Vanity Fair reported yesterday that McCarthy had a relationship with a 17 year old that started in 1977 when he was 43. She evidently was his “muse” and inspiration for several of his characters.
I’m not quite sure how I feel about it. It clearly fits today’s definition of grooming, and I don’t think that 1977 makes it that much better. But there’s more nuance to the whole story than just the headline.
Anyway, it’s interesting reading for McCarthy fans. No matter where you land on things, it’s a very McCarthy-esque story.
That Vanity Fair article is truly terrible. It’s written in bizarrely flowery language (clearly a Z-grade attempt to imitate what the author thinks is McCarthy’s own style) and comes off as some sort of sweaty romantic fantasy instead of objective journalism. And it’s getting absolutely slammed for the apparent failures in editorial oversight that led to numerous easily verified factual inaccuracies being included in the text.
I would recommend strongly against drawing any kind of conclusions or forming any beliefs about McCarthy, positive or negative, on the basis of that shitty and unreliable article. McCarthy is a messy, complicated figure, and this thing doesn’t help at all.
But hey, it’s getting lots of clicks, so yay 21st century media!
I was getting increasingly irritated by the language as I read it. When I got to this part, I quit reading.
Gah! Since I haven’t read any of McCarthy’s books, I didn’t know if it was some sort of homage to the author’s style or just really awful writing desperately in need of an editor, at the very least. Thanks for letting me know it was a very bad attempt to imitate McCarthy. It sounds like there was no editorial assistance with the story at all.
The text reads like someone prompted ChatGPT, “Write this pretending you’re Cormac McCarthy, and also pretend you’ve been roofied.” It’s awful.
For what it’s worth, the writer of the piece is an outsider without much of a resume. He’s dabbled in journalism, apparently, but thinks of himself more as a novelist, and that shows in the language. He obviously saw this as his ticket to the big leagues.
I’ve only read No Country For Old Men and if was anything like that painful drivel, I wouldn’t have made it past page 2. The prose scans like a rough-draft for the Bulwer-Lytton contest.
The language in the article is terrible, but I wouldn’t describe it as an attempt to write like McCarthy. It is flowery in a way that McCarthy never is. I think it’s the guy’s own invention, not mimicry.
But if you can get past that, it’s a fascinating and disturbing story. I’m torn: on one hand, I want to respect Britt’s view of the relationship. This is a mature woman looking back with clear eyes, and her opinion should count for more than a bunch of armchair analysts.
On the other hand, just because this had a seemingly good outcome for her doesn’t mean it was right. His actions can’t be judged solely on how things worked out.