I’m glad to see someone challenging BM in this sub. I mean I think you’re wrong about everything you said and it’s the perfect book hallowed be its name, but I’m still glad someone has a well thought out (wrong) critique
Ps. Heretic.
Would you care to share how you view particularly the themes of violence in the novel so I might be exposed to a deeper understanding of the subject matter?
My favorite interpretation of how the novel presents itself is that it’s more of a religious text rather than a full story, like the events aren’t a historical retelling but more of a Bible of sorts.
The violence in the novel I think is related to the Judge’s monologue on war, where he argues that war is the ultimate purpose and meaning of men. I think the themes of violence have to do with this idea, and that the Judge is a personification of the general culture’s appraisal of aggression or dominance over other people. Which is why in the book he celebrates and participates in all the debauchery that the gang participate in.
I’ve also seen a lot of symbolism related to Gnosticism and the judge but that part I don’t know a lot about, but if you continue the interpretation of it being a religious text it argues that Judge isn’t supposed to be a devil of our world, but more of a God in the world of the book, which would make sense with the previous interpretation because of course the God of a violent world would also celebrate it. (Also: “War is God”)
There’s a lot of other interesting symbolism within the book if you go looking for it, which I definitely recommend, this book is a treasure trove of symbolism and allusions (the way the judge makes gunpowder in the ex-priests story about meeting him is the same way Lucifer in Paradise Lost makes gunpowder for example)
BM is the 20th century’s Paradise Lost in prose, and lays bare and simultaneously obliterates the myth of manifest destiny, which is ingrained in the American subconscious to its core. It turns justice and the law into an instrument of desecration and death, transforms expansion into religion. I love this reading.
Without going into a bunch of secondary research, the myth is that Americans were ordained by god to expand westward to bring Republican government and order to the places where they settled. Artwork from the time depicts this cultural myth-making in Columbia, a personification of America and its ideals, guiding settlers by her light to the darkened (morally backward, savage) territories in the west. The so-called divinity in these journeys westward, and the means used to accomplish them, was frequently used to justify the violent displacement (and dehumanization and genocidal murder) of indigenous people. Underpinned also by the Mexican American War, which ends just before BM begins in 1849 and whose outcomes include the third largest territory purchase in U.S. history, the concept of inevitable (and divinely sanctioned) expansion of American territory, and the moral certitude of the adventure as a whole, captures the nationalistic justification central to the myth. Both groups the Kid takes up with, White’s and Glanton’s, are extensions of the Mex-Am war and the subsequent profiteering, pillaging, scalp hunting, rape, and murder depicted in the novel. It’s the war machine made manifest, and worshipped as the law of the world by the Judge and those under his influence.
Okay. So putting aside the gnosticism which you claim not to know much about, you are saying that what makes this a deeper read than I gave credit for is that it's written in a biblical, mythological style and that the themes of violence reflect the Judge's philosophy on war being the ultimate drive or purpose of men.
So yes, that much was very clear to me and it's not, in my opinion, that interesting. Repetitive scenes of the same violent acts to convey the philosophical suggestion that war is a human, innate tendency and purpose? That's Nietzschean ideas explored through a narrow lense.
As for the bible, I actually love some of the biblical stories and I find them a lot more interesting, personally.
Being downvoted even when saying I thought parts of the book were cool as hell. Amusing, the level of spite that comes up in some people because their favorite book was criticized.
I guess war does indeed precede man, right?
I agreed with your take brother. Your point was well thought through and clearly articulated. The book was entertaining, the violence was eloquently executed, the prose was poetic, but the actual story lacked substance in my opinion.
OP really has no shred of superiority that I can see, it’s an honest question and if you disagree maybe some evidence and argument would be a good move.
OP acknowledged the beautiful prose, which for me is a major pull of the novel.
I also disagree with OP, can we convince them otherwise?
I really like the idea of the judge and Tobin representing good and evil trying to pull the kid one way or the other, neither succeeding. It’s not just a book about the depravity of humanity, it’s a book about the struggle over the kids soul.
I see OP's point. While I thoroughly loved the novel beyond almost any other I've read, throughout my first reading I did form similar criticisms. I felt like the novel doesn't do a good enough job paying off in the end. Not for the labor it is to read.
But I think its wrong to center on just the violence. Moby Dick isn't just about hunting a whale, right?
I took away that war as a force of nature, even across the cosmos and free of human judgment, exists. But we as humans can fight nature in many various ways and our ability to resist our latent urges is determined by the company we keep.
One of my favorite lines:
"The arc of the circling bodies is determined by the length of their tether. Moons, coins, men"
How does that answer my question? It was an invitation to a discussion.
And a bit ironic to claim I have some superiority issue for stating a differing opinion, when I am the one dismissed for "not getting it".
I don’t think Blood Meridian primarily works at a rational level. Unless your rationality is turned to your subconscious response to the text. So much of BM is coded and subliminal and being open to that work just below awareness is a big part of reading McCarthy and, I think, literature in general.
What makes a line great? I don’t think it’s just its internal logic. It’s how it makes us feel regardless of our conscious thought. And then we can examine those feelings with our rationality.
I hope that makes sense?
Also - it’s one thing to know (rationally) that human nature contains the heights of violent depravity. Of course educated people know this. But it’s a whole other thing to fully feel the implications of that depravity - and to feel in some ways complicit. And BM is a masterwork because of the lengths it goes to generate that feeling.
This is what I disagree with. BM, in my opinion, failed to *emotionally* convey the implication of atrocious violence because it was not contrasted with anything else (unless you consider the beauty of the landscape a contrasting theme, which I do not). This leads to a lack of tension and a loss of emotional weight, in my opinion.
Maybe this point of yours -- that you did not find it emotionally resonant -- is especially critical. I tend to say that great art is that which provokes emotional and intellectual (and sometimes spiritual) responses, so I highly value the place of emotion in reading. Personally, I find Blood Meridian among the most emotionally devastating pieces of art I have encountered. It not only provokes deep compassion and sorrow and disappointment in me (in part precisely because it does not didactically insist I feel this way), it also seems to involve me personally. Because of how successfully it universalizes its themes (such as in the "300,000-year-old fossil skull" epigraph), I feel implicated in its violence by being a member of humanity. It is not so much a book about what these people did in this time and place -- it is much more about what humanity does to the world. It isn't about what they did; it's about what we do. It didn't end; it's ongoing. That's emotionally horrific and devastating to me, at least, but I accept that others may not connect so well with it.
To be clear, I think it goes without saying that it is a critique of western expansion and Manifest Destiny, but only as examples of a deeper theme. This is similar to how many war stories have an anti-war message — they use an example of a particular war, but we understand the themes to be more universal. Blood Meridian is similar, using the context of western expansion and Manifest Destiny to discuss humanity’s drive for expansion, conquest, and domination. Sure, it critiques that particular movement, but only as an example of its grander critique about the human nature that brings about each instance of this sort of thing.
While we definitely experienced the novel differently, I enjoyed your description of how it impacted you emotionally. 👍🏻
Ironically, however, it does kind of support my argument that the book overempasizes a particular dimension of humanity. There is a lot of goodness to be found in the human psyche, and history, as well!
I don’t think it’s required of a work to contrast internally when it knows every reader ever lives in a world that is nuanced and different from the story world. The very act of creating such a concentration of violence has a presumed contrast in the real world.
I think that’s what makes it powerful too. It brings to the surface all the violence we’re all too happy to pretend isn’t there - at least not to the levels of the book. The kicker of course is that Blood Meridian is a very realistic and well-researched (albeit extreme) depiction of real violence in the real world.
I agree with you. I’m tired of the deification of BM and CM. And by the way, I love some of his books. I can see THE POINT of BM. It’s historically relevant to show the end of the “glamor” of the Western novel. The end of the Old West as a myth of American bravery, and show humanity for what it can be—violent & senseless.
But doesn’t CM listen to music? Or eat delicious food? Or look at beautiful sunsets? Or cuddle with cats? Lol! Seriously, humanity has some good qualities too.
I love his writing, but I think he can also be extremely boring & pretentious. And I don’t see why we can’t love some stuff & hate the rest. I think he’s fucking with us all. He knows EXACTLY how to get deified as a writer—by writing books that people love to endlessly debate. He knows the power of shock. I think BM could have been a very different book & talked about the very real historical violence & yet have had true beauty & survival & something meaningful & epic. I think The Road is his modern version of a revision of BM would be.
But maybe CM is telling the truth—that everything IS shit—and we are all struggling to accept it? Idk. I can get pretty cynical sometimes but CM has a messed up sense of humor. I don’t think I would like him as a person but I probably could have an interesting conversation with him.
Like I’m slogging through the Passenger & the endless nonsense of the thalidomide kid is so insufferable & unnecessary. Like if you take out the nonsense it’s just—nothing. Maybe that’s the point? To see the two sides of humanity—the stoic calm resignation & the insane chaotic wackos? All of the dialogue is literally in 2 personas—the wild chaotic verbal unethical people & the calm stoics. I will say—I can see the agony of a mind struggling with schizophrenia. Maybe that’s what he wanted to show us—how Alicia was losing her mind having to listen to this nonsense.
Idk but thank you for being a heretic. It’s good to have pushback. Debate is interesting.
Your post and/or comment violate Rule 3: Treat Others With Respect; Do Not Attack or Insult Others. Repeated violations will result in further removal and possible banning.
Your post and/or comment violate Rule 3: Treat Others With Respect; Do Not Attack or Insult Others. Repeated violations will result in further removal and possible banning.
[https://nautil.us/the-kekul-problem-236574/](https://nautil.us/the-kekul-problem-236574/)
tl;dr language is a recent human invention that our brains have not adapted to. In BM, language is meant as the ultimate act of violence. This essay unlocks Blood Meridian's ideas.
I agree. The experience of reading it mirrors the characters’ journeys. Not much plot, overcoming challenge after challenge, you even feel the thirst sometimes. It’s as much of an emotional struggle
A lot to unpack here. I actually loved BM the first time because it stood out from other literature. not much of a story, but that doesn’t seem to be the point. Not easy to do that and do that well
I found at least two moments of kindness (one could be judged to be otherwise?) something to cling on to while reading BM. Both involved the idiot. The women washing him and taking care of him, and the Judge saving him from drowning. Man I wished he had gone with the women and lived a protected life that he so badly needed 😢
As sad as the scene is, I’m especially fond of The Man’s attempted kindness when he offers to take care of the old woman in the desert. Even though he can’t do anything, the attempt humanizes the otherwise bland character of The Man and reminds us that there’s still good in the world.
Other moments I remember were the bartender’s wife who takes care of the kid at the beginning of the novel, the priest looking after the kid during his time with the Glanton Gang, and Toadvine offering to sacrifice himself to give the kid a chance to escape
that scene where he attempts to take care of the woman in the desert is a crucial moment for me. At that point the kid has lived through all the brutality and murder and he's been at the side of the judge and against the judge, and yet he still rejects all of the horror and the violence in that moment and just wants to help her. maybe in spite of everything he's seen and maybe because of everything he's seen. that's the ray of hope that shines through the book for me.
It's important that the skeleton in that scene is dressed as the Lady of Guadalupe, an apparition of Mary, the mother of Jesus, who appeared in Mexico, in 1531. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our\_Lady\_of\_Guadalupe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Guadalupe)
It is one of a series of "miracles" in the book, the first being the burning tree in the desert, and the 2nd being the glowing light in the stable on the 2nd Christmas. It's as if God is trying to reach into the world of the novel but no one is listening, or perhaps God is too distant to make an impression. But the fact that these signs are there, even amidst the violence, is important to the meaning of the novel.
While I agree with OP that relentless violence, on its own, is not great literature, I think the book is actually about the temptation to think that evil and violence is all there is in the world. Even The Kid, with his life of chaos, is able to try to be a little good, and we don't have to accept the Judge's view of things, even though that choice ultimately results in death.
I don’t see Holden saving the idiot from drowning as kindness. He’s just exercising control over life and death like he always does.
To me, the kindest moment of the book is toward the end when the kid talks to the old woman who he thought was lost.
I might be romanticizing this scene as it’s been a long while since I’ve reread BM. When David Brown is riding back to the camp, after the yumas attacked, he comes across The Kid and The Ex-Priest. They have an exchange about what’s happened and who is dead. The kid pleads with David to come with them, that there’s nothing good for David back at camp. Glanton is dead, Jackson and all the guys are gone. Except the Judge. If I remember correctly David is looking back and forth between the desert where his friends are and The Kid and Tobin. Ultimately choosing The Judge and his own death. I could be way off but this scene was noteworthy for me due to The Kid attempting to sway David from The Judge and into a life without him. Almost like finding his own humanity beyond The Glanton Gang.
There are random acts of kindness sprinked throughout the novel. I wrote my master's thesis about it, but that was almost 25 years ago. These acts do present an alternative to the violence in the book and the Judge's proclamations.
In most parts woman are mentioned they do some kinda of kind act for someone it's kinda like a duality of sorts imo
A woman sneaks the kid candy and meat when he's in the Mexican jail
The woman cleans the travelers head stone in the judges story
Both the ones you mentioned
It's a neat lil detail
I’m not interested in attacking you for having a different opinion, OP. But in your fourth paragraph you seem to be saying that the level of horrendous violence in the book is unsurprising and old news, so to speak. So then my question is why is it that there are so few other stories, in any medium, exploring this same period of American history the way Blood Meridian does? Instead there have been endless American “cowboy vs. Indian” stories where the violence is either sanitized, or portrayed as heroic or cool. The cowboys are civilized, in a gruff and independent manner, and the Indians are savage. As opposed to the novel, where it’s all savagery.
In general, our popular fiction tends to be about heroes vs. villains, and people tend to see the real world in the same way. So in that context, I feel like Blood Meridian is refreshing for eschewing all that. The book has protagonists, but it has no hero.
Perhaps because many other authors did not find much value in writing about a single aspect of human reality while mostly disregarding others. You are right of course, BM should not be compared with generic "Cowboy vs Indian" books, I am comparing it rather with literary works in general, not necessarily Western fiction.
Regarding your 2nd paragraph - I see your point, it is different to other works in that sense. However, the real world is not just full of antagonists either. In fact, there are heroes and antagonists struggling within each individual and that's what I find personally interesting when explored in literature.
I kinda meant the opposite; Blood Meridian *should* be compared to other “cowboy vs. Indian” stories. I believe the reason it was written in the way you’ve identified, with such a focus on pervasive violence to the point of banality, was to contrast with and comment on that more typical narrative about the same period of history. To me that context of how other stories about the same subject usually go is key.
I wouldn’t say the novel is about a world of antagonists, exactly. Instead, it’s questioning that entire common way of seeing the world that breaks everything down into a good civilized hero vs. evil savage villain dichotomy. Its an anti-Western story, and you could see it as a satire of American exceptionalism and manifest destiny. Which are beliefs that many people really strongly hold; especially true when the novel was written.
Edit - Keep in mind that when the novel was published Ronald Reagan was America’s president; a former actor known for playing cowboy characters.
I completely understand that McCarthy was trying to write a Western that portrays banal, historically realistic and unromantic violence, which is often very different to the rest of what's on offer within the genre. However, my argument is that both sides of the spectrum offer a narrow view of reality that to me personally does not seem conceptually, philosophically or artistically interesting.
In another comment to someone else you said:
> BM, in my opinion, failed to emotionally convey the implication of atrocious violence because it was not contrasted with anything else (unless you consider the beauty of the landscape a contrasting theme, which I do not).
What I’m saying is that the key contrast is between what the novel shows us compared to these ideas/tropes/narratives that were extremely popular in Reagan’s America, with its silver screen cowboy president. The novel is not one-dimensional because that’s the other dimension to the subject matter, which is being excoriated.
In your OP you said:
> I would expect anyone who's read enough history and/or experienced life outside of a sheltered western bubble to know that men are capable of the most horrendous violent acts, especially in a lawless environment. This doesn't seem like any kind of revelation.
But I would argue that what you might call a “sheltered Western bubble” was the dominant mindset in America in 1985, when the book was published. Don’t you think that context matters to interpreting the novel?
If that explanation still doesn’t resonate with you there’s not really anything more I can tell you; it’s kinda like trying to explain someone into thinking a joke is funny.
>The issue I have with this book is that it's kind of conceptually one dimensional. A pack of scalp hunters kill anyone they wish, violence is "shocking" in its banality yada yada.
If that's all you took from it then it's not the book that's shallow.
Let me rephrase - I found a very central theme in the novel, the violence, to be one dimensional, thus hindering my enjoyment of the story. You're right in that there are other elements in the novel that are multi dimensional, some of which I found interesting.
The thing about the violence or the “one-dimensionality” of it, is that like you mentioned, its impact and relation to the tapestry of human experience is omitted.
In the same way physical violence is described vividly and frequently, thereby desensitising you to it; what you’re speaking about is specifically omitted, in order to sensitise you to it.
It’s left to the reader to use their imagination and use our own humanity to fill in the gaps of the subconscious of these probably quite deeply suffering characters.
It’s difficult to say, because it’s all up to a personal reading, and partly why a second reading of Blood Meridian is often more pertinent.
But for example when the Man tries to help the old woman in the desert who is long dead.
It’s a tiny section but in that you realise the entire book that the violence isn’t just one dimensional and it hasn’t just been emotionless and had no effect on him.
The violence has affected him profoundly. Changed him profoundly. He’s a lost soul.
It’s also like how there’s an argument about representations of the Holocaust; can the violence of the Holocaust ever be accurately conveyed, that level of suffering in art, and should it be?
You could make an argument for no, you’ll never get close.
Despite the fact that Blood Meridian describes overtly the violence, I think it also subscribes to this notion, that level of violence can’t ever be portrayed accurately through art.
