| « The most dreadful beauty | Thoughts that passed through my mind while I looked at the new Watchmen stills this morning » |
03/09/08
What Cormac McCarthy taught me about grammar instruction
Yesterday I started reading Cormac McCarthy's The Road (It's a wonderful book, by the way--the kind I would stay up all night reading if I didn't have to take care of my 1-year-old son the following morning). Here is the first paragraph:
When he woke in the woods in the dark and the cold of the night he'd reach out to touch the child sleeping beside him. Nights dark beyond darkness and the days more gray each one than what had gone before. Like the onset of some cold glaucoma dimming away the world. His hand rose and fell softly with each precious breath. He pushed away the plastic tarpaulin and raised himself in the stinking robes and blankets and looked toward the east for any light but there was none. In the dream from which he'd wakened he had wandered in a cave where the child led him by the hand. Their light playing over the wet flowstone walls. Like pilgrims in a fable swallowed up and lost among the inward parts of some granitic beast. Deep stone flues where the water dripped and sang. Tolling in the silence the minutes of the earth and the hours and the days of it and the years without cease. Until they stood in a great stone room where lay a black and ancient lake. And on the far shore a creature that raised its dripping mouth from the rimstone pool and stared into the light with eyes dead white and sightless as the eggs of spiders. It swung its head low over the water as if to take the scent of what it could not see. Crouching there pale and naked and translucent, its alabaster bones cast up in shadow on the rocks behind it. Its bowels, its beating heart. The brain that pulsed in a dull glass bell. It swung its head from side to side and then gave out a low moan and turned and lurched away and loped soundlessly into the dark.
As I read this opening what really stood out to me was the grammatical style, and I couldn't help thinking what kind of comments this book would receive if given to a high school English teacher for an assignment. "Fragment. Fragment. Fragment. Don't needs an apostrophe. Fragment."
When I first started teaching English I thought it was important to strike a balance between the necessary evil of teaching formal grammar and my desire to make language exciting and creative for students, although I wasn't always sure of how to do it. I think that one tactic I settled on was teaching students about using different writing styles for different occasions: what is appropriate for a novel may not be appropriate for an academic paper. I still think this is true, but I've always felt there's more to it than just that.
While reading Cormac McCarthy's writing (this is the first novel of his I've read and now I'm wondering why I waited so long) I've figured out a different reason for teaching grammar. What I've realized is that while McCarthy breaks the rules of formal writing, it is not at all chaotic or disorganized. In fact, I would say that he writes in a very consistent style that has its own consistent set of rules. This kind of writing must be very intentional. I'm sure there's a reason he leaves the apostrophes out of contractions like cant, dont and wont, and I'd love to hear him explain what that reason is.
I think that intentionality is the difference between good writing and bad writing. If a student is going to choose to use sentence fragments, it must be a deliberate choice, which requires knowledge of the formal rules of grammar and a clear purpose for violating them. And above all, grammar should be taught with the understanding that any stylistic choices must be made with the audience's reaction in mind.
I think I'll show my students this passage from The Road next time I teach about sentence fragments in a regular education English classroom.
12 comments
By the way, I had never read anything by Cormac McCarthy before, and I only read this because it was recommended by a friend.
Don't forget that the low-class narrative style and unconventional spelling Mark Twain used in Huckleberry Finn was quite controversial in his time. Now it's a required text in many 9th grade English classes.
McCarthy is trying to tell the story of a particular father and son simply trying to survive in a post-apocalyptic world. Adam, you hit the nail right on the head- the story is what is supposed to be so captivating. This is what this man and boy are doing right now. Even the dialogue is so raw that your throat gets tight with emotion whenever the boy tries to trust his father as he asks if they will die.
The lack of punctuation is not laziness or bad editing. It's called Post- postmodernism; it's almost like a return to traditional modernism (Elements of: chaos, futility, pessimism, unstability, loss of faith, collapse of morality, and lost sense of self) with a futuristic twist. Note that the story does not contain ALL of these modern elements.
This work could be tied to the works of Vonnegut; there are no embellishments- which Vonnegut would've loved. McCarthy tells the story, how the story should be told, and that is all. This should make the book an easier read because the author puts your right there- into the fears/journey of the man and the boy.
For a real grammatical challenge, try reading 'Last Exit to Brooklyn; by Hubert Selby, Jr. That's a real challenge and show the true value of breaking the rules of grammar to paint the situation as the author sees it. Amazing book, too.
The usage or lack thereof of punctuation shows the stripped down nature of a post apocalyptic world where everyone left is an animal. No names to show this. Fragments to show this. No grammar rules to show this because there are none. There is no literature. No Law. No anything that falls within the realms of dictating a society. Because there is none.
It should not be mistaken for proper language and correspondence. A NY Times article is communication and information. That should be written grammatically correct. It is not art work.
These things must be understood by everyone. Otherwise the beauty of manipulating language and writing effectively will be lost. And what a terrible loss it would be.
P.S. The Road was excellent.
Comments are closed for this post.





Recent comments