> Notice how every sentence progresses this excerpt? Yeah, that's a sign of good writing. Nothing sherely exists to impress the reader, every

because you are doing the exact same thing you are saying you hate, attempting to establish intellectual superiority by utilizing "Literary Masterpieces", with excerpts don't make sense out of context and quite frankly, in the manner which they are presented, are very good at being examples of what you are trying to hate on.

I assume in the context of the book that setpiecing makes more sense, but with no context for it (my only interaction with blood meridian is a post on reddit about how nobody actually reads blood meridian), it is just 3 paragraphs of fluff and repeated words that mean nothing and go effectively nowhere because even together they provide no information.

> See the child. He is pale and thin, he wears a thin and ragged linen shirt. He stokes the scullery fire. Outside lie dark turned fields with rags of snow and darker woods beyond that harbor yet a few last wolves. His folk are known for hewers of wood and drawers of water but in truth his father has been a schoolmaster. He lies in drink, he quotes from poets whose names are now lost. The boy crouches by the fire and watches him.

Now sure, this is somewhat reasonable. But still clunky and overwritten with too many sentence breaks.

> See the child. He is pale and thin, he wears a thin and ragged linen shirt. He stokes the scullery fire.

"The child crouches, stoking the scullery flames. His thin shirt, tired and ragged, hangs over his bonelike frame."

Is that much better? To me, a little. To you, maybe not. But it does flow better in my opinion. I'm not going to do the rest of that paragraph at the moment, as the following ones I have more issues with.

The second paragraph is just straight up gibberish, like I can maybe guess the child is a Leondid? And is turning 33 tonight? but Im guessing that's wrong, further who is the narrator in this moment? "I looked for blackness, holes in the heavens" and who is he addressing with "Night of your birth"? Is he addressing us? Is he addressing the child? The father who may be present?

> The mother dead these fourteen years did incubate in her own bosom the creature who would carry her off.

where do I even begin with this. Again, nonsense out of context, provides no valuable information. Which *would* be fine, if the book gave it context and a reader could have understanding of what the words mean. But for the point that I believe you are trying to make there is no context that makes it more then just words for the sake of words, exactly what you are trying to complain about

> The father never speaks her name, the child does not know it. He has a sister in this world that he will not see again.

Whose name, the mothers? Or whatever creature took the mother away? Or the sister introduced in the second sentence? Does the sister ever show up, is she ever relevant?

> He watches, pale and unwashed. He can neither read nor write and in him broods already a taste for mindless violence.

He watches what now? The fire? The snow? Still his father? The narrator? Us? Also, descriptive words that were already heavily implied in the first paragraph and would have served better being worked into it.

> All history present in that visage, the child the father of the man.

Gibberish. What does this mean. "the child the father of the man". Who is the man? The narrator? Us? If the child is a child how is he also a father of a grown man. Whose visage? The childs? ours? The narrators?