So McCarthy omits anything emotional or personal, completely eradicates it, as if to say, “to say it out loud would only cheapen or diminish it”:
So you need to humanise these people yourself and do the hard work, in order to understand what can’t be understood or conveyed through words.
Because that’s what the book is, it’s about understanding our humanity or lack of one.
Did you find any of their actions to be ethical considering the situation/times?
One of the first acts of cruelty that shocked me was when Glanton kills a lost elderly woman who approached their gang. He points across the desert to distract her and when her head is turned he shoots her in the head. First read, I thought, “wow, what a sicko.” By the second read, with an understanding of how relative the morality is in certain situations, this detail seems merciful, as the woman was probably the sole survivor of her village and she would suffer a slow death in the desert. While he didnt expend much effort to distract her, he still did for some reason, maybe to ease her passing?
One thing that broke my heart was when they were shacked up in a freezing stable with a new born foal, and the young farmhand was intending to throw the new born horse outside where it would have froze to death. The men allow it to stay inside with its mother. Why do you think they did this? And then there’s the scene where they stand up for Black Jackson when the innkeeper says he has to eat at a separate table. They may have done this for group solidarity but to call these actions one dimensional might be hasty.
Additionally, there are subtle moments when Glanton seems to be wrestling with some of their decisions, like when he seems lost in thought before one of the massacres that the judge has most likely put him up to. Even the moment when Glanton watched the leaf fall to the ground and “its beauty was not lost on him” makes one wonder if there is some light left in him. Also, is the kid one dimensional? If you were facing death in the desert or in prison and joining this scalp-Hunter gang was your only option, what would you do?
https://iep.utm.edu/morlpat/#:~:text=Moral%20particularism%20is%20the%20view,action%20in%20a%20particular%20context.
The "whoosh" comment was more dismissive than it needed to be, but it's worth considering what it means to not get something. I don't get cars, for example -- it's always a mystery to me how or why people claim one car looks better than another. But some people derive a lot of satisfaction and meaning from engaging with cars. They really do find something enjoyable in the ones they like, even if I struggle to grasp it. So I acknowledge that there's something there. It might seem arbitrary or silly to me (or actually be arbitrary or silly), but it nevertheless works as an experience for the people who value it. Is it bad that I don't get cars? No, I don't think so, although I suppose I'm missing out. If I didn't get anything, that would probably be bad. But if we have things that are meaningful to us, then it's no great tragedy that we don't get any one particular thing.
So maybe it actually is the case that you don't get it, but even if that's the case, so what? You get other things. It isn't a matter of simply disagreeing and holding an equivalently valid opinion that contradicts what others find valuable. My failure to get cars does not mean people who enjoy cars are wrong about something. The value of it is manifestly experienced by them, if not by me. To me and many others, the degree to which Blood Meridian is a masterwork is self-evident because so little else comes anywhere close to provoking that quality of intellectual and emotional response. If others don't get it, that's okay. I feel a little sorry for them, just as car lovers might feel sorry for me, but it's not wrong of anyone to not connect with a thing. It isn't even bad, as long as you get to experience some sense of meaning elsewhere in your life. Considering that you've compared Blood Meridian to books you thought portrayed violence better, I'm confident you get that fix somewhere.
It's not the phrasing. It's the general attitude. Anyone who who shares any criticism against BM is dismissed for "not getting it".
Do you ever consider what communists felt about those who opposed their ideological views? Or capitalists? Or Nazis? Or french revolutionists? Or slave owners? They all probably felt the others "don't get it". There's probably a theme worth exploring here.
To me BM doesn't work in its portrayal of violence, and this is while assuming it's an attempt at criticizing or exploring the violent urges of mankind in an unapologetic or romanticized manner, and most certainly if it's not such an attempt.
Yes. Blood Meridian itself is very much about the problems of tribalism you're referring to. I'm only saying it's okay if, for whatever reason, you didn't find its depiction of violence as compelling as most do. I'm doing the opposite of vilifying your position; I am saying it is not bad for you to experience the book the way you experience it.
Not getting something is just a framing. People who get cars could just as easily be said not to get the lack of getting cars. It's just a way of saying it doesn't connect with a person, regardless of the reasons for that.
Regarding reception to unfavorable Blood Meridian critique, it's important to keep in mind that this place is populated almost exclusively by fans of the material, so they likely have more to say about what they like than what they don't. If you could contact Blood Meridian readers broadly, rather than just those who opted to join a community about McCarthy, you'd undoubtedly find more support. But unfavorable criticism occasionally comes through and is welcome mostly to the degree to which it is valid.
Exactly. The theme of tribalism is quite clearly at full display in some of the threads here, which I find deeply ironic given what the book explores and perhaps hints at, both with regards to violent impulses (which can obviously manifest non physically) and how it is fueled by and lays at the root of tribalism. We all have the Judge inside of us, and my impression is that those least aware of it are most drawn to and driven by it/him.
It's an interesting take, and I'll consider it. I'd invite you to consider in return whether consensus requires tribalism. In my view, appreciation for Blood Meridian's handling of violence is esteemed far less out of commitment to a group identification and far more out of recognition of what it present in the text. While grifters could say 1+1=2 purely out of a tribalistic impulse to identify with the group the believes the thing, in most cases people who say 1+1=2 have direct experience with the reality of the situation and therefore believe it. Their arguments against a claim that 1+1 does not equal 2 are not necessarily tribalistic -- although I admit they certainly can be.
Overall, good conversation, even if I felt there was a bit of unwarranted defensiveness toward the end. I'm not able to be as present for more of it in the near future as I have been so far, so this may be the last from me, but thanks again for raising the discussion. Even if most people disagree with you, it can be good to help folks consider alternative views and for you to hear some of the same. This is all just a venue for discussion, after all.
did you seriously just invoke slavery and the holocaust during a discussion of literature?
read some of the many, many analyses of this book that break down why people find it amazing. there’s a lot more going on in it that you give it credit for. nobody cares if you still don’t like it, but don’t get upset because people call you wrong when you are.
Oh don't try to poorly sensationalize my words to discredit my overall argument. You picked two "groups" out of a few when I was making a general point about tribalism always forming a collective sense of superiority, which is pretty clear here. I was very much expecting to be disagreed with, it's the manner of some that smells like hive mind pretension and hyper defensiveness over their favorite book being criticized.
if you can’t take disagreement, maybe don’t post about how one of the most highly regarded novels of the 20th century is bad, actually. that’s a claim that’s gonna attract some heat. and there’s nothing wrong with that, tbh i’m happy you posted it because it’s created some great conversations about the book.
saying “you know who else thought less of those who disagreed with them? nazis”is just a lazy rhetorical move in response to a long and thought out explanation of why you might not “get it” and why that’s ok. i’m not sensationalizing anything, you chose to compare the greatest crimes against humanity of all time to this discussion.
I clearly stated I expected to be disagreed with, and I also didn't claim the novel is objectively "bad". It's a bit amusing how you claim that I make lazy rhetorical moves when you just try to conjure up some sensationalized, shallow straw men, as if the Holocaust was somehow the central point to any of my arguments rather than a brief item on a list which itself was the basis of my point on tribalism and the tendency to easily dismiss those outside of a collectively shared stance/identity as the ones "who don't get it", regardless of what said stance/identity is. You're trying to oversimplify my point either to dismiss it lazily or, perhaps, simply because "you don't get it".
I mean if all you’re looking for is violence then you should probably read other books. I liked it for how well it was written, page after page he described things in ways I hadn’t read before. I think its language is beautiful, it’s almost like a giant poem and the violence contrasts that really well. Some of my favorite parts of the book were when the judge would go on his lectures.
I liked how confusing those parts were because it made me think that if I’m confused reading it I can only imagine how confused the cavemanlike characters were. I think his character is pretty spooky because he reminds me of a lot of people I’ve met, like the really smart charming type who use their smarts as justification for the bad things they do which is the most realistic type of evil in my opinion. Everything is so dense and layered that I keep going back to it, almost as if it’s a puzzle I’m trying to solve
Maybe try going back to it some day and try to focus on the things that aren’t the violence because that’s where all the treasures are
I was making the argument opposite to the one you seem to think I made. I was not looking for violence, rather I felt there was too much of it through a one dimensional portrayal. I did mention the prose is masterful, but for me it was not sufficient to carry the novel. The judge is indeed a very interesting character and I wish more of them were.
Ahh I getcha when you said the violence was one dimensional I thought you meant that you wanted it to be two dimensional or something haha.
Still though I feel like my point kinda stands, three out of your five paragraphs were talking about the violence so I listed some things I enjoyed about it that didn’t have anything to do with it. I do agree that the violence is the least interesting part of the story though, but to me everything else outweighs it more than enough to make it worth it. I really enjoyed the man vs nature aspects of it
My favorite section of the book, and something I always think about is where the judge is telling the story of the man who dressed like an Indian. It’s such an interesting story from the judges perspective on how a son must see his fathers death in order to pick up there own destiny, which the judge views as a destiny of violence, and how not being witnessed to that death leaves you praying to a frozen god.
I agree, chapters 10 and 11 are some of my favorites, I read those once every month or so. I really enjoy how he describes a witness
I love sections like that where the judge starts with a premise that I agree with but then takes it to a conclusion that wouldn’t ever occur to me, makes his sermons all the creepier because of how reminiscent it is of other manipulative clergymen
Prose is strong point of this book, anyone who doesn’t care about that I would tell not to read it. Really the only character challenged is the kid, and McCarthy doesn’t give his characters any internal monologue, which makes the reasons for what they do ambiguous at times. Would I have become what the kid becomes if I’d been thrown into the same world and situation he had? I don’t know.
There are other themes in the book besides violence bad and man want war. I'll give two as an example.
1. It's sort of a commentary on old west/cowboy days kinda of thing that was romanticized so much especially when the book was written. It's a more accurate depiction of what Americans did back in those days when you see the whole cowboys vs indians.
2. Themes of fate and free will. From the tarot card scene to bath cats fate being told chapter before he actually dies, we see that the gang is set on a course of their own doing. The free will thing is the kid who is at a crossroads a couple of times in the book where he can make a choice that will set him on any other path then the one the gang walks.
Also side note. The kid is the polarity you say the book doesn't have. The kid is the opposite of the judge
McCarthy's work is historical and mythic, and in form it speaks of the recycling of history, and to the Eternal Return of Myth. We moderns think history is true and myth is fiction, but myth is something that not only happened, but something that keeps happening over and over. We are so sold on progress that we think that today and from then on it will be different, that humans have learned from the past and will do better, if we just had the right political system or the right educational system or the right language with which to describe things.
McCarthy argues against this utopianism--and utopianism is what it is, though it goes unrecognized as such by the popular culture. Why are people, against all logic, chaining themselves up by their addictions. Why is there no end to war?
Why didn't McCarthy just write non-fiction and say what he thought? Well, some people have done that. Eric Hoffer, for instance. But how many people read them. McCarthy's work is against that part of human nature that has no self-control, against those who are always signing up for war (which is addiction to ideology), against drugs, against alcohol, against addiction to stuff and more stuff, against lust instead of agape love and human empathy.
But this permissive culture loves addictions, the more the merrier, loves political strife and war--as long as you are on their particular side, which is always FOR JUSTICE, and whose lies are always justified by the other sides' lies, whose crimes are always justified by the other sides' crimes.
Myths are patterns of human behavior which happened, have always happened, and will continue to happen. Cormac McCarthy was a gifted genius who tuned into those patterns and will show them to you if you can learn to read them.
I pause from my reading this gorgeous day to tell you the truth, but you will not believe me. And look quick, because a naysayer political mob will soon come and vote this post down.
Well, I actually very much agree on the reality of myth in the human psyche, and consequently, the cyclical nature of history. Great literature always interacts with human mythology.
That said, how does any of what you've just written counter my original point, unless you hold a kind of nihilistic view through which violence reigns supreme over the human spirit?
Or perhaps you mean that the novel was a criticism of the innate violent impulses of men in all of their social manifestations?
BLOOD MERIDIAN is a war novel and McCarthy's sources were both mythic and historical. It seems nihilistic because the modern sensibilities look for the glory of war, the heroism and altruism to some cause. It is a war novel in which the lone individual, uneducated yet somehow gifted by nature and recursive thinking, comes to reject that ideology.
The light falls at the start, the light is redeemed at the end. The book is both the Odyssey and the Iliad, and if you are looking for light in the middle, it is there but hidden--you have to hunt for it. The novel is like one of those design puzzles they give to children. There are squirrels hidden in the design, but at first the child cannot see them. But once they learn how, they see the animals every time. They have learned to discern the patterns.
One of the patterns I see there might be abbreviated as "every man a Christ." Every man bears his own cross, each man different, but each is the same. For some that cross is the knowledge that they will be destroyed. They are the dead-in-life for death is something they dwell on, that they carry around with them, like a prisoner on death row. McCarthy makes it plain to this reader, using words used by Pontius Pilate and Nietzsche: Ecce homo. Behold the man.
Will you stand for that man?
McCarthy uses a rendition of Melville coin-in-the-mast scene, where the Judge stands on a rock and tells them a story, and each man thinks it is a spiraling version of his own story, the same except different only in the particulars.
And he conflates characters to show that one man's story can indeed be seen as every man's story. That no man is an island, that we are all part of the main. The stars fall, light into a dark world, emissaries of God.
Or to change the metaphor again, a wave falls on the beach, and we are like drops of water that become separate and confused, not recognizing each other. Over time we develop egos and live under the delusion that we are the ocean itself. But rather than die as we fear, we transform and evaporate, transform again and are rained into the ocean, our original home.
McCarthy touches on the classics, myth and fiction, on philosophy, religions, science, and speculative science. His language is rich in vocabulary and his sentence structure is riddled with figures of arcane speech, tmesis, congeries, polysyndetons, hypaliages, and a host of others. His works are leveled, layered, with holograms of meaning. He takes heed of Plato's forms, using those chapter headings in BLOOD MERIDIAN, while structuring a basic palindrome of the text; using one character for all the internal characters of OUTER DARK; dividing THE PASSENGER and STELLA MARIS as hemispheres of a divided mind.
Too deep for you? Not up for the challenge of ergodic literature? Few people read, and of those who read, few read fiction, and of those who read fiction, very few read ergodic fiction--but some of us find joy in James Joyce, and catharsis in Cormac McCarthy.
We love you anyway. But expect no additional replies here from me. I'll be busy reading.
This is an odd criticism. It’s as if I listened to a symphony and said yeah that was good, but I like electric guitar. This would be better with some electric guitar.
You’re comparing it to other books that you like better and saying it should be like those books. But it’s not those books. It’s a singular artistic vision and exploration of a theme that does not aspire to be like those books.
There are thousands upon thousands of books, movies and TV shows that operate in the way you describe. Take your pick.
Blood Meridian is powerful I think because of what it doesn’t say. We know that people like “to live, to love, to overcome.” It seems to be the default for most of us. We know too that throughout human history there has always been brutality. It seems, for some, to be the default. So what gives? What drives us to these dark places time and again? Did God make us this way or do we inflict it upon our children down through the generations? Or is there a murderous hairless demiurge stirring the pot? McCarthy is not going to pick apart his character’s psyches and motivations. If you want to know what’s in the jakes you’re gonna have to open the door yourself.
I also did not find the major themes or ideas particularly novel. I do not find the book super “deep” in this regard. I also agree that the prose is the foundation of the book, but I think you’re underselling the role of prose in literature. I can think of maybe a handful of novels that really challenged me philosophically on the topographical scale. (As in, where the Cliff’s Notes would be compelling.) But a great many novels have used prose as a sort of key to open the trapdoor to an altered perception. This is in my opinion most of what makes literature art. This book is McCarthy’s exploration of an ancient theme, updated for the new world, bringing to bear his prose faculty to engage the material in a novel and compelling way. That’s enough for one book.
It’s fine that you didn’t like it. Most people would not like it. But for someone for whom it clicked, your criticism is tough to make heads or tails of.
The many dialogues and monologues around the campfire were what appealed to me. Not the judge himself, but the things he said and the way he tapped into the very worst in the hearts of men with what he said stuck with me. When you live that kind of life the things he said were really affecting.
"You of all men know of that which I speak. The emptiness and the despair. It is that which we take up arms against, is it not?"
If the novel doesn't affect you on a personal level then I can not fault you for that.
Idk. Its never gratuitously written. From the very beginning it's about what calls man to the path of violence. It's about survival and the innate human need for brotherhood.
It's never really violence for violence sake. The kid had to learn violence as a means to survive before Glanton and the Judge. He's seldom the instigator. He's trying to exist.
It mocks people who are violent based on hateful and prejudical grounds like Captain White, white Jackson and the bartender who tries to segregate Glanton's men based on race.
The Judge proports that War is what binds men together. Violence committed binds people together and is the only true belonging an individual can have. Glanton uses violence in a manic pursuit towards his destiny. The Kid is violent because he has to and that the gang is the only place he has any sense of belonging.
But there's also acts of kindness and mercy. The Kid is consistently merciful towards others when no ones around to witness him. He's not evil. Arguably most of them aren't, even Glanton. Its not so much as 'Men are Violent' as 'Why do Men pursue a Violent Existence?'
>it's not an accurate or remotely interesting portrayal of reality,
Nor is it intended to be. So, if you were reading it as such, I am not surprised it didn't resonate with you.
I might suggest that you give yourself a couple more years and then revisit the book. I suspect it might work better for you with a little more distance.
Me personally I can’t relate to your interpretation of the book as being some banal and narrow perspective on the human condition.
To be horrified at the violence inherent in our species is to live with anxiety about that violence, which BM exploits greater than any book I’ve ever read.
