Response to Cormac McCarthy's Punctuation

It seems odd for a writer to have such a strong distaste for proper punctuation, but McCarthy seems to think that anything other than a comma, a colon, or a period is nothing more than "weird little marks" on a page. Punctuation's purpose is to make writing clearer to the reader in order to convey a message seamlessly and with minimal confusion. I suppose McCarthy thinks that his protest to the traditional use of punctuation presents him as a more accomplished writer, one that has enough skill to not have to rely on little marks to get his message across. Although, I think it is a useless skill. All readers have learned the rules of punctuation, and it makes the piece easier to understand, so why not use those weird little marks? Simply because one can understand the work with minimal marks doesn't mean that one should. I've read books before that do not use regular punctuation, and sometimes I become more focused on the lack of punctuation than the actual story. Punctuation is a system that makes reading simpler so that we can understand the ideas and stories of many writers with different styles without having to focus too hard on little things like who is speaking and when to catch your breath when reading aloud.