rules? Is this rulebreaking really that new? And, can anyone really be worse than Henry James?
Aside from that, this blog post reminds me that, whether I agree with the content or not, negative reviews of books and film are probably some of the funniest reading on the internet.
I don’t know about Pulitzer Prize winning, but it’s one of my favorites in the apocalyptic genre. Up there with Emergence, One Second After and films like The Book of Eli (the film version of The Road did the book justice, but the book is better). Yes, his rule-breaking writing style in this book takes some getting used to, but it’s obvious why he did it. The one sure rule of English: All rules can be broken.
It’s quite frankly overrated tripe.Zero character building, monotonous, repetitive tripe. Couldn’t wait for the ending which unsurprisingly was laughably dull. Avoid.