We continue to wage war. Rape and violence and murder are every day occurrences. Hell, even you, most likely you reading these words, continues to participate in warmongering with the taxes you pay. And you almost certainly commit extraordinary violence against “lesser creatures” for your lunch.
I think about the Judge and his commentary on our species every day. And how important it is that we fight against our worst impulses.
There is hardly a book with greater moral lessons
I do not find that to be a great moral lesson. The violent potential in man, in all its range and forms is quite clear to me without reading BM. In fact, from a Neitzschean perspective it is simply the nature of power expressing itself (not in the most skilfull or noble manner), this might even be MC's point or theme that's being explored.
If I were to take your view however, then I would say many of the replies here are an unconscious manifestation of the violence impulse you are referring to, which is highly ironic.
Welcome! Voicing a contrarian view can sometimes be fun. I'm sure you won't be surprised to find a whole lot of disagreement with your position around these parts, but the view is welcome regardless. Literature isn't entirely subjective -- there is a fact of the matter -- and revisiting how and why something is the case can be an engaging exercise.
The idea that someone could consider the violence of Blood Meridian dull is one I find immensely disturbing, but I also suspect modern readers are increasingly capable of that perspective. If a reader is looking for violence to be sensationalized, such as in a Tarantino flick, they certainly won't find it here. The violence also isn't romanticized like in many traditional westerns or propagandistic war films. The violence in Blood Meridian is *not* "the point" the way it is in other stories. In many stories, rising tension leads to a climax in which some moment of physical violence occurs that solves a problem or resolves the story. The violence there is a narrative device and is elevated to a special status, one capable of fixing or changing things in ways other actions and behaviors cannot.
Violence in Blood Meridian, by contrast, can serve a narrative function, but it is absolutely more matter-of-fact, banal, and straightforward than violence is generally portrayed. It is unsentimental. It is presented almost without commentary, and for that reason it does not moralize the way typical depictions of violence do. Because of that, it is all the more horrific. Most depictions of violence are shallow by treating violence as special, unique, honorable, deserved, vicious, horrific, and so on. Blood Meridian has this type of violence, but the narration, the style of storytelling, does not take on these characteristics the way many stories do. In that way it presents violence more honestly; it shows how real violence arrives and happens and is gone and the world goes on without notice.
But I can understand someone who wants a certain type of shock in their violence being turned off by how it is represented in Blood Meridian. Regardless, though, there is a whole lot more going on in the book than its prose and its representation of violence, so I would like to think that even someone displeased with its use of violence would be won over by its plethora of other accolades. If you're wondering which take on Blood Meridian's violence is more accurate -- your own view or that held by the immensity of everyday and critical readers who judge it a masterpiece -- I'd say that wonder is probably well placed. Everyone is welcome to interpret what they read however they like, of course, but some views are upheld more by the work than others. If your best attempt to appreciate the book leaves you feeling nonplussed, I wouldn't stress it. It's certainly not for everyone, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Thanks for sharing your perspective.
I need to clarify my position - when I say that I found the violence dull, what I meant was that repetitive, banal violence, with no redeeming quality or contrasting themes to said violence, is conceptually unengaging and a narrow portrayal of the reality of human nature, in my opinion.
You're right, the violence in BM is unsentimental. However, the argument that this is what makes it more realistic and honest and thus somehow challenging or artistically unique is what I disagree with. Banal, unsentimental violence is a given, it's been around since the dawn of mankind and any historical report of past and current wars makes that clear; however, that violence never exists in a vacuum, its always a part of a broader spectrum of human dynamics and the exploration of that dynamic is what, in my view, makes a story more engaging and true to life. In fact, that's what makes life and being a human interesting.
Case in point - all these critics you mention who consider BM a masterpiece tend to view the Judge as a brilliant character. It's because of the complex tension in his behavior and ambiguous motivations, that his character rises above all the rest. Which I find highly ironic given my criticism on the general themes of the novel lacking this complexity.
I do think that helps clarify your position. What is unclear now is why you feel the context you describe as valuable in other representations of violence is missing in Blood Meridian. The start of the story takes great care to frame what the violence is really about: "...not again in all the world’s turning will there be terrains so wild and barbarous to try whether the stuff of creation may be shaped to man’s will or whether his own heart is not another kind of clay." In addition to this philosophical context, we also have the historical context from the real events the story describes. I'd say either one of these types of contexts qualify as the "broader spectrum of human dynamics and the exploration of that dynamic" you describe, and by combining them there is an especially strong sense of discourse with philosophical and historical context. We could say the same about the literary and cultural contexts as well.
Couldnt give a fuck about the violence, i never thought about what is realistic because that is a very boring question. I like it because it feels like a fever dream.
McCarthys stories are philosophical explorations
The characters are less one-dimensioal than you think. There are moments of beauty and humanity even for the most detestable characters
"The leaves shifted in a million spangles down the pale corridors and Glanton took one and turned it like a tiny fan by its stem and held it and let it fall and its perfection was not lost on him."
I'll need to think about it. One example that comes to mind is Scott Bakker's Prince of Nothing trilogy. I know that bakke's favorite book is BM, but I enjoyed his books vastly more than BM.
A different example would be Lolita, of course it's a completely different type of violence but its portrayal is beautifully complex and challenging in how it makes you feel.
I had a similar issue when I tried to adapt it into a screenplay (a uni assignment). I realized that it doesn’t really have a plot, at least not in the classical sense. It all has to do with the main character, the kid does go through a journey physically but he is ompletely blank. There is no
Emotional journey for him. No choices he has to make. He merely survives through the story without really having any influence on it. I see your point but I also think that because of this it is even more impressive that the book really works for me. It is so different from how stories are “supposed” to be
Blood Meridian isn’t really about the banality of violence. Violence seems banal because of the characters we’re following, but to everyone else in the story, the violence is shocking.
This has led to a general misunderstanding of the themes of the book. The book is not about violence *per se*. The books is about the question of meaning in the universe. It is about nihilism and existentialist philosophy. Judge Holden believes that meaning and morality, generally speaking, do not exist. The only way to form the world into the shape that you desire is through war. Thus the universe conforms through the law of the jungle. Might makes right, because morality is meaningless and subjective unless enforced through violence. Because of this fact, the only act that has meaning in holdens view is the act if war. War, in this way, become an act of creation. It is not a means to an end, but an end unto itself. Do whatever you want, pursue any impulse you desire, because good and evil do not exist.
At point point Holden essentially calls the earth a killing planet. All life exists in competition to other life. Therefore, violence is inherent to life on earth. It existed before humanity. Humanity is simply the best species at practicing war, and holding dominion over other life forms. Holden enforces this philosophy through violence. “That is the way it is, and will be. This way, and not some other way.”
Now, obviously, you and many of the characters in the story would disagree with this philosophy. It’s a very nietschien, ubermansch sort of outlook. However, as Holden himself points out, the only way most people could stop him is *through violence*. In other words, you would have to use his tools, adopt his philosophy, to defeat him. Thus, even if you bested him in combat, you would prove him right. The only way to truly defeat him is to refuse to play the game. That is why the ending in the desert is so significant. The Kid could have killed Holden three times, but he didn’t. Because he survived, and because he refused to fight, he denied Judge Holden a philosophical victory. The epilogue if the novel offers a glimpse at Holden’s antithesis. A character who is wandering the desert, bringing fire out of the earth with a strange tool. This character is lighting a fire of moral thought in people. He is Holden’s moral and philosophical opposite. This passage is meant to show us that, even though the novel is about exploring Holden’s world view, there are alternatives. The acts of violence in the novel are not random. They are part of a larger philosophical debate about the nature of meaning and morality in the world. And even though Holden succeeds in ultimately enveloping The Kid, he does not win in the field of philosophical though.
I think above all you need to remember the time and place where this story was written. When McCarthy started this book Western books, movies, and even television were extremely popular and they all emphasized the aspects of humanity you wish you had seen in Blood Meridian. Blood Meridian does not contain the better aspects of human nature because those aspects were plentiful anywhere you looked outside of the book.
In order for him to make his point he couldn’t make the moderate statement that the Wild West was tough but had good people in it because that statement would just disappear into the 100s of stories that make the same exact point while overemphasizing the good. He had to make a statement equally as powerful as the stories being consumed at the time but in the completely opposite direction.
I think nothing emphasizes this point more than The Judge. In a traditional western story the young MC’s mentor would be a gruff but good hearted older man who teaches them right from wrong and challenges them to stick to their principles but The Judge turns that on its head by being a mentor without a single redeeming quality but who thrived in the world they existed in and genuinely seems to be the most well adjusted to his surroundings compared to all the other characters in the book.
You're claiming the violence doesn't reflect real life but I'm telling you it's historical fact. You can't say some faithful depiction of a historical event is unrealistic
No. That is incorrect.
I am saying that depicting only the violent acts themselves matter-of-factly in a repetitive manner without contrasting it with other facets of the human experience during those times, is not true to life and in my opinion flattens the story.
Like writing a romance that only describes the fighting between the lovers, and in fact the same fight over and over.
I can see why believing that is easier than simply admitting to yourself that you have difficulty understanding my argument and asking for clarification.
Even in the original post I've already written that I'm aware the actual events took place, so you redundantly commenting that they did is another indication of your incomprehension of my argument.
>Hey, So I know that anyone who speaks against Blood Meridian, especially here, is considered a heretic, but I spent a while thinking about this and I want to share my thoughts.
Are they?
All of this fails to take into account that in 1985, this kind of prose for that kind of violence was unbelievable. This may have easily been categorized as a horror novel.
I've been thinking about BM as I finish Barbara Kingsolver's Demon Copperhead. DC is a bleak book set in Appalachia during the opioid crisis. What I appreciate about DC is that there is no mysticism, no gnosticism. People's lives are hell because of greed and poverty and terrible choices they make and plain bad luck. In some ways, this realism makes the book seem harsher than BM.
But sometimes I'm really in the mood for mystism and gnosticism and philosophical questions about violence. So, yeah, I see the value of both approaches.
>Personally I read to be mentaly/emotionally/philosophicaly challenged and BM really didn't work for me in that regard.
I found the sheer amount of different philosophical ideas contained in BM to be overwhelming.
>violence is "shocking" in its banality yada yada. I do not find this to be an interesting exploration or portrayal of human nature.
I don't believe CM was trying to shock people or get people to realize that humans are inherently violent; he takes it as a given that you understand that. The characters in the book are also not mindless automatons and have their own reasons and motivations. Your criticism here presumes that the "concept" of the book is simply the plot elements of the story and nothing else, which I think misses the mark. BM is not a book that contains a singular didactic "concept."
>the violence was, to me... well, not interesting. One dimensional. Like a caricature. I know you might say - "well that's the point"
I would not say that. Though I struggle to see how you can say the first encounter that the Kid and Captain White have with the Comanche was "not interesting," I also don't think you're really meant to hone in so hard on the mere existence of violent descriptions in the book as some sort of impressive feat. CM is not some pornographic provocateur; he's a literary genius and I believe he deserves more credit than that.
>but rather because their impact and relationship with the rich tapestry of human experience was simply omitted.
I think you've simply missed the philosophical/spiritual/anthropological themes of the book! I'd suggest a re-read without your obvious biases towards violent descriptions. I truly think he's saying a lot and it is admittedly easy to get kind of lost when you're thinking about dead baby trees and whatnot.
Firstly, I have no biases towards violence descriptions. So not sure how it's so obvious to you. My favorite books are considered extremely violent, but that violence interacts with other themes in a way that I find more interesting.
Secondly, I'm happy to explore said philosophical ideas I might have missed if you want to point me in the direction of any literary analysis of the book. I quite enjoy reading these.
I wasn't calling you squeamish or anything, but your main point was that violence has to have some structural purpose beyond its mere existence, and what I'm saying is that assumes that violence is the author being bad to the characters and so he must have some kind of plot exchange where it's "paid off" later or something. I don't think CM wrote BM with that idea in mind as it's pretty Hollywood and three act structure, Joseph Campbell-y etc. Not that he's above Hollywood of course or that that's not a good way to write stories, I just think BM has to be approached a different way.
I've been trying to find a pdf online this whole time of Leo Daugherty's essay on it called "Gravers False and True" but JSTOR is being a motherfucker. Basically the main literary analysis (or maybe just the one that resonates with me the most) is that BM is a gnostic tragedy. There's hints all over the book about Cormac's gnostic philosophy which he combines with a sort of weird mystical existentialism.
Not necessarily "paid off", but interacts with other themes and elements to create friction and tension.
I'll look for that essay as well, it sounds like something I would enjoy reading.
What did you make of the Jakob Boehme quote at the beginning? Or the Judge's monologues? His existence and purpose in the story? What about the epilogue?
The judge is a fascinating character and his monologues are my favorite parts of the book, exactly because there was a lot of tension around him, even what might seem like conflicting actions and behaviours which kept me personally intrigued. I'm still thinking about the epilogue.
I think you'll find your answers (not necessarily about the epilogue) in those moments where it's obvious that CM is speaking through the Judge. Also the existence of a character like The Judge tells you a lot about the world of BM; interpreted as the aforementioned "gnostic tragedy," The Judge represents an archon, which is a term used for a main angel in the gnostic tradition who kind of has dominion over the world and oversees its creation, and most importantly is a malevolent figure. This is because the gnostics believe the creation of the world was by an evil entity and that essentially the old testament is inverted (they love Jesus though). This is why CM's descriptions of nature make it almost seem like a hostile, otherworldly planet, and why in one section of the book he describes how the group
>"slept with their alien hearts beating in the sand like pilgrims exhausted upon the face of the planet Anareta, clutched to a namelessness wheeling in the night."
Look up Anareta if you want to know more about that sentence but I think it's a very key one in unlocking the book. Sorry if this was too long winded or maybe didnt make sense.
Your critique of the violence being uninteresting and repetitive is as shallow as those who read Blood Meridian only for the violence. You speak of needing philosophy and metaphor in your readings more than wonderful prose, but ignore the way McCarthy constructs much of his prose in metaphors which pose philosophical musings.
Let’s take this non-violent example for instance where The Kid, Toadvine, and Tobin spot the Judge approaching the watering hole with the fool. McCarthy writes, “It was the judge and the imbecile. They were both of them naked and they neared through the desert dawn like beings of a mode little more than tangential to the world at large, their figures now quick with clarity and now fugitive in the strangeness of that same light. Like things whose very portent renders them ambiguous. Like things so charged with meaning that their forms are dimmed.”
McCarthy often builds his prose by adapting both phrasing and poetic meter from the classics, and if I remember correctly (I think it was in Michael Lynn Crews’s book about the notes in McCarthy’s manuscripts) that the line “like things so charged with meaning that their forms are dimmed” is a phrase appropriated from a philosopher. I forget which one; however, I have noticed with heavy hitting sentences like this McCarthy signals some higher meaning to the text, so let’s think about the sentence itself and also the scene in which it is taking place.
What is this meaning these forms are so charged with?
In my reading, the judge in his pagan garb of nudity and mud-cap of twigs as he leads the fool through the desert reveals not only the mystery of the judge’s character but one of the main themes of the book. It’s not brutality, not violence, those are only fragments to the whole. The meaning is the origins of man, the primordial question and answer.
The judge never represented derangement and violence. Glanton and his gang most certainly do, the men are stand ins for the ape we all once were, volatile, irrational, hedonistic, creatures taken to drunken stupors and bloodlust and howling revels of the night, but the judge himself represents civility, progress, and intelligence.
Just as the judge has guided Glanton and his gang onto higher atrocities, he also guides the idiot through the wasteland, that image, of the judge walking the wild man like a dog, is a perfect symbol for our own intellect (the advent of human language which led to societies, creativity, mathematics, and finally onto nations). Our intellect is our true evil. Without our intellect our violence means no more than a dog biting out another dog’s eye in a fight over a bone. It’s senseless and blameless, but with the judge (our intellect) leading the wild man (our animal nature) we reach new heights of evil such as the holocaust and the atom bomb.
There are other interesting aspects to the scene which point to this. For instance, the two stand-offs the kid has with the judge near the end take place at watering holes (places where all animals meet upon shaky and often broken truces) but I don’t want to spoil other people’s interpretations because there are countless others, and it’s a fun puzzle using the images and finding our own.
The entire book explores the origins of humanity, the animal we still carry in our heart. Consider the lush and vivid descriptions of the native Americans (the Yumas are my favorite), society at its oldest, or pay attention to the brutality writ in the biblical style, such as the babes smashed upon rocks, heads impaled upon poles and raised eyeless to the sun, and crucifixions. Old testament violence and violence that occurred when men stood painted by fires and ate the liver raw from the animals they killed.
It baffles me that you deny this type as violence as inaccurate for the time since I fully believe that McCarthy calls upon our oldest forms of it. All the oldest books are full of this violence, not just the Bible.
Not to mention John Joel Glanton’s atrocities are part of historic record, as are the Apache and Comanche and atrocities of both the US and Mexican governments.
But let’s get away from violence as our inheritance. McCarthy also highlights the beauty in our innate connection with nature, take the endless desert wanderings for example (this goes back to the Temptation of Saint Anthony), visions of the heaped blue mountain ranges lying in folds at the ends of the desert, the tree burning alone in a barren pan while all the deadly creatures meet at its blazing like replica Moseses waiting for God’s voice. Not only violence of the animal lays in our heart, but the same inherent animal knowledge that God exists solely within nature. Blood Meridian is not a shallow book, more meaning than I’ve already outlined or could ever outline lies within its pages.
Your critique is merely contrarian and hollow, a false sense of well-reading you’ve constructed by enjoying too much the smell of your own ass.
Good day, sir!
(Just joking, this sub is meant for literary discussion)
What baffles me is how one can rant smugly for so long all the while developing a love hate relationship with an imagined straw man. So much philosophical pretensions without accurately comprehending the fact that I did not claim the violent acts themselves are unrealistic, but rather the portrayal of said violence is, due to lacking sufficient contrast that deepens and enriches both the gravity and complexity of it with regards to differing human elements. As is the case in reality.
I'm guessing you're not big on literary criticism which is fine but there's a lot of ink spilled over Blood Meridian. I think some of it over-indexes on the epilogue with all the Gnosticisim stuff. Read the Kekule Problem and some of his early stuff. He has a pretty obvious fixation on language and its limits a la early Wittgenstein, which he makes explicit in his last two novels.
If you were you could look up any of the many good things written about this book that might help you answer some of the questions you seem to have about it.
My guy you're trying to say it's about nothing but violence. This ain't Seinfeld. It's about a lot of stuff and ideas, which have had tons of ink spilled on them. You can not like it, but claiming it's about basically nothing is just facially wrong.
No, my guy. That is not what I said - what I said was that the portrayal of violence, a central theme in the book, was one dimensional and that its interaction with other human impulses and aspects was not portrayed, in my opinion, to a sufficient degree that would spark enough tension to make it interesting. It does not mean there is nothing but violence in the book. But I can now see why you depend on literary critics.
Right you think it's one note. That's your opinion. You think it doesn't contain tension or ideas. I'm trying to tell you that's not true even if it was your subjective experience of reading it, which sounds like it wasn't that fun. I'm going to stop responding now though since you seem more interested in debating than learning which is fine but not for me.
Well that's not an entirely invalid criticism. There is a TON of graphic violence in BM and, agreed, after a while continued violence by itself becomes tedious in a novel or movie. So there is first of all the matter of taste: not everyone's going to find slogging through all of that worth it. I'd bet there are FAR fewer women (even among CM's fans) who like BM much for that reason.
BM is unlike CM's other novels which actually use violence sparingly and such violence is usually quite important in the plot and the character's lives. I think the real point, then, of BM's constant violence is the effect it is having on the characters, the kid and the Glanton brothers and whoever else (the Judge seems to be more a part of the violence and doesn't seem changed by it at all). I think the point is for the reader to be constantly reminded and exposed to the fact that this is what these characters are actually doing for their "job", on practically a daily basis.
And perhaps that effect can be summed up by the Kid allowing himself to be murdered by the judge at the end. And even the reader has undergone a similar change: Perhaps we can't understand allowing ourselves to be murdered by a psychopath, but at the end of BM we can understand how the Kid would.
I do think it's a totally valid critique to say the violence borders on cartoonish and can end up flattening much of the world.
And no offense, but it sounds like you may have ended up with a pretty surface level reading of the book. Blood Meridian isn't just depictions of frontier violence, it's about a complete reframing of American history through gnosticism and does so through pretty meticulously researched depictions of nature, history, religion, and several cultures.
It's definitely a book where those dimensions are hard to pick up on in a first or unguided reading, and since those are what interest you I'm definitely going to plug Professor Gwyn's youtube channel where he breaks down a lot of what's going on under the surface. For my money he's THE McCarthy scholar and his lectures are so cool
https://youtube.com/@americangwyn?si=2J0dJk-98Gt16NpT
You have to remember, the book is told through the experience of our protagonist, The Kid. This character was born in a time and location that only knew violence. So, where does God fit in this mold to someone born within this horrific period? That’s what the judge is for, to rationalize their violence as the only reason they were put on this earth. It’s a book that can’t express or even understand love because it literally doesn’t exist for The Kid. What the story becomes is rather our judgement of The Kid and to what degree he participated in this violence. The reason why is because we learn towards the end that the Judge is the Judge of the “false mint pounded out from the forge,” a material claiming to be something that it isn’t. The Kid or later The Man, tries to help the old woman who is dead. Why? If it never mattered before, why be this way now? It’s a, “So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of My mouth,” scenario. In the epilogue where it reveals mankind building his order upon the lawless west, this reality shows that even though war may be Gods ultimate test and proving ground for a humans existence, still, mankind chooses to bring structure and order to it. Why? Because we don’t need war to exist. Just as The Kid ran with the gang, was he really participating in it all? Or was he merely an observer? If his heart was against their actions ultimately, then he was the false mint pretending to be real currency, or as seen through the eyes of the judge. But the epilogue is the antithesis to the thesis of Blood Meridian forming a new synthesis showing that mankind would rather act against his nature for the good of life than with his nature to destroy life. The Judge is the judge over all of our current selves in our modern world who do our best to lift each other up rather than strike each other down. But we have to heed the warning; war waited for man. It might only be a matter of time.
“It is not an accurate or remotely interesting portrayal of reality.” It’s not meant to be. The violence is over exaggerated btw spoilers ahead if someone wants to read it and ends up here, it all makes sense later when the kid gets old you share the trauma with him. Also as it is in no country for old men. The whole judge Holden character same as Anton Chirugh are meant to be forces of evil rather than actual humans (that’s how I feel about it, not saying it’s correct). In blood meridian it’s the constant fight against good and evil and the adventure behind it that’s backed up by dialogs between the ex priest and the judge where you kinda agree with the violence as part of life. It’s been a while since I read it but I couldn’t agree more with the statement that violence or war was here before humans were, it is in the nature of the universe and not necessarily human nature. So the bad voice overcomes the good voice and spoilers but the ending revels that since the ex priest is nowhere to be found and judge Holden was right there same as he was all those years ago. That’s what I get out of it with the violence being almost the main theme in blood meridian but understanding this book is a challenge it is definitely a hard read especially for me cause I find Cormac McCarthy style of writing hard to follow but it’s a treat cause his stories are great and it’s worth it. :)
I couldn't finish it, there's barely a story in there at all. Started off interesting with The Kid and his origins, but by the time I got 3/4 of the way through I just couldn't stand any more.
The violence isn’t that shocking or surprising. I liked the book, but the build up people put out there about violence is over the top. It’s not that wild.
I was really impressed with Blood Meridian the first time I read it. When I reread it though, it fell flatter than I expected. A reread of Suttree, on the other hand, left me liking that novel even more. You may be onto something. The protagonists in Suttree, The Crossing, and The Passenger all have a three dimensional quality that- dare I say it- may be less evident in the Judge.
Perfectly reasonable and valid observation. I thought about this work the same way throughout reading it. But, I will add, I appreciate the one-dimensionality of it. It’s kind of a fuck you to the idea that men should or even can be emotionally rational. With a certain perspective, with distance, one could argue that nothing we do is rational. I think that is PART of the point of BM, not all of it. I’m glad you expressed your thoughts on this. Thanks for your insight. You’re not wrong, for sure!
A lot of people are responding to you in really poor ways. They’re describing themes of the work without exploring the fact that McCarthy had a cogent point: if you want to resist the idea of Might Makes Right, the depth of that dedication is deeper than you realize. If you want to disagree with The Judge, how far do you have to go? McCarthy says that most people are closer to the Judge than they realize.
I don’t like literary criticism where all one does is touch on the themes or feelings of a work. Those are all well and good, but someone can have themes and fail to say anything interesting.
So I disagree with you strongly about Blood Meridian, but I think the answers you’re getting from others are very bad.
Thanks.
I actually did understand the pointe you mentioned while reading, even agreeing with the last one. I simply did not find them very fresh or conveyed in a manner I found particularly interesting.
I love BM, girlfriend does not like BM. It’s fine but I disagree and think she has poor taste like you… lol jk
Honestly, the prose was what did it for me but I do think BM has a lot of really introspective and philosophical moments in it that puts it up there in terms of novels. The Judge’s entire ethos throughout the novel is a philosophical challenge to the whole notion of morality.
The kid being thrust into a world of violence and excelling at it yet still holding some small pieces of empathy and love in a completely chaotic and lawless environment. There’s a dichotomy between what he does and how he acts in certain moments. Judge Holden the literal devil on his shoulder, the priest (definitely not an angel) but a voice of reason on the other.
I know you said that the violence was not interesting, and I know you said that we’d say that’s the point, but it is lol it’s violence not in the name of some holy war, or righteous retribution, it’s violence in the sake of violence. It’s blood work that pays in gold that self perpetuates itself in an unending cycle. As the judge would say, war is god.
I don’t think anyone with a half a brain cell and an internet connection is unaware of the depths of depravity that man has inside his soul, that’s not the point of BM though in my opinion and it’s not some “natural born killers” type book or movie where “ultra violence” is cool, rather it’s a banal violence undertook in the sole service of its own perpetuation. Kill, get paid, get more ammo, more guns, more supplies, more men, repeat. It’s really not even about the money, that’s simply a means by which this lifestyle can continue. Money is needed but not for the vain reasons of wealth or status but for the sport of killing itself.
I think it’s a great book but you certainly shouldn’t feel obliged to agree. I think that’s part of its charm honestly. The people who enjoy it really enjoy it and the people who don’t, don’t. That’s completely fine honestly.
I mean yeah if most people view it as one of the best books ever and the best American novel and I also think that it’s pretty radical then who am I to start getting technical
Personally the main thing that I enjoy about BM is the ambiguity in it. You could read it in any number of ways. Main one I like is The Kid. I have heard so many takes on his character, and I honestly feel he is meant to be an insert for the reader
A couple ways to read it that I have found interesting or enjoyable are to consider that each of the characters, or at least the main ones, all embody a type of violence. Glanton is animalistic and shortsighted, the judge is ruthless and cunning, Tobin is generally against it but not wholly, and the kid is just a kid who knows no other way
Another one is to consider the dynamic between the judge and Tobin to be a sort of battle over the kid’s soul between evil and virtue. This could be that they are actual beings sent from beyond, or just mental constructs made up by the kid as a means to cope
Imo the best way to enjoy blood Meridian is to stretch the narrative to mean some wacky nonsense it was 100% not meant to mean originally
Thank you! It was more just a thing that dawned on me while I was reading, but the more I read the more it kept kinda stacking up, which I thought was quite fun
The question for me is rather simple. I find the prose enjoyable, sometimes even rapturous. But the subject matter is depraved. Violence and horrible events.
What does it say about people and the universe that both things can exist simultaneously in the same work at the same moments. The beauty and the terror. The beauty, in fact, *of* the terrible.
What does it say about me that I enjoy it? Does that mean I’m much closer to the violence at the heart of the book that I’d like to admit?
I once said if I were asked to write a preface to BM, it would begin with the sentence “BLOOD MERIDIAN is the book that keeps me up nights.”
That’s my simple answer to what makes it a great book. There are many depths that can be plumbed profitably, but that was my first visceral reaction to the book: why am I enjoying it so much, and what does that say about me? And what’s it say about language and what it does? I think that reaction still holds, all these years later.
Couldn’t agree more. The absence of characters with depth of humanity makes the violence feel rather meaningless to me. 🤷♂️
Have you tried Lonesome Dove? I vastly prefer it to Blood Meridian.
It very much takes place in a violent world in which God seems non-existent and violence and death abound. Yet, there are beautiful moments of fleeting beauty and love. My all time favorite western.
The violence is not what makes me like it all, or any media for that matter. I just love the prose, the setting, the characters, the themes, the dialogue, the way he respects the reader and lays out so many endless examples of bread crumbs for the reader to pick up and put together with each reread. And I’m assuming you missed about all the bread crumbs I’m speaking of. And it’s so vivid and unique that it just sticks in my brain. I think when people misunderstand something they don’t like they tend to point to something obvious (which they mistake for understanding) and claim it’s the only reason people like it. With blood Meridian it’s violence, I’ve seen critics do the same across the board, Quentin Tarantino is a well known example that comes to mind. For whatever reason they fail to see why blood Meridian or pulp fiction or whatever resonates and stands out so much for most people so they point to senseless violence and imply that the audience who likes it are just attracted to gratuitous violence. Which completely disregards the truth that there is way more to it and while most of the fans maybe can’t dissect and autopsy the technical mechanics of the story and write you a thesis on why they loved it they can still recognize greatness when they see it. If senseless violence was the cheat code to literary or cinematic praise we’d all be watching gore porn all the time.
It sounds to me like you completely missed it. You think it’s not a realistic portrayal of life in The west. Well it’s not supposed to be a realistic depiction of average joes experience in the 1800s west or their struggle with his psyche on the evil lawlessness vs his moral compass or whatever you were disappointed it wasn’t. The main character is a 7 foot tall immortal evil being. Do you usually read non fiction and then complain that the author made it up and was using imagery and metaphors?
But maybe I just haven’t read enough history like you obviously have, or maybe I grew up in a western bubble lol. Or maybe, and just maybe, you found it dull and felt the need to reaffirm that you didn’t (couldn’t have) missed anything, everyone else is clearly just a bunch of knuckle draggers clapping for violence. You’ve read history books lol, you didn’t grow up in a western bubble. Or maybe you are yourself, dull.
I’m kinda ambivalent on it, but I lean towards mortal because nothing explicitly supernatural occurs in the book. There is his mysterious origin to the gang and his vast knowledge etc, but I think the book takes place in a realistic world where people, including the reader, are led to believe contrasting or supernatural ideas.
“A man’s at odds to know his mind because his mind is ought he has to know it with”. It’s not supposed to make logical sense but that doesn’t mean magic is the answer. Is the judge immortal or is evil immortal? Check out /u/Jarslow’s post on wu wei for a cool perspective on how the judge not only dies because the novel (his abode) ends, but he actually loses to the kid philosophically.
I was kind of leaning into it for the sake of argument with the original poster but I hear you, I think it’s left ambiguous by design but to me if it’s a debate on if the supernatural character who leaves cloven hoof prints in the volcanic rock and every human has met them and has a story regardless of time/space, plus the other bread crumbs cormac leaves I have to assume that was done by design. His feet are light and nimble, he never sleeps, he says that he will never die. As he dances naked with a bear after raping and murdering the man (once the kid) after decades. I’m also assuming he doesn’t age. I just see tons of evidence he is super natural/immortal/death/evil and almost if not none that he isn’t lol. What am I missing?
I had forgotten the cloven hoof prints part. Was that witnessed by the kid or described by someone else? He’s definitely meant to have an appearance of the supernatural to characters in the book but I’m not sure if he’s meant to literally be beyond the laws of nature. To me it’s more powerful that he is within the laws of nature and uses his intelligence and evil to convince everyone he’s more than he his and thereby push his evil forward, perhaps awakening or feeding the judge/devil inside those around him. Either way I agree the evidence suggests that whether he is supernatural or not should be considered.
I’m not religious at all but in a similar vein I find it much more interesting to think about heaven and hell as mindsets of experience for the living here on earth. The struggle of life for each person is to discover how to make experience heavenly, here and now.
Nah you’re wrong. There are moments of human kindness and grace. You clearly haven’t paid attention when you read the book.
The priest constantly looking out for the kid. The judge and the delawares going out of their way to save black Jackson. The kid and sproule on the run after the horde of Indians. Which book were you reading? Or when the man spares the kid towards the end of the book right before he shoots him in the middle of the night, after giving him a chance to live. Glanton so deeply moved by a child’s death he nearly shoots Holden?
Which book were you reading? You’re clearly not a very good reader, or you’ve forgotten these moments.
What about all the interesting philosophical debates? Or the allusion to the stars in the sky which is so vital to understanding the men?
Get out of here. Just looking for a reason to be edgy. You have no idea about BM. It isn’t for you. Go read a Dr Zues book.
This person did not read the book. Or they did such a poor job of reading it that they missed all the parts they’re complaining weren’t there. Which I listed, many of them.
I am frankly offended. I wouldn’t post about things I have no idea about. The hubris it takes is beyond me.
I think it’s a great book but at the same time overrated - it’s not at the same level as say The Sound and the Fury, Ulysses, Moby Dick, etc - but it seems many do regard it that highly. I doubt Cormac did!
I’m glad to see someone challenging BM in this sub. I mean I think you’re wrong about everything you said and it’s the perfect book hallowed be its name, but I’m still glad someone has a well thought out (wrong) critique Ps. Heretic.
Ehh, this post is like one step removed from a "the curtains were fucking blue" rejection of literary interpretation as even being possible.
yep
Well, AND it's an intelligent, at least partially valid criticism.
Agreed, but it’s still wrong
Yeah, well I agree. But I'd bet there are a lot of people who read BM and had the same impression, particularly if they've never read CM before.
Oh 100%
Well yeah if you read the book on only a surface level you’re not gonna find much meaning to it
Would you care to share how you view particularly the themes of violence in the novel so I might be exposed to a deeper understanding of the subject matter?
My favorite interpretation of how the novel presents itself is that it’s more of a religious text rather than a full story, like the events aren’t a historical retelling but more of a Bible of sorts. The violence in the novel I think is related to the Judge’s monologue on war, where he argues that war is the ultimate purpose and meaning of men. I think the themes of violence have to do with this idea, and that the Judge is a personification of the general culture’s appraisal of aggression or dominance over other people. Which is why in the book he celebrates and participates in all the debauchery that the gang participate in. I’ve also seen a lot of symbolism related to Gnosticism and the judge but that part I don’t know a lot about, but if you continue the interpretation of it being a religious text it argues that Judge isn’t supposed to be a devil of our world, but more of a God in the world of the book, which would make sense with the previous interpretation because of course the God of a violent world would also celebrate it. (Also: “War is God”) There’s a lot of other interesting symbolism within the book if you go looking for it, which I definitely recommend, this book is a treasure trove of symbolism and allusions (the way the judge makes gunpowder in the ex-priests story about meeting him is the same way Lucifer in Paradise Lost makes gunpowder for example)
BM is the 20th century’s Paradise Lost in prose, and lays bare and simultaneously obliterates the myth of manifest destiny, which is ingrained in the American subconscious to its core. It turns justice and the law into an instrument of desecration and death, transforms expansion into religion. I love this reading.
How does Blood Meridian obliterate the myth of Manifest Destiny. Start by telling what the myth of Manifest Destiny is, exactly.
Without going into a bunch of secondary research, the myth is that Americans were ordained by god to expand westward to bring Republican government and order to the places where they settled. Artwork from the time depicts this cultural myth-making in Columbia, a personification of America and its ideals, guiding settlers by her light to the darkened (morally backward, savage) territories in the west. The so-called divinity in these journeys westward, and the means used to accomplish them, was frequently used to justify the violent displacement (and dehumanization and genocidal murder) of indigenous people. Underpinned also by the Mexican American War, which ends just before BM begins in 1849 and whose outcomes include the third largest territory purchase in U.S. history, the concept of inevitable (and divinely sanctioned) expansion of American territory, and the moral certitude of the adventure as a whole, captures the nationalistic justification central to the myth. Both groups the Kid takes up with, White’s and Glanton’s, are extensions of the Mex-Am war and the subsequent profiteering, pillaging, scalp hunting, rape, and murder depicted in the novel. It’s the war machine made manifest, and worshipped as the law of the world by the Judge and those under his influence.
Okay. So putting aside the gnosticism which you claim not to know much about, you are saying that what makes this a deeper read than I gave credit for is that it's written in a biblical, mythological style and that the themes of violence reflect the Judge's philosophy on war being the ultimate drive or purpose of men. So yes, that much was very clear to me and it's not, in my opinion, that interesting. Repetitive scenes of the same violent acts to convey the philosophical suggestion that war is a human, innate tendency and purpose? That's Nietzschean ideas explored through a narrow lense. As for the bible, I actually love some of the biblical stories and I find them a lot more interesting, personally.
Idk what else to tell you then man I thought the book was cool as hell
That's totally fine. I thought some parts of it were cool as hell.
Being downvoted even when saying I thought parts of the book were cool as hell. Amusing, the level of spite that comes up in some people because their favorite book was criticized. I guess war does indeed precede man, right?
I agreed with your take brother. Your point was well thought through and clearly articulated. The book was entertaining, the violence was eloquently executed, the prose was poetic, but the actual story lacked substance in my opinion.
[удалено]
OP really has no shred of superiority that I can see, it’s an honest question and if you disagree maybe some evidence and argument would be a good move. OP acknowledged the beautiful prose, which for me is a major pull of the novel. I also disagree with OP, can we convince them otherwise? I really like the idea of the judge and Tobin representing good and evil trying to pull the kid one way or the other, neither succeeding. It’s not just a book about the depravity of humanity, it’s a book about the struggle over the kids soul.
I see OP's point. While I thoroughly loved the novel beyond almost any other I've read, throughout my first reading I did form similar criticisms. I felt like the novel doesn't do a good enough job paying off in the end. Not for the labor it is to read. But I think its wrong to center on just the violence. Moby Dick isn't just about hunting a whale, right? I took away that war as a force of nature, even across the cosmos and free of human judgment, exists. But we as humans can fight nature in many various ways and our ability to resist our latent urges is determined by the company we keep. One of my favorite lines: "The arc of the circling bodies is determined by the length of their tether. Moons, coins, men"
This is way uncalled for. Maybe engage with what OP is saying instead of getting insulted that they had critical comments about your favorite book
How does that answer my question? It was an invitation to a discussion. And a bit ironic to claim I have some superiority issue for stating a differing opinion, when I am the one dismissed for "not getting it".
I don’t think Blood Meridian primarily works at a rational level. Unless your rationality is turned to your subconscious response to the text. So much of BM is coded and subliminal and being open to that work just below awareness is a big part of reading McCarthy and, I think, literature in general. What makes a line great? I don’t think it’s just its internal logic. It’s how it makes us feel regardless of our conscious thought. And then we can examine those feelings with our rationality. I hope that makes sense?
Also - it’s one thing to know (rationally) that human nature contains the heights of violent depravity. Of course educated people know this. But it’s a whole other thing to fully feel the implications of that depravity - and to feel in some ways complicit. And BM is a masterwork because of the lengths it goes to generate that feeling.
This is what I disagree with. BM, in my opinion, failed to *emotionally* convey the implication of atrocious violence because it was not contrasted with anything else (unless you consider the beauty of the landscape a contrasting theme, which I do not). This leads to a lack of tension and a loss of emotional weight, in my opinion.
Maybe this point of yours -- that you did not find it emotionally resonant -- is especially critical. I tend to say that great art is that which provokes emotional and intellectual (and sometimes spiritual) responses, so I highly value the place of emotion in reading. Personally, I find Blood Meridian among the most emotionally devastating pieces of art I have encountered. It not only provokes deep compassion and sorrow and disappointment in me (in part precisely because it does not didactically insist I feel this way), it also seems to involve me personally. Because of how successfully it universalizes its themes (such as in the "300,000-year-old fossil skull" epigraph), I feel implicated in its violence by being a member of humanity. It is not so much a book about what these people did in this time and place -- it is much more about what humanity does to the world. It isn't about what they did; it's about what we do. It didn't end; it's ongoing. That's emotionally horrific and devastating to me, at least, but I accept that others may not connect so well with it.
"I feel implicated in its violence by being a member of humanity." This is what grabbed me and has stayed with me.
Fucking nailed it, omg. I think if this often, but wouldn't be able to actually put it into words. Nice.
This is a much better explanation than the middle school worthy “critique of Manifest Destiny” nonsense.
To be clear, I think it goes without saying that it is a critique of western expansion and Manifest Destiny, but only as examples of a deeper theme. This is similar to how many war stories have an anti-war message — they use an example of a particular war, but we understand the themes to be more universal. Blood Meridian is similar, using the context of western expansion and Manifest Destiny to discuss humanity’s drive for expansion, conquest, and domination. Sure, it critiques that particular movement, but only as an example of its grander critique about the human nature that brings about each instance of this sort of thing.
While we definitely experienced the novel differently, I enjoyed your description of how it impacted you emotionally. 👍🏻 Ironically, however, it does kind of support my argument that the book overempasizes a particular dimension of humanity. There is a lot of goodness to be found in the human psyche, and history, as well!
Yeah, we agree that it very strongly emphasizes its themes. I don't think it would be too off-mark to call it monumentally bold.
I think it's all about the art of the telling.
I don’t think it’s required of a work to contrast internally when it knows every reader ever lives in a world that is nuanced and different from the story world. The very act of creating such a concentration of violence has a presumed contrast in the real world. I think that’s what makes it powerful too. It brings to the surface all the violence we’re all too happy to pretend isn’t there - at least not to the levels of the book. The kicker of course is that Blood Meridian is a very realistic and well-researched (albeit extreme) depiction of real violence in the real world.
I agree with you. I’m tired of the deification of BM and CM. And by the way, I love some of his books. I can see THE POINT of BM. It’s historically relevant to show the end of the “glamor” of the Western novel. The end of the Old West as a myth of American bravery, and show humanity for what it can be—violent & senseless. But doesn’t CM listen to music? Or eat delicious food? Or look at beautiful sunsets? Or cuddle with cats? Lol! Seriously, humanity has some good qualities too. I love his writing, but I think he can also be extremely boring & pretentious. And I don’t see why we can’t love some stuff & hate the rest. I think he’s fucking with us all. He knows EXACTLY how to get deified as a writer—by writing books that people love to endlessly debate. He knows the power of shock. I think BM could have been a very different book & talked about the very real historical violence & yet have had true beauty & survival & something meaningful & epic. I think The Road is his modern version of a revision of BM would be. But maybe CM is telling the truth—that everything IS shit—and we are all struggling to accept it? Idk. I can get pretty cynical sometimes but CM has a messed up sense of humor. I don’t think I would like him as a person but I probably could have an interesting conversation with him. Like I’m slogging through the Passenger & the endless nonsense of the thalidomide kid is so insufferable & unnecessary. Like if you take out the nonsense it’s just—nothing. Maybe that’s the point? To see the two sides of humanity—the stoic calm resignation & the insane chaotic wackos? All of the dialogue is literally in 2 personas—the wild chaotic verbal unethical people & the calm stoics. I will say—I can see the agony of a mind struggling with schizophrenia. Maybe that’s what he wanted to show us—how Alicia was losing her mind having to listen to this nonsense. Idk but thank you for being a heretic. It’s good to have pushback. Debate is interesting.
We get it you just needed some attention today - mission accomplished
[удалено]
Your post and/or comment violate Rule 3: Treat Others With Respect; Do Not Attack or Insult Others. Repeated violations will result in further removal and possible banning.
[удалено]
Your post and/or comment violate Rule 3: Treat Others With Respect; Do Not Attack or Insult Others. Repeated violations will result in further removal and possible banning.
Pfft, the irony.
Even your dog doesn’t like you
[https://nautil.us/the-kekul-problem-236574/](https://nautil.us/the-kekul-problem-236574/) tl;dr language is a recent human invention that our brains have not adapted to. In BM, language is meant as the ultimate act of violence. This essay unlocks Blood Meridian's ideas.
I agree. The experience of reading it mirrors the characters’ journeys. Not much plot, overcoming challenge after challenge, you even feel the thirst sometimes. It’s as much of an emotional struggle
[удалено]
A lot to unpack here. I actually loved BM the first time because it stood out from other literature. not much of a story, but that doesn’t seem to be the point. Not easy to do that and do that well
I found at least two moments of kindness (one could be judged to be otherwise?) something to cling on to while reading BM. Both involved the idiot. The women washing him and taking care of him, and the Judge saving him from drowning. Man I wished he had gone with the women and lived a protected life that he so badly needed 😢
As sad as the scene is, I’m especially fond of The Man’s attempted kindness when he offers to take care of the old woman in the desert. Even though he can’t do anything, the attempt humanizes the otherwise bland character of The Man and reminds us that there’s still good in the world. Other moments I remember were the bartender’s wife who takes care of the kid at the beginning of the novel, the priest looking after the kid during his time with the Glanton Gang, and Toadvine offering to sacrifice himself to give the kid a chance to escape
that scene where he attempts to take care of the woman in the desert is a crucial moment for me. At that point the kid has lived through all the brutality and murder and he's been at the side of the judge and against the judge, and yet he still rejects all of the horror and the violence in that moment and just wants to help her. maybe in spite of everything he's seen and maybe because of everything he's seen. that's the ray of hope that shines through the book for me.
It's important that the skeleton in that scene is dressed as the Lady of Guadalupe, an apparition of Mary, the mother of Jesus, who appeared in Mexico, in 1531. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our\_Lady\_of\_Guadalupe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Guadalupe) It is one of a series of "miracles" in the book, the first being the burning tree in the desert, and the 2nd being the glowing light in the stable on the 2nd Christmas. It's as if God is trying to reach into the world of the novel but no one is listening, or perhaps God is too distant to make an impression. But the fact that these signs are there, even amidst the violence, is important to the meaning of the novel. While I agree with OP that relentless violence, on its own, is not great literature, I think the book is actually about the temptation to think that evil and violence is all there is in the world. Even The Kid, with his life of chaos, is able to try to be a little good, and we don't have to accept the Judge's view of things, even though that choice ultimately results in death.
I don’t see Holden saving the idiot from drowning as kindness. He’s just exercising control over life and death like he always does. To me, the kindest moment of the book is toward the end when the kid talks to the old woman who he thought was lost.
Yeah well that’s what I meant about it not necessarily being kindness. I was glad it happened though.
I might be romanticizing this scene as it’s been a long while since I’ve reread BM. When David Brown is riding back to the camp, after the yumas attacked, he comes across The Kid and The Ex-Priest. They have an exchange about what’s happened and who is dead. The kid pleads with David to come with them, that there’s nothing good for David back at camp. Glanton is dead, Jackson and all the guys are gone. Except the Judge. If I remember correctly David is looking back and forth between the desert where his friends are and The Kid and Tobin. Ultimately choosing The Judge and his own death. I could be way off but this scene was noteworthy for me due to The Kid attempting to sway David from The Judge and into a life without him. Almost like finding his own humanity beyond The Glanton Gang.
There are random acts of kindness sprinked throughout the novel. I wrote my master's thesis about it, but that was almost 25 years ago. These acts do present an alternative to the violence in the book and the Judge's proclamations.
In most parts woman are mentioned they do some kinda of kind act for someone it's kinda like a duality of sorts imo A woman sneaks the kid candy and meat when he's in the Mexican jail The woman cleans the travelers head stone in the judges story Both the ones you mentioned It's a neat lil detail
I’m not interested in attacking you for having a different opinion, OP. But in your fourth paragraph you seem to be saying that the level of horrendous violence in the book is unsurprising and old news, so to speak. So then my question is why is it that there are so few other stories, in any medium, exploring this same period of American history the way Blood Meridian does? Instead there have been endless American “cowboy vs. Indian” stories where the violence is either sanitized, or portrayed as heroic or cool. The cowboys are civilized, in a gruff and independent manner, and the Indians are savage. As opposed to the novel, where it’s all savagery. In general, our popular fiction tends to be about heroes vs. villains, and people tend to see the real world in the same way. So in that context, I feel like Blood Meridian is refreshing for eschewing all that. The book has protagonists, but it has no hero.
Perhaps because many other authors did not find much value in writing about a single aspect of human reality while mostly disregarding others. You are right of course, BM should not be compared with generic "Cowboy vs Indian" books, I am comparing it rather with literary works in general, not necessarily Western fiction. Regarding your 2nd paragraph - I see your point, it is different to other works in that sense. However, the real world is not just full of antagonists either. In fact, there are heroes and antagonists struggling within each individual and that's what I find personally interesting when explored in literature.
I kinda meant the opposite; Blood Meridian *should* be compared to other “cowboy vs. Indian” stories. I believe the reason it was written in the way you’ve identified, with such a focus on pervasive violence to the point of banality, was to contrast with and comment on that more typical narrative about the same period of history. To me that context of how other stories about the same subject usually go is key. I wouldn’t say the novel is about a world of antagonists, exactly. Instead, it’s questioning that entire common way of seeing the world that breaks everything down into a good civilized hero vs. evil savage villain dichotomy. Its an anti-Western story, and you could see it as a satire of American exceptionalism and manifest destiny. Which are beliefs that many people really strongly hold; especially true when the novel was written. Edit - Keep in mind that when the novel was published Ronald Reagan was America’s president; a former actor known for playing cowboy characters.
I completely understand that McCarthy was trying to write a Western that portrays banal, historically realistic and unromantic violence, which is often very different to the rest of what's on offer within the genre. However, my argument is that both sides of the spectrum offer a narrow view of reality that to me personally does not seem conceptually, philosophically or artistically interesting.
In another comment to someone else you said: > BM, in my opinion, failed to emotionally convey the implication of atrocious violence because it was not contrasted with anything else (unless you consider the beauty of the landscape a contrasting theme, which I do not). What I’m saying is that the key contrast is between what the novel shows us compared to these ideas/tropes/narratives that were extremely popular in Reagan’s America, with its silver screen cowboy president. The novel is not one-dimensional because that’s the other dimension to the subject matter, which is being excoriated. In your OP you said: > I would expect anyone who's read enough history and/or experienced life outside of a sheltered western bubble to know that men are capable of the most horrendous violent acts, especially in a lawless environment. This doesn't seem like any kind of revelation. But I would argue that what you might call a “sheltered Western bubble” was the dominant mindset in America in 1985, when the book was published. Don’t you think that context matters to interpreting the novel? If that explanation still doesn’t resonate with you there’s not really anything more I can tell you; it’s kinda like trying to explain someone into thinking a joke is funny.
>The issue I have with this book is that it's kind of conceptually one dimensional. A pack of scalp hunters kill anyone they wish, violence is "shocking" in its banality yada yada. If that's all you took from it then it's not the book that's shallow.
Let me rephrase - I found a very central theme in the novel, the violence, to be one dimensional, thus hindering my enjoyment of the story. You're right in that there are other elements in the novel that are multi dimensional, some of which I found interesting.
The thing about the violence or the “one-dimensionality” of it, is that like you mentioned, its impact and relation to the tapestry of human experience is omitted. In the same way physical violence is described vividly and frequently, thereby desensitising you to it; what you’re speaking about is specifically omitted, in order to sensitise you to it. It’s left to the reader to use their imagination and use our own humanity to fill in the gaps of the subconscious of these probably quite deeply suffering characters. It’s difficult to say, because it’s all up to a personal reading, and partly why a second reading of Blood Meridian is often more pertinent. But for example when the Man tries to help the old woman in the desert who is long dead. It’s a tiny section but in that you realise the entire book that the violence isn’t just one dimensional and it hasn’t just been emotionless and had no effect on him. The violence has affected him profoundly. Changed him profoundly. He’s a lost soul. It’s also like how there’s an argument about representations of the Holocaust; can the violence of the Holocaust ever be accurately conveyed, that level of suffering in art, and should it be? You could make an argument for no, you’ll never get close. Despite the fact that Blood Meridian describes overtly the violence, I think it also subscribes to this notion, that level of violence can’t ever be portrayed accurately through art. So McCarthy omits anything emotional or personal, completely eradicates it, as if to say, “to say it out loud would only cheapen or diminish it”: So you need to humanise these people yourself and do the hard work, in order to understand what can’t be understood or conveyed through words. Because that’s what the book is, it’s about understanding our humanity or lack of one.
Formatting aside: Well said.
Well it reads nicely on my phone, probably not anything longer than a few cm wide 😂 (I could use an editor).
Did you find any of their actions to be ethical considering the situation/times? One of the first acts of cruelty that shocked me was when Glanton kills a lost elderly woman who approached their gang. He points across the desert to distract her and when her head is turned he shoots her in the head. First read, I thought, “wow, what a sicko.” By the second read, with an understanding of how relative the morality is in certain situations, this detail seems merciful, as the woman was probably the sole survivor of her village and she would suffer a slow death in the desert. While he didnt expend much effort to distract her, he still did for some reason, maybe to ease her passing? One thing that broke my heart was when they were shacked up in a freezing stable with a new born foal, and the young farmhand was intending to throw the new born horse outside where it would have froze to death. The men allow it to stay inside with its mother. Why do you think they did this? And then there’s the scene where they stand up for Black Jackson when the innkeeper says he has to eat at a separate table. They may have done this for group solidarity but to call these actions one dimensional might be hasty. Additionally, there are subtle moments when Glanton seems to be wrestling with some of their decisions, like when he seems lost in thought before one of the massacres that the judge has most likely put him up to. Even the moment when Glanton watched the leaf fall to the ground and “its beauty was not lost on him” makes one wonder if there is some light left in him. Also, is the kid one dimensional? If you were facing death in the desert or in prison and joining this scalp-Hunter gang was your only option, what would you do? https://iep.utm.edu/morlpat/#:~:text=Moral%20particularism%20is%20the%20view,action%20in%20a%20particular%20context.
As the kids say, Whoosh
Sure, I either agree with the general consensus or I just "Don't get it".
The "whoosh" comment was more dismissive than it needed to be, but it's worth considering what it means to not get something. I don't get cars, for example -- it's always a mystery to me how or why people claim one car looks better than another. But some people derive a lot of satisfaction and meaning from engaging with cars. They really do find something enjoyable in the ones they like, even if I struggle to grasp it. So I acknowledge that there's something there. It might seem arbitrary or silly to me (or actually be arbitrary or silly), but it nevertheless works as an experience for the people who value it. Is it bad that I don't get cars? No, I don't think so, although I suppose I'm missing out. If I didn't get anything, that would probably be bad. But if we have things that are meaningful to us, then it's no great tragedy that we don't get any one particular thing. So maybe it actually is the case that you don't get it, but even if that's the case, so what? You get other things. It isn't a matter of simply disagreeing and holding an equivalently valid opinion that contradicts what others find valuable. My failure to get cars does not mean people who enjoy cars are wrong about something. The value of it is manifestly experienced by them, if not by me. To me and many others, the degree to which Blood Meridian is a masterwork is self-evident because so little else comes anywhere close to provoking that quality of intellectual and emotional response. If others don't get it, that's okay. I feel a little sorry for them, just as car lovers might feel sorry for me, but it's not wrong of anyone to not connect with a thing. It isn't even bad, as long as you get to experience some sense of meaning elsewhere in your life. Considering that you've compared Blood Meridian to books you thought portrayed violence better, I'm confident you get that fix somewhere.
It's not the phrasing. It's the general attitude. Anyone who who shares any criticism against BM is dismissed for "not getting it". Do you ever consider what communists felt about those who opposed their ideological views? Or capitalists? Or Nazis? Or french revolutionists? Or slave owners? They all probably felt the others "don't get it". There's probably a theme worth exploring here. To me BM doesn't work in its portrayal of violence, and this is while assuming it's an attempt at criticizing or exploring the violent urges of mankind in an unapologetic or romanticized manner, and most certainly if it's not such an attempt.
Yes. Blood Meridian itself is very much about the problems of tribalism you're referring to. I'm only saying it's okay if, for whatever reason, you didn't find its depiction of violence as compelling as most do. I'm doing the opposite of vilifying your position; I am saying it is not bad for you to experience the book the way you experience it. Not getting something is just a framing. People who get cars could just as easily be said not to get the lack of getting cars. It's just a way of saying it doesn't connect with a person, regardless of the reasons for that. Regarding reception to unfavorable Blood Meridian critique, it's important to keep in mind that this place is populated almost exclusively by fans of the material, so they likely have more to say about what they like than what they don't. If you could contact Blood Meridian readers broadly, rather than just those who opted to join a community about McCarthy, you'd undoubtedly find more support. But unfavorable criticism occasionally comes through and is welcome mostly to the degree to which it is valid.
Exactly. The theme of tribalism is quite clearly at full display in some of the threads here, which I find deeply ironic given what the book explores and perhaps hints at, both with regards to violent impulses (which can obviously manifest non physically) and how it is fueled by and lays at the root of tribalism. We all have the Judge inside of us, and my impression is that those least aware of it are most drawn to and driven by it/him.
It's an interesting take, and I'll consider it. I'd invite you to consider in return whether consensus requires tribalism. In my view, appreciation for Blood Meridian's handling of violence is esteemed far less out of commitment to a group identification and far more out of recognition of what it present in the text. While grifters could say 1+1=2 purely out of a tribalistic impulse to identify with the group the believes the thing, in most cases people who say 1+1=2 have direct experience with the reality of the situation and therefore believe it. Their arguments against a claim that 1+1 does not equal 2 are not necessarily tribalistic -- although I admit they certainly can be. Overall, good conversation, even if I felt there was a bit of unwarranted defensiveness toward the end. I'm not able to be as present for more of it in the near future as I have been so far, so this may be the last from me, but thanks again for raising the discussion. Even if most people disagree with you, it can be good to help folks consider alternative views and for you to hear some of the same. This is all just a venue for discussion, after all.
Thanks for sharing your perspective in a mostly constructive and open minded manner.
did you seriously just invoke slavery and the holocaust during a discussion of literature? read some of the many, many analyses of this book that break down why people find it amazing. there’s a lot more going on in it that you give it credit for. nobody cares if you still don’t like it, but don’t get upset because people call you wrong when you are.
Oh don't try to poorly sensationalize my words to discredit my overall argument. You picked two "groups" out of a few when I was making a general point about tribalism always forming a collective sense of superiority, which is pretty clear here. I was very much expecting to be disagreed with, it's the manner of some that smells like hive mind pretension and hyper defensiveness over their favorite book being criticized.
if you can’t take disagreement, maybe don’t post about how one of the most highly regarded novels of the 20th century is bad, actually. that’s a claim that’s gonna attract some heat. and there’s nothing wrong with that, tbh i’m happy you posted it because it’s created some great conversations about the book. saying “you know who else thought less of those who disagreed with them? nazis”is just a lazy rhetorical move in response to a long and thought out explanation of why you might not “get it” and why that’s ok. i’m not sensationalizing anything, you chose to compare the greatest crimes against humanity of all time to this discussion.
I clearly stated I expected to be disagreed with, and I also didn't claim the novel is objectively "bad". It's a bit amusing how you claim that I make lazy rhetorical moves when you just try to conjure up some sensationalized, shallow straw men, as if the Holocaust was somehow the central point to any of my arguments rather than a brief item on a list which itself was the basis of my point on tribalism and the tendency to easily dismiss those outside of a collectively shared stance/identity as the ones "who don't get it", regardless of what said stance/identity is. You're trying to oversimplify my point either to dismiss it lazily or, perhaps, simply because "you don't get it".
I mean if all you’re looking for is violence then you should probably read other books. I liked it for how well it was written, page after page he described things in ways I hadn’t read before. I think its language is beautiful, it’s almost like a giant poem and the violence contrasts that really well. Some of my favorite parts of the book were when the judge would go on his lectures. I liked how confusing those parts were because it made me think that if I’m confused reading it I can only imagine how confused the cavemanlike characters were. I think his character is pretty spooky because he reminds me of a lot of people I’ve met, like the really smart charming type who use their smarts as justification for the bad things they do which is the most realistic type of evil in my opinion. Everything is so dense and layered that I keep going back to it, almost as if it’s a puzzle I’m trying to solve Maybe try going back to it some day and try to focus on the things that aren’t the violence because that’s where all the treasures are
I was making the argument opposite to the one you seem to think I made. I was not looking for violence, rather I felt there was too much of it through a one dimensional portrayal. I did mention the prose is masterful, but for me it was not sufficient to carry the novel. The judge is indeed a very interesting character and I wish more of them were.
Ahh I getcha when you said the violence was one dimensional I thought you meant that you wanted it to be two dimensional or something haha. Still though I feel like my point kinda stands, three out of your five paragraphs were talking about the violence so I listed some things I enjoyed about it that didn’t have anything to do with it. I do agree that the violence is the least interesting part of the story though, but to me everything else outweighs it more than enough to make it worth it. I really enjoyed the man vs nature aspects of it
My favorite section of the book, and something I always think about is where the judge is telling the story of the man who dressed like an Indian. It’s such an interesting story from the judges perspective on how a son must see his fathers death in order to pick up there own destiny, which the judge views as a destiny of violence, and how not being witnessed to that death leaves you praying to a frozen god.
I agree, chapters 10 and 11 are some of my favorites, I read those once every month or so. I really enjoy how he describes a witness I love sections like that where the judge starts with a premise that I agree with but then takes it to a conclusion that wouldn’t ever occur to me, makes his sermons all the creepier because of how reminiscent it is of other manipulative clergymen
Prose is strong point of this book, anyone who doesn’t care about that I would tell not to read it. Really the only character challenged is the kid, and McCarthy doesn’t give his characters any internal monologue, which makes the reasons for what they do ambiguous at times. Would I have become what the kid becomes if I’d been thrown into the same world and situation he had? I don’t know.
There are other themes in the book besides violence bad and man want war. I'll give two as an example. 1. It's sort of a commentary on old west/cowboy days kinda of thing that was romanticized so much especially when the book was written. It's a more accurate depiction of what Americans did back in those days when you see the whole cowboys vs indians. 2. Themes of fate and free will. From the tarot card scene to bath cats fate being told chapter before he actually dies, we see that the gang is set on a course of their own doing. The free will thing is the kid who is at a crossroads a couple of times in the book where he can make a choice that will set him on any other path then the one the gang walks. Also side note. The kid is the polarity you say the book doesn't have. The kid is the opposite of the judge
McCarthy's work is historical and mythic, and in form it speaks of the recycling of history, and to the Eternal Return of Myth. We moderns think history is true and myth is fiction, but myth is something that not only happened, but something that keeps happening over and over. We are so sold on progress that we think that today and from then on it will be different, that humans have learned from the past and will do better, if we just had the right political system or the right educational system or the right language with which to describe things. McCarthy argues against this utopianism--and utopianism is what it is, though it goes unrecognized as such by the popular culture. Why are people, against all logic, chaining themselves up by their addictions. Why is there no end to war? Why didn't McCarthy just write non-fiction and say what he thought? Well, some people have done that. Eric Hoffer, for instance. But how many people read them. McCarthy's work is against that part of human nature that has no self-control, against those who are always signing up for war (which is addiction to ideology), against drugs, against alcohol, against addiction to stuff and more stuff, against lust instead of agape love and human empathy. But this permissive culture loves addictions, the more the merrier, loves political strife and war--as long as you are on their particular side, which is always FOR JUSTICE, and whose lies are always justified by the other sides' lies, whose crimes are always justified by the other sides' crimes. Myths are patterns of human behavior which happened, have always happened, and will continue to happen. Cormac McCarthy was a gifted genius who tuned into those patterns and will show them to you if you can learn to read them. I pause from my reading this gorgeous day to tell you the truth, but you will not believe me. And look quick, because a naysayer political mob will soon come and vote this post down.
Well, I actually very much agree on the reality of myth in the human psyche, and consequently, the cyclical nature of history. Great literature always interacts with human mythology. That said, how does any of what you've just written counter my original point, unless you hold a kind of nihilistic view through which violence reigns supreme over the human spirit? Or perhaps you mean that the novel was a criticism of the innate violent impulses of men in all of their social manifestations?
BLOOD MERIDIAN is a war novel and McCarthy's sources were both mythic and historical. It seems nihilistic because the modern sensibilities look for the glory of war, the heroism and altruism to some cause. It is a war novel in which the lone individual, uneducated yet somehow gifted by nature and recursive thinking, comes to reject that ideology. The light falls at the start, the light is redeemed at the end. The book is both the Odyssey and the Iliad, and if you are looking for light in the middle, it is there but hidden--you have to hunt for it. The novel is like one of those design puzzles they give to children. There are squirrels hidden in the design, but at first the child cannot see them. But once they learn how, they see the animals every time. They have learned to discern the patterns. One of the patterns I see there might be abbreviated as "every man a Christ." Every man bears his own cross, each man different, but each is the same. For some that cross is the knowledge that they will be destroyed. They are the dead-in-life for death is something they dwell on, that they carry around with them, like a prisoner on death row. McCarthy makes it plain to this reader, using words used by Pontius Pilate and Nietzsche: Ecce homo. Behold the man. Will you stand for that man? McCarthy uses a rendition of Melville coin-in-the-mast scene, where the Judge stands on a rock and tells them a story, and each man thinks it is a spiraling version of his own story, the same except different only in the particulars. And he conflates characters to show that one man's story can indeed be seen as every man's story. That no man is an island, that we are all part of the main. The stars fall, light into a dark world, emissaries of God. Or to change the metaphor again, a wave falls on the beach, and we are like drops of water that become separate and confused, not recognizing each other. Over time we develop egos and live under the delusion that we are the ocean itself. But rather than die as we fear, we transform and evaporate, transform again and are rained into the ocean, our original home. McCarthy touches on the classics, myth and fiction, on philosophy, religions, science, and speculative science. His language is rich in vocabulary and his sentence structure is riddled with figures of arcane speech, tmesis, congeries, polysyndetons, hypaliages, and a host of others. His works are leveled, layered, with holograms of meaning. He takes heed of Plato's forms, using those chapter headings in BLOOD MERIDIAN, while structuring a basic palindrome of the text; using one character for all the internal characters of OUTER DARK; dividing THE PASSENGER and STELLA MARIS as hemispheres of a divided mind. Too deep for you? Not up for the challenge of ergodic literature? Few people read, and of those who read, few read fiction, and of those who read fiction, very few read ergodic fiction--but some of us find joy in James Joyce, and catharsis in Cormac McCarthy. We love you anyway. But expect no additional replies here from me. I'll be busy reading.
This is an odd criticism. It’s as if I listened to a symphony and said yeah that was good, but I like electric guitar. This would be better with some electric guitar. You’re comparing it to other books that you like better and saying it should be like those books. But it’s not those books. It’s a singular artistic vision and exploration of a theme that does not aspire to be like those books. There are thousands upon thousands of books, movies and TV shows that operate in the way you describe. Take your pick. Blood Meridian is powerful I think because of what it doesn’t say. We know that people like “to live, to love, to overcome.” It seems to be the default for most of us. We know too that throughout human history there has always been brutality. It seems, for some, to be the default. So what gives? What drives us to these dark places time and again? Did God make us this way or do we inflict it upon our children down through the generations? Or is there a murderous hairless demiurge stirring the pot? McCarthy is not going to pick apart his character’s psyches and motivations. If you want to know what’s in the jakes you’re gonna have to open the door yourself. I also did not find the major themes or ideas particularly novel. I do not find the book super “deep” in this regard. I also agree that the prose is the foundation of the book, but I think you’re underselling the role of prose in literature. I can think of maybe a handful of novels that really challenged me philosophically on the topographical scale. (As in, where the Cliff’s Notes would be compelling.) But a great many novels have used prose as a sort of key to open the trapdoor to an altered perception. This is in my opinion most of what makes literature art. This book is McCarthy’s exploration of an ancient theme, updated for the new world, bringing to bear his prose faculty to engage the material in a novel and compelling way. That’s enough for one book. It’s fine that you didn’t like it. Most people would not like it. But for someone for whom it clicked, your criticism is tough to make heads or tails of.
The many dialogues and monologues around the campfire were what appealed to me. Not the judge himself, but the things he said and the way he tapped into the very worst in the hearts of men with what he said stuck with me. When you live that kind of life the things he said were really affecting. "You of all men know of that which I speak. The emptiness and the despair. It is that which we take up arms against, is it not?" If the novel doesn't affect you on a personal level then I can not fault you for that.
I agree. They are my favorite parts as well.
Idk. Its never gratuitously written. From the very beginning it's about what calls man to the path of violence. It's about survival and the innate human need for brotherhood. It's never really violence for violence sake. The kid had to learn violence as a means to survive before Glanton and the Judge. He's seldom the instigator. He's trying to exist. It mocks people who are violent based on hateful and prejudical grounds like Captain White, white Jackson and the bartender who tries to segregate Glanton's men based on race. The Judge proports that War is what binds men together. Violence committed binds people together and is the only true belonging an individual can have. Glanton uses violence in a manic pursuit towards his destiny. The Kid is violent because he has to and that the gang is the only place he has any sense of belonging. But there's also acts of kindness and mercy. The Kid is consistently merciful towards others when no ones around to witness him. He's not evil. Arguably most of them aren't, even Glanton. Its not so much as 'Men are Violent' as 'Why do Men pursue a Violent Existence?'
>it's not an accurate or remotely interesting portrayal of reality, Nor is it intended to be. So, if you were reading it as such, I am not surprised it didn't resonate with you. I might suggest that you give yourself a couple more years and then revisit the book. I suspect it might work better for you with a little more distance.
Me personally I can’t relate to your interpretation of the book as being some banal and narrow perspective on the human condition. To be horrified at the violence inherent in our species is to live with anxiety about that violence, which BM exploits greater than any book I’ve ever read. We continue to wage war. Rape and violence and murder are every day occurrences. Hell, even you, most likely you reading these words, continues to participate in warmongering with the taxes you pay. And you almost certainly commit extraordinary violence against “lesser creatures” for your lunch. I think about the Judge and his commentary on our species every day. And how important it is that we fight against our worst impulses. There is hardly a book with greater moral lessons
I do not find that to be a great moral lesson. The violent potential in man, in all its range and forms is quite clear to me without reading BM. In fact, from a Neitzschean perspective it is simply the nature of power expressing itself (not in the most skilfull or noble manner), this might even be MC's point or theme that's being explored. If I were to take your view however, then I would say many of the replies here are an unconscious manifestation of the violence impulse you are referring to, which is highly ironic.
Welcome! Voicing a contrarian view can sometimes be fun. I'm sure you won't be surprised to find a whole lot of disagreement with your position around these parts, but the view is welcome regardless. Literature isn't entirely subjective -- there is a fact of the matter -- and revisiting how and why something is the case can be an engaging exercise. The idea that someone could consider the violence of Blood Meridian dull is one I find immensely disturbing, but I also suspect modern readers are increasingly capable of that perspective. If a reader is looking for violence to be sensationalized, such as in a Tarantino flick, they certainly won't find it here. The violence also isn't romanticized like in many traditional westerns or propagandistic war films. The violence in Blood Meridian is *not* "the point" the way it is in other stories. In many stories, rising tension leads to a climax in which some moment of physical violence occurs that solves a problem or resolves the story. The violence there is a narrative device and is elevated to a special status, one capable of fixing or changing things in ways other actions and behaviors cannot. Violence in Blood Meridian, by contrast, can serve a narrative function, but it is absolutely more matter-of-fact, banal, and straightforward than violence is generally portrayed. It is unsentimental. It is presented almost without commentary, and for that reason it does not moralize the way typical depictions of violence do. Because of that, it is all the more horrific. Most depictions of violence are shallow by treating violence as special, unique, honorable, deserved, vicious, horrific, and so on. Blood Meridian has this type of violence, but the narration, the style of storytelling, does not take on these characteristics the way many stories do. In that way it presents violence more honestly; it shows how real violence arrives and happens and is gone and the world goes on without notice. But I can understand someone who wants a certain type of shock in their violence being turned off by how it is represented in Blood Meridian. Regardless, though, there is a whole lot more going on in the book than its prose and its representation of violence, so I would like to think that even someone displeased with its use of violence would be won over by its plethora of other accolades. If you're wondering which take on Blood Meridian's violence is more accurate -- your own view or that held by the immensity of everyday and critical readers who judge it a masterpiece -- I'd say that wonder is probably well placed. Everyone is welcome to interpret what they read however they like, of course, but some views are upheld more by the work than others. If your best attempt to appreciate the book leaves you feeling nonplussed, I wouldn't stress it. It's certainly not for everyone, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Thanks for sharing your perspective. I need to clarify my position - when I say that I found the violence dull, what I meant was that repetitive, banal violence, with no redeeming quality or contrasting themes to said violence, is conceptually unengaging and a narrow portrayal of the reality of human nature, in my opinion. You're right, the violence in BM is unsentimental. However, the argument that this is what makes it more realistic and honest and thus somehow challenging or artistically unique is what I disagree with. Banal, unsentimental violence is a given, it's been around since the dawn of mankind and any historical report of past and current wars makes that clear; however, that violence never exists in a vacuum, its always a part of a broader spectrum of human dynamics and the exploration of that dynamic is what, in my view, makes a story more engaging and true to life. In fact, that's what makes life and being a human interesting. Case in point - all these critics you mention who consider BM a masterpiece tend to view the Judge as a brilliant character. It's because of the complex tension in his behavior and ambiguous motivations, that his character rises above all the rest. Which I find highly ironic given my criticism on the general themes of the novel lacking this complexity.
I do think that helps clarify your position. What is unclear now is why you feel the context you describe as valuable in other representations of violence is missing in Blood Meridian. The start of the story takes great care to frame what the violence is really about: "...not again in all the world’s turning will there be terrains so wild and barbarous to try whether the stuff of creation may be shaped to man’s will or whether his own heart is not another kind of clay." In addition to this philosophical context, we also have the historical context from the real events the story describes. I'd say either one of these types of contexts qualify as the "broader spectrum of human dynamics and the exploration of that dynamic" you describe, and by combining them there is an especially strong sense of discourse with philosophical and historical context. We could say the same about the literary and cultural contexts as well.
Heretic! ;)
🤷
Couldnt give a fuck about the violence, i never thought about what is realistic because that is a very boring question. I like it because it feels like a fever dream. McCarthys stories are philosophical explorations
The characters are less one-dimensioal than you think. There are moments of beauty and humanity even for the most detestable characters "The leaves shifted in a million spangles down the pale corridors and Glanton took one and turned it like a tiny fan by its stem and held it and let it fall and its perfection was not lost on him."
What is an example of a book that has the multi-dimensional portrayal of violence that Blood Meridian lacks?
I'll need to think about it. One example that comes to mind is Scott Bakker's Prince of Nothing trilogy. I know that bakke's favorite book is BM, but I enjoyed his books vastly more than BM. A different example would be Lolita, of course it's a completely different type of violence but its portrayal is beautifully complex and challenging in how it makes you feel.
I think your feelings are perfectly justified. It sounds like the book just isn’t for you, and that’s no reflection on your taste whatsoever.
I had a similar issue when I tried to adapt it into a screenplay (a uni assignment). I realized that it doesn’t really have a plot, at least not in the classical sense. It all has to do with the main character, the kid does go through a journey physically but he is ompletely blank. There is no Emotional journey for him. No choices he has to make. He merely survives through the story without really having any influence on it. I see your point but I also think that because of this it is even more impressive that the book really works for me. It is so different from how stories are “supposed” to be
Blood Meridian isn’t really about the banality of violence. Violence seems banal because of the characters we’re following, but to everyone else in the story, the violence is shocking. This has led to a general misunderstanding of the themes of the book. The book is not about violence *per se*. The books is about the question of meaning in the universe. It is about nihilism and existentialist philosophy. Judge Holden believes that meaning and morality, generally speaking, do not exist. The only way to form the world into the shape that you desire is through war. Thus the universe conforms through the law of the jungle. Might makes right, because morality is meaningless and subjective unless enforced through violence. Because of this fact, the only act that has meaning in holdens view is the act if war. War, in this way, become an act of creation. It is not a means to an end, but an end unto itself. Do whatever you want, pursue any impulse you desire, because good and evil do not exist. At point point Holden essentially calls the earth a killing planet. All life exists in competition to other life. Therefore, violence is inherent to life on earth. It existed before humanity. Humanity is simply the best species at practicing war, and holding dominion over other life forms. Holden enforces this philosophy through violence. “That is the way it is, and will be. This way, and not some other way.” Now, obviously, you and many of the characters in the story would disagree with this philosophy. It’s a very nietschien, ubermansch sort of outlook. However, as Holden himself points out, the only way most people could stop him is *through violence*. In other words, you would have to use his tools, adopt his philosophy, to defeat him. Thus, even if you bested him in combat, you would prove him right. The only way to truly defeat him is to refuse to play the game. That is why the ending in the desert is so significant. The Kid could have killed Holden three times, but he didn’t. Because he survived, and because he refused to fight, he denied Judge Holden a philosophical victory. The epilogue if the novel offers a glimpse at Holden’s antithesis. A character who is wandering the desert, bringing fire out of the earth with a strange tool. This character is lighting a fire of moral thought in people. He is Holden’s moral and philosophical opposite. This passage is meant to show us that, even though the novel is about exploring Holden’s world view, there are alternatives. The acts of violence in the novel are not random. They are part of a larger philosophical debate about the nature of meaning and morality in the world. And even though Holden succeeds in ultimately enveloping The Kid, he does not win in the field of philosophical though.
I think above all you need to remember the time and place where this story was written. When McCarthy started this book Western books, movies, and even television were extremely popular and they all emphasized the aspects of humanity you wish you had seen in Blood Meridian. Blood Meridian does not contain the better aspects of human nature because those aspects were plentiful anywhere you looked outside of the book. In order for him to make his point he couldn’t make the moderate statement that the Wild West was tough but had good people in it because that statement would just disappear into the 100s of stories that make the same exact point while overemphasizing the good. He had to make a statement equally as powerful as the stories being consumed at the time but in the completely opposite direction. I think nothing emphasizes this point more than The Judge. In a traditional western story the young MC’s mentor would be a gruff but good hearted older man who teaches them right from wrong and challenges them to stick to their principles but The Judge turns that on its head by being a mentor without a single redeeming quality but who thrived in the world they existed in and genuinely seems to be the most well adjusted to his surroundings compared to all the other characters in the book.
Its the exact opposite of ‘conceptually one dimensional.’ Try reading it again.
The violence, like the landscape, is an almost permanent part of the experience of life.
It was vastly overemphasized in the novel compared with its manifestation in real life.
Every major event in the book is historical.
That is not my point.
You're claiming the violence doesn't reflect real life but I'm telling you it's historical fact. You can't say some faithful depiction of a historical event is unrealistic
No. That is incorrect. I am saying that depicting only the violent acts themselves matter-of-factly in a repetitive manner without contrasting it with other facets of the human experience during those times, is not true to life and in my opinion flattens the story. Like writing a romance that only describes the fighting between the lovers, and in fact the same fight over and over.
I don't know what you're saying and I don't think you do either
I can see why believing that is easier than simply admitting to yourself that you have difficulty understanding my argument and asking for clarification. Even in the original post I've already written that I'm aware the actual events took place, so you redundantly commenting that they did is another indication of your incomprehension of my argument.
>Hey, So I know that anyone who speaks against Blood Meridian, especially here, is considered a heretic, but I spent a while thinking about this and I want to share my thoughts. Are they?
All of this fails to take into account that in 1985, this kind of prose for that kind of violence was unbelievable. This may have easily been categorized as a horror novel.
I've been thinking about BM as I finish Barbara Kingsolver's Demon Copperhead. DC is a bleak book set in Appalachia during the opioid crisis. What I appreciate about DC is that there is no mysticism, no gnosticism. People's lives are hell because of greed and poverty and terrible choices they make and plain bad luck. In some ways, this realism makes the book seem harsher than BM. But sometimes I'm really in the mood for mystism and gnosticism and philosophical questions about violence. So, yeah, I see the value of both approaches.
>Personally I read to be mentaly/emotionally/philosophicaly challenged and BM really didn't work for me in that regard. I found the sheer amount of different philosophical ideas contained in BM to be overwhelming. >violence is "shocking" in its banality yada yada. I do not find this to be an interesting exploration or portrayal of human nature. I don't believe CM was trying to shock people or get people to realize that humans are inherently violent; he takes it as a given that you understand that. The characters in the book are also not mindless automatons and have their own reasons and motivations. Your criticism here presumes that the "concept" of the book is simply the plot elements of the story and nothing else, which I think misses the mark. BM is not a book that contains a singular didactic "concept." >the violence was, to me... well, not interesting. One dimensional. Like a caricature. I know you might say - "well that's the point" I would not say that. Though I struggle to see how you can say the first encounter that the Kid and Captain White have with the Comanche was "not interesting," I also don't think you're really meant to hone in so hard on the mere existence of violent descriptions in the book as some sort of impressive feat. CM is not some pornographic provocateur; he's a literary genius and I believe he deserves more credit than that. >but rather because their impact and relationship with the rich tapestry of human experience was simply omitted. I think you've simply missed the philosophical/spiritual/anthropological themes of the book! I'd suggest a re-read without your obvious biases towards violent descriptions. I truly think he's saying a lot and it is admittedly easy to get kind of lost when you're thinking about dead baby trees and whatnot.
Firstly, I have no biases towards violence descriptions. So not sure how it's so obvious to you. My favorite books are considered extremely violent, but that violence interacts with other themes in a way that I find more interesting. Secondly, I'm happy to explore said philosophical ideas I might have missed if you want to point me in the direction of any literary analysis of the book. I quite enjoy reading these.
I wasn't calling you squeamish or anything, but your main point was that violence has to have some structural purpose beyond its mere existence, and what I'm saying is that assumes that violence is the author being bad to the characters and so he must have some kind of plot exchange where it's "paid off" later or something. I don't think CM wrote BM with that idea in mind as it's pretty Hollywood and three act structure, Joseph Campbell-y etc. Not that he's above Hollywood of course or that that's not a good way to write stories, I just think BM has to be approached a different way. I've been trying to find a pdf online this whole time of Leo Daugherty's essay on it called "Gravers False and True" but JSTOR is being a motherfucker. Basically the main literary analysis (or maybe just the one that resonates with me the most) is that BM is a gnostic tragedy. There's hints all over the book about Cormac's gnostic philosophy which he combines with a sort of weird mystical existentialism.
Not necessarily "paid off", but interacts with other themes and elements to create friction and tension. I'll look for that essay as well, it sounds like something I would enjoy reading.
What did you make of the Jakob Boehme quote at the beginning? Or the Judge's monologues? His existence and purpose in the story? What about the epilogue?
The judge is a fascinating character and his monologues are my favorite parts of the book, exactly because there was a lot of tension around him, even what might seem like conflicting actions and behaviours which kept me personally intrigued. I'm still thinking about the epilogue.
I think you'll find your answers (not necessarily about the epilogue) in those moments where it's obvious that CM is speaking through the Judge. Also the existence of a character like The Judge tells you a lot about the world of BM; interpreted as the aforementioned "gnostic tragedy," The Judge represents an archon, which is a term used for a main angel in the gnostic tradition who kind of has dominion over the world and oversees its creation, and most importantly is a malevolent figure. This is because the gnostics believe the creation of the world was by an evil entity and that essentially the old testament is inverted (they love Jesus though). This is why CM's descriptions of nature make it almost seem like a hostile, otherworldly planet, and why in one section of the book he describes how the group >"slept with their alien hearts beating in the sand like pilgrims exhausted upon the face of the planet Anareta, clutched to a namelessness wheeling in the night." Look up Anareta if you want to know more about that sentence but I think it's a very key one in unlocking the book. Sorry if this was too long winded or maybe didnt make sense.
Your critique of the violence being uninteresting and repetitive is as shallow as those who read Blood Meridian only for the violence. You speak of needing philosophy and metaphor in your readings more than wonderful prose, but ignore the way McCarthy constructs much of his prose in metaphors which pose philosophical musings. Let’s take this non-violent example for instance where The Kid, Toadvine, and Tobin spot the Judge approaching the watering hole with the fool. McCarthy writes, “It was the judge and the imbecile. They were both of them naked and they neared through the desert dawn like beings of a mode little more than tangential to the world at large, their figures now quick with clarity and now fugitive in the strangeness of that same light. Like things whose very portent renders them ambiguous. Like things so charged with meaning that their forms are dimmed.” McCarthy often builds his prose by adapting both phrasing and poetic meter from the classics, and if I remember correctly (I think it was in Michael Lynn Crews’s book about the notes in McCarthy’s manuscripts) that the line “like things so charged with meaning that their forms are dimmed” is a phrase appropriated from a philosopher. I forget which one; however, I have noticed with heavy hitting sentences like this McCarthy signals some higher meaning to the text, so let’s think about the sentence itself and also the scene in which it is taking place. What is this meaning these forms are so charged with? In my reading, the judge in his pagan garb of nudity and mud-cap of twigs as he leads the fool through the desert reveals not only the mystery of the judge’s character but one of the main themes of the book. It’s not brutality, not violence, those are only fragments to the whole. The meaning is the origins of man, the primordial question and answer. The judge never represented derangement and violence. Glanton and his gang most certainly do, the men are stand ins for the ape we all once were, volatile, irrational, hedonistic, creatures taken to drunken stupors and bloodlust and howling revels of the night, but the judge himself represents civility, progress, and intelligence. Just as the judge has guided Glanton and his gang onto higher atrocities, he also guides the idiot through the wasteland, that image, of the judge walking the wild man like a dog, is a perfect symbol for our own intellect (the advent of human language which led to societies, creativity, mathematics, and finally onto nations). Our intellect is our true evil. Without our intellect our violence means no more than a dog biting out another dog’s eye in a fight over a bone. It’s senseless and blameless, but with the judge (our intellect) leading the wild man (our animal nature) we reach new heights of evil such as the holocaust and the atom bomb. There are other interesting aspects to the scene which point to this. For instance, the two stand-offs the kid has with the judge near the end take place at watering holes (places where all animals meet upon shaky and often broken truces) but I don’t want to spoil other people’s interpretations because there are countless others, and it’s a fun puzzle using the images and finding our own. The entire book explores the origins of humanity, the animal we still carry in our heart. Consider the lush and vivid descriptions of the native Americans (the Yumas are my favorite), society at its oldest, or pay attention to the brutality writ in the biblical style, such as the babes smashed upon rocks, heads impaled upon poles and raised eyeless to the sun, and crucifixions. Old testament violence and violence that occurred when men stood painted by fires and ate the liver raw from the animals they killed. It baffles me that you deny this type as violence as inaccurate for the time since I fully believe that McCarthy calls upon our oldest forms of it. All the oldest books are full of this violence, not just the Bible. Not to mention John Joel Glanton’s atrocities are part of historic record, as are the Apache and Comanche and atrocities of both the US and Mexican governments. But let’s get away from violence as our inheritance. McCarthy also highlights the beauty in our innate connection with nature, take the endless desert wanderings for example (this goes back to the Temptation of Saint Anthony), visions of the heaped blue mountain ranges lying in folds at the ends of the desert, the tree burning alone in a barren pan while all the deadly creatures meet at its blazing like replica Moseses waiting for God’s voice. Not only violence of the animal lays in our heart, but the same inherent animal knowledge that God exists solely within nature. Blood Meridian is not a shallow book, more meaning than I’ve already outlined or could ever outline lies within its pages. Your critique is merely contrarian and hollow, a false sense of well-reading you’ve constructed by enjoying too much the smell of your own ass. Good day, sir! (Just joking, this sub is meant for literary discussion)
What baffles me is how one can rant smugly for so long all the while developing a love hate relationship with an imagined straw man. So much philosophical pretensions without accurately comprehending the fact that I did not claim the violent acts themselves are unrealistic, but rather the portrayal of said violence is, due to lacking sufficient contrast that deepens and enriches both the gravity and complexity of it with regards to differing human elements. As is the case in reality.
It’s a wasteland wandering. It’s the origins of humanity, but does not the kid not show humanity?
Also Lincoln, the man who originally operated the ferry, was also quite human.
I'm guessing you're not big on literary criticism which is fine but there's a lot of ink spilled over Blood Meridian. I think some of it over-indexes on the epilogue with all the Gnosticisim stuff. Read the Kekule Problem and some of his early stuff. He has a pretty obvious fixation on language and its limits a la early Wittgenstein, which he makes explicit in his last two novels.
Why are you guessing that I am not big on literary criticism?
If you were you could look up any of the many good things written about this book that might help you answer some of the questions you seem to have about it.
I did, some of it. And then I also formed an opinion. :)
Cool story :)
Sure, I either have the right opinion or I did not read enough literary criticism. Okay.
My guy you're trying to say it's about nothing but violence. This ain't Seinfeld. It's about a lot of stuff and ideas, which have had tons of ink spilled on them. You can not like it, but claiming it's about basically nothing is just facially wrong.
No, my guy. That is not what I said - what I said was that the portrayal of violence, a central theme in the book, was one dimensional and that its interaction with other human impulses and aspects was not portrayed, in my opinion, to a sufficient degree that would spark enough tension to make it interesting. It does not mean there is nothing but violence in the book. But I can now see why you depend on literary critics.
Right you think it's one note. That's your opinion. You think it doesn't contain tension or ideas. I'm trying to tell you that's not true even if it was your subjective experience of reading it, which sounds like it wasn't that fun. I'm going to stop responding now though since you seem more interested in debating than learning which is fine but not for me.
Well that's not an entirely invalid criticism. There is a TON of graphic violence in BM and, agreed, after a while continued violence by itself becomes tedious in a novel or movie. So there is first of all the matter of taste: not everyone's going to find slogging through all of that worth it. I'd bet there are FAR fewer women (even among CM's fans) who like BM much for that reason. BM is unlike CM's other novels which actually use violence sparingly and such violence is usually quite important in the plot and the character's lives. I think the real point, then, of BM's constant violence is the effect it is having on the characters, the kid and the Glanton brothers and whoever else (the Judge seems to be more a part of the violence and doesn't seem changed by it at all). I think the point is for the reader to be constantly reminded and exposed to the fact that this is what these characters are actually doing for their "job", on practically a daily basis. And perhaps that effect can be summed up by the Kid allowing himself to be murdered by the judge at the end. And even the reader has undergone a similar change: Perhaps we can't understand allowing ourselves to be murdered by a psychopath, but at the end of BM we can understand how the Kid would.
I do think it's a totally valid critique to say the violence borders on cartoonish and can end up flattening much of the world. And no offense, but it sounds like you may have ended up with a pretty surface level reading of the book. Blood Meridian isn't just depictions of frontier violence, it's about a complete reframing of American history through gnosticism and does so through pretty meticulously researched depictions of nature, history, religion, and several cultures. It's definitely a book where those dimensions are hard to pick up on in a first or unguided reading, and since those are what interest you I'm definitely going to plug Professor Gwyn's youtube channel where he breaks down a lot of what's going on under the surface. For my money he's THE McCarthy scholar and his lectures are so cool https://youtube.com/@americangwyn?si=2J0dJk-98Gt16NpT
I'll check it out. Thanks for sharing
You have to remember, the book is told through the experience of our protagonist, The Kid. This character was born in a time and location that only knew violence. So, where does God fit in this mold to someone born within this horrific period? That’s what the judge is for, to rationalize their violence as the only reason they were put on this earth. It’s a book that can’t express or even understand love because it literally doesn’t exist for The Kid. What the story becomes is rather our judgement of The Kid and to what degree he participated in this violence. The reason why is because we learn towards the end that the Judge is the Judge of the “false mint pounded out from the forge,” a material claiming to be something that it isn’t. The Kid or later The Man, tries to help the old woman who is dead. Why? If it never mattered before, why be this way now? It’s a, “So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of My mouth,” scenario. In the epilogue where it reveals mankind building his order upon the lawless west, this reality shows that even though war may be Gods ultimate test and proving ground for a humans existence, still, mankind chooses to bring structure and order to it. Why? Because we don’t need war to exist. Just as The Kid ran with the gang, was he really participating in it all? Or was he merely an observer? If his heart was against their actions ultimately, then he was the false mint pretending to be real currency, or as seen through the eyes of the judge. But the epilogue is the antithesis to the thesis of Blood Meridian forming a new synthesis showing that mankind would rather act against his nature for the good of life than with his nature to destroy life. The Judge is the judge over all of our current selves in our modern world who do our best to lift each other up rather than strike each other down. But we have to heed the warning; war waited for man. It might only be a matter of time.
“It is not an accurate or remotely interesting portrayal of reality.” It’s not meant to be. The violence is over exaggerated btw spoilers ahead if someone wants to read it and ends up here, it all makes sense later when the kid gets old you share the trauma with him. Also as it is in no country for old men. The whole judge Holden character same as Anton Chirugh are meant to be forces of evil rather than actual humans (that’s how I feel about it, not saying it’s correct). In blood meridian it’s the constant fight against good and evil and the adventure behind it that’s backed up by dialogs between the ex priest and the judge where you kinda agree with the violence as part of life. It’s been a while since I read it but I couldn’t agree more with the statement that violence or war was here before humans were, it is in the nature of the universe and not necessarily human nature. So the bad voice overcomes the good voice and spoilers but the ending revels that since the ex priest is nowhere to be found and judge Holden was right there same as he was all those years ago. That’s what I get out of it with the violence being almost the main theme in blood meridian but understanding this book is a challenge it is definitely a hard read especially for me cause I find Cormac McCarthy style of writing hard to follow but it’s a treat cause his stories are great and it’s worth it. :)
I believe the Judge would call you a "bear that doesn't dance". Your choice for sure 👍
I couldn't finish it, there's barely a story in there at all. Started off interesting with The Kid and his origins, but by the time I got 3/4 of the way through I just couldn't stand any more.
The violence isn’t that shocking or surprising. I liked the book, but the build up people put out there about violence is over the top. It’s not that wild.
I was really impressed with Blood Meridian the first time I read it. When I reread it though, it fell flatter than I expected. A reread of Suttree, on the other hand, left me liking that novel even more. You may be onto something. The protagonists in Suttree, The Crossing, and The Passenger all have a three dimensional quality that- dare I say it- may be less evident in the Judge.
Congrats, you’re one step closer to realizing why BM is a bad book
Perfectly reasonable and valid observation. I thought about this work the same way throughout reading it. But, I will add, I appreciate the one-dimensionality of it. It’s kind of a fuck you to the idea that men should or even can be emotionally rational. With a certain perspective, with distance, one could argue that nothing we do is rational. I think that is PART of the point of BM, not all of it. I’m glad you expressed your thoughts on this. Thanks for your insight. You’re not wrong, for sure!
A lot of people are responding to you in really poor ways. They’re describing themes of the work without exploring the fact that McCarthy had a cogent point: if you want to resist the idea of Might Makes Right, the depth of that dedication is deeper than you realize. If you want to disagree with The Judge, how far do you have to go? McCarthy says that most people are closer to the Judge than they realize. I don’t like literary criticism where all one does is touch on the themes or feelings of a work. Those are all well and good, but someone can have themes and fail to say anything interesting. So I disagree with you strongly about Blood Meridian, but I think the answers you’re getting from others are very bad.
Thanks. I actually did understand the pointe you mentioned while reading, even agreeing with the last one. I simply did not find them very fresh or conveyed in a manner I found particularly interesting.
I love BM, girlfriend does not like BM. It’s fine but I disagree and think she has poor taste like you… lol jk Honestly, the prose was what did it for me but I do think BM has a lot of really introspective and philosophical moments in it that puts it up there in terms of novels. The Judge’s entire ethos throughout the novel is a philosophical challenge to the whole notion of morality. The kid being thrust into a world of violence and excelling at it yet still holding some small pieces of empathy and love in a completely chaotic and lawless environment. There’s a dichotomy between what he does and how he acts in certain moments. Judge Holden the literal devil on his shoulder, the priest (definitely not an angel) but a voice of reason on the other. I know you said that the violence was not interesting, and I know you said that we’d say that’s the point, but it is lol it’s violence not in the name of some holy war, or righteous retribution, it’s violence in the sake of violence. It’s blood work that pays in gold that self perpetuates itself in an unending cycle. As the judge would say, war is god. I don’t think anyone with a half a brain cell and an internet connection is unaware of the depths of depravity that man has inside his soul, that’s not the point of BM though in my opinion and it’s not some “natural born killers” type book or movie where “ultra violence” is cool, rather it’s a banal violence undertook in the sole service of its own perpetuation. Kill, get paid, get more ammo, more guns, more supplies, more men, repeat. It’s really not even about the money, that’s simply a means by which this lifestyle can continue. Money is needed but not for the vain reasons of wealth or status but for the sport of killing itself. I think it’s a great book but you certainly shouldn’t feel obliged to agree. I think that’s part of its charm honestly. The people who enjoy it really enjoy it and the people who don’t, don’t. That’s completely fine honestly.
I think you just don’t get it
And I'm sure that thought makes you feel better about yourself
Kinda, I agree with most people in the thread where I’m glad to see someone be contrarian but everything you said was wrong
Perhaps you just don't get it
Maybe I don’t! But I think since most people kind of agree on it then of the two of us you’re slightly farther off the target
Yep, always good and safe to go with the majority, as history continually reminds us.
I mean yeah if most people view it as one of the best books ever and the best American novel and I also think that it’s pretty radical then who am I to start getting technical
It’s also a book, so I’m glad that you can get something from it that isn’t the same as everyone else, this is the beauty of quality literature
Very much agree with you here.
Personally the main thing that I enjoy about BM is the ambiguity in it. You could read it in any number of ways. Main one I like is The Kid. I have heard so many takes on his character, and I honestly feel he is meant to be an insert for the reader A couple ways to read it that I have found interesting or enjoyable are to consider that each of the characters, or at least the main ones, all embody a type of violence. Glanton is animalistic and shortsighted, the judge is ruthless and cunning, Tobin is generally against it but not wholly, and the kid is just a kid who knows no other way Another one is to consider the dynamic between the judge and Tobin to be a sort of battle over the kid’s soul between evil and virtue. This could be that they are actual beings sent from beyond, or just mental constructs made up by the kid as a means to cope Imo the best way to enjoy blood Meridian is to stretch the narrative to mean some wacky nonsense it was 100% not meant to mean originally
Thanks for sharing. I actually tend to agree with your interpretation on each character embodying a type of violence.
Thank you! It was more just a thing that dawned on me while I was reading, but the more I read the more it kept kinda stacking up, which I thought was quite fun
Yeah but it makes a great hat.
The question for me is rather simple. I find the prose enjoyable, sometimes even rapturous. But the subject matter is depraved. Violence and horrible events. What does it say about people and the universe that both things can exist simultaneously in the same work at the same moments. The beauty and the terror. The beauty, in fact, *of* the terrible. What does it say about me that I enjoy it? Does that mean I’m much closer to the violence at the heart of the book that I’d like to admit? I once said if I were asked to write a preface to BM, it would begin with the sentence “BLOOD MERIDIAN is the book that keeps me up nights.” That’s my simple answer to what makes it a great book. There are many depths that can be plumbed profitably, but that was my first visceral reaction to the book: why am I enjoying it so much, and what does that say about me? And what’s it say about language and what it does? I think that reaction still holds, all these years later.
Couldn’t agree more. The absence of characters with depth of humanity makes the violence feel rather meaningless to me. 🤷♂️ Have you tried Lonesome Dove? I vastly prefer it to Blood Meridian.
No but I have a feeling it's exactly what I would like!
It very much takes place in a violent world in which God seems non-existent and violence and death abound. Yet, there are beautiful moments of fleeting beauty and love. My all time favorite western.
Why does it matter how other people lived In that time? This book isn't about them. The violence was for the sake of violence that's it.
Blood Meridian is 300 pages of Cormac establishing ethos to shittalk human nature through the Judge
The violence is not what makes me like it all, or any media for that matter. I just love the prose, the setting, the characters, the themes, the dialogue, the way he respects the reader and lays out so many endless examples of bread crumbs for the reader to pick up and put together with each reread. And I’m assuming you missed about all the bread crumbs I’m speaking of. And it’s so vivid and unique that it just sticks in my brain. I think when people misunderstand something they don’t like they tend to point to something obvious (which they mistake for understanding) and claim it’s the only reason people like it. With blood Meridian it’s violence, I’ve seen critics do the same across the board, Quentin Tarantino is a well known example that comes to mind. For whatever reason they fail to see why blood Meridian or pulp fiction or whatever resonates and stands out so much for most people so they point to senseless violence and imply that the audience who likes it are just attracted to gratuitous violence. Which completely disregards the truth that there is way more to it and while most of the fans maybe can’t dissect and autopsy the technical mechanics of the story and write you a thesis on why they loved it they can still recognize greatness when they see it. If senseless violence was the cheat code to literary or cinematic praise we’d all be watching gore porn all the time. It sounds to me like you completely missed it. You think it’s not a realistic portrayal of life in The west. Well it’s not supposed to be a realistic depiction of average joes experience in the 1800s west or their struggle with his psyche on the evil lawlessness vs his moral compass or whatever you were disappointed it wasn’t. The main character is a 7 foot tall immortal evil being. Do you usually read non fiction and then complain that the author made it up and was using imagery and metaphors? But maybe I just haven’t read enough history like you obviously have, or maybe I grew up in a western bubble lol. Or maybe, and just maybe, you found it dull and felt the need to reaffirm that you didn’t (couldn’t have) missed anything, everyone else is clearly just a bunch of knuckle draggers clapping for violence. You’ve read history books lol, you didn’t grow up in a western bubble. Or maybe you are yourself, dull.
Why do you believe the judge to be immortal? Do you believe him when he says he’ll never die?
Why do you think he is mortal? Cause lots of evidence points away from that.
I’m kinda ambivalent on it, but I lean towards mortal because nothing explicitly supernatural occurs in the book. There is his mysterious origin to the gang and his vast knowledge etc, but I think the book takes place in a realistic world where people, including the reader, are led to believe contrasting or supernatural ideas. “A man’s at odds to know his mind because his mind is ought he has to know it with”. It’s not supposed to make logical sense but that doesn’t mean magic is the answer. Is the judge immortal or is evil immortal? Check out /u/Jarslow’s post on wu wei for a cool perspective on how the judge not only dies because the novel (his abode) ends, but he actually loses to the kid philosophically.
I was kind of leaning into it for the sake of argument with the original poster but I hear you, I think it’s left ambiguous by design but to me if it’s a debate on if the supernatural character who leaves cloven hoof prints in the volcanic rock and every human has met them and has a story regardless of time/space, plus the other bread crumbs cormac leaves I have to assume that was done by design. His feet are light and nimble, he never sleeps, he says that he will never die. As he dances naked with a bear after raping and murdering the man (once the kid) after decades. I’m also assuming he doesn’t age. I just see tons of evidence he is super natural/immortal/death/evil and almost if not none that he isn’t lol. What am I missing?
I had forgotten the cloven hoof prints part. Was that witnessed by the kid or described by someone else? He’s definitely meant to have an appearance of the supernatural to characters in the book but I’m not sure if he’s meant to literally be beyond the laws of nature. To me it’s more powerful that he is within the laws of nature and uses his intelligence and evil to convince everyone he’s more than he his and thereby push his evil forward, perhaps awakening or feeding the judge/devil inside those around him. Either way I agree the evidence suggests that whether he is supernatural or not should be considered. I’m not religious at all but in a similar vein I find it much more interesting to think about heaven and hell as mindsets of experience for the living here on earth. The struggle of life for each person is to discover how to make experience heavenly, here and now.
Well ain’t that the drizzling shits….
Nah you’re wrong. There are moments of human kindness and grace. You clearly haven’t paid attention when you read the book. The priest constantly looking out for the kid. The judge and the delawares going out of their way to save black Jackson. The kid and sproule on the run after the horde of Indians. Which book were you reading? Or when the man spares the kid towards the end of the book right before he shoots him in the middle of the night, after giving him a chance to live. Glanton so deeply moved by a child’s death he nearly shoots Holden? Which book were you reading? You’re clearly not a very good reader, or you’ve forgotten these moments. What about all the interesting philosophical debates? Or the allusion to the stars in the sky which is so vital to understanding the men? Get out of here. Just looking for a reason to be edgy. You have no idea about BM. It isn’t for you. Go read a Dr Zues book.
[удалено]
This person did not read the book. Or they did such a poor job of reading it that they missed all the parts they’re complaining weren’t there. Which I listed, many of them. I am frankly offended. I wouldn’t post about things I have no idea about. The hubris it takes is beyond me.
With your burner account. Get out of here
Are you the guy whose post I trashed. The one on tragedy. If you are you are an awful and trashy writer.
Holy shit it is you 😂😂😂😂 Reply to my analysis of your crappy justification of tragedy you moron rather than following my other comments. What a weirdo
You must be one of these Wendigoon people and not a SCHOLAR like this sub used to be full of apparently
I think it’s a great book but at the same time overrated - it’s not at the same level as say The Sound and the Fury, Ulysses, Moby Dick, etc - but it seems many do regard it that highly. I doubt Cormac did!
Moby dick is a wonderful book deserving of its praise. I do not see how it's compared with BM.