October '10 Reading: Blood Meridian by Cormac McCarthy

[plainjane]

Maybe for some and I would assume on a limited basis. No one could live a life with repeative violence like that. Certainly not the average person or even most extreme persons. And you don't get such violence from any of the authors who lived in that time. McCarthy is looking in retrospect and mythologizing to some degree. That is not to say such violence didn't exist. McCarthy takes it to an extreme.

I agree with the rest of your points by the way.

I suspect the violence was not as limited as we might like to think. The gun was the only law in lots of places, most I'd venture to say, and how things went depended on the integrity, or lack thereof of the biggest gun. I feel like we grew up on a more sanitized version of the Old West, at least I did...the westerns didn't show the true reality to my mind. The first really and truly depressing western I remember seeing was that one that Clint Eastwood made, The Unforgiven...I think was the name. Now I'll throw in a disclaimer here...I wasn't a big fan of westerns when I was young, so I didn't see an extremely wide variety of films.

I do feel you are right when you say that McCarthy is mythologizing, but I am afraid it was the reality in some places. Think how much more there was to the story of The Magnificent Seven. The group that the Seven stopped certainly was terrorizing the populace, and it was only dumb luck, and Hollywood, that caused it to cease. What McCarthy is bringing out is only alluded to in most of the westerns I've seen.

[Virgil]

While it may be true that the violence within this book is portrayed in a more extreme sense than the actuality, in my feelings of reading the book I did not so much view it as mythologizing the time period, but I saw it more as de-Romanticizing the ideal in which the Wild West is often portrayed. Showing a side of it which is generally ignored in the movies and more modern day portrayals of that period of time.

Good point. I would agree with that. De-romanticizing.

I suspect the violence was not as limited as we might like to think. The gun was the only law in lots of places, most I'd venture to say, and how things went depended on the integrity, or lack thereof of the biggest gun. I feel like we grew up on a more sanitized version of the Old West, at least I did...the westerns didn't show the true reality to my mind. The first really and truly depressing western I remember seeing was that one that Clint Eastwood made, The Unforgiven...I think was the name. Now I'll throw in a disclaimer here...I wasn't a big fan of westerns when I was young, so I didn't see an extremely wide variety of films.

I do feel you are right when you say that McCarthy is mythologizing, but I am afraid it was the reality in some places. Think how much more there was to the story of The Magnificent Seven. The group that the Seven stopped certainly was terrorizing the populace, and it was only dumb luck, and Hollywood, that caused it to cease. What McCarthy is bringing out is only alluded to in most of the westerns I've seen.

I think Dark Muse's term, "de-Romanticizing" is a better term than mythologizing. My point about the violence was that no one could live in a world where every other day is filled with life threatening violence. At some point one's luck would run out and he would be on the short end and be dead. I'm sure there was lots of violence, but human nature is a mix of good and bad. It just seems too extreme to be that violent.

[David Lurie]

It just seems too extreme to be that violent.

even now in 2010 there are places where extreme violence exists, a movie like this one could be illuminating http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0929425 (the book of the same title from which it draws inspiration is even more terrifying).

[katelbach]

Up to about p70 and agree with the general sentiments re: de-romanticizing, mythologizing and the end of chapter 4, which prompted me to put the book down to take in the immensity of the events! The rhythm of the prose is what i find most alluring, but i also share the confusion over the sub-headings at the start of each chapter. Not sure what that's about but someone will likely illuminate us at some point this month. Also found that the speed at which the narrative progresses put me off-step a bit, but i'm used to it now and i find it adds more unpredictability to the whole and leaves me feeling expectant and intrigued as to what may lie in the next few pages.

[Dark Muse]

What to think to McCarthy's tendency to deny his central characters an identity. Though this is only my 2nd book of his, in the The Road he did the same thing with "The Boy" now in this book was "The Kid." While the readers are introduced to the various other characters which come and go from the story, "The Kid" remains nameless.

[papayahed]

The rhythm of the prose is what i find most alluring, but i also share the confusion over the sub-headings at the start of each chapter.

I've found several times that I've had to go back and read what I just read because I got caught up in the prose and had to go back and find out what the heck happened.


What the ehck was the purpose of the judge denouncing the preacher? Is it saying something about religion? The ease at which someone's life could change? The judge can do whatever he wants?

[Dark Muse]

I've found several times that I've had to go back and read what I just read because I got caught up in the prose and had to go back and find out what the heck happened.

Yes I have to do the same things at times, I will get lost in what is acutally going on in the story.

What the ehck was the purpose of the judge denouncing the preacher? Is it saying something about religion? The ease at which someone's life could change? The judge can do whatever he wants?

I wondered about that too, it was a strange incident, and didn't the judge at the end say that he never even met the preacher before?

I think it may have been a statement about the power of the judge, because of the fact that he denounced a man of god with some vile claims against him without providing any proof to what he said, and yet everyone believed him without question and turned against the preacher.

Maybe it was also about the general nature of people and how easily they could be turned to violence and hate .

[Virgil]

even now in 2010 there are places where extreme violence exists, a movie like this one could be illuminating http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0929425 (the book of the same title from which it draws inspiration is even more terrifying).

Actually I was thinking of mafia myself as people who live a continuous life of violence. However even there, it's not an almost everyday thing. That's my point. It's not that any single violent incident is unusual; it's the repeative nature. Actually even in Blood Meridan it's not an every day thing. McCarthy conflates the narrative so that it appears to be so.

[Rores28]

Yes I have to do the same things at times, I will get lost in what is acutally going on in the story.



I wondered about that too, it was a strange incident, and didn't the judge at the end say that he never even met the preacher before?

I think it may have been a statement about the power of the judge, because of the fact that he denounced a man of god with some vile claims against him without providing any proof to what he said, and yet everyone believed him without question and turned against the preacher.

Maybe it was also about the general nature of people and how easily they could be turned to violence and hate .

I can't remember if it said or not (and dont have the book with me) but was "the judge" just his name or was he actually a judge?

I agree that this showed how quickly ppl could be turned to violence, also since it was the judge, and he had no evidence, specifically how unfair that violence is. Maybe there is some statement about religion there but I haven't run across anything else major to make me think there is any specific commentary on religion... though there is the church filled with all the dead people...

[Dark Muse]

I can't remember if it said or not (and dont have the book with me) but was "the judge" just his name or was he actually a judge?

I think he is a real judge becasue at the begining of the chapter in the little outline it says "Judge Holden"

[Dark Muse]

Because I myself have studied the Tarot and have done some reading of cards myself and collect different Tarot decks, I found the fortune telling scene to be quite interesting, even if I did not understand half of what was acutally being said LOL.

But I was intrigued so I decided to look up the card which the kid drew, Cuatro de Cuaps, which turns would be the four of cups, and I found this website which offers a good description of the meaning of the card, which I think quite aptly could be applied to the character of the kid.

http://esoterismos.com/arcano-menor-cuatro-de-copas/

The site is in Spanish, I was not able to post the link for the translated version, you can just copy and paste the link into google and than click where it says translate page.


Possible Spoiler for end of Chapter 7

I was a bit confused about the episode with the shooting of the old woman. Did they kill her just becasue they wanted to take her scalp? Or was she suppose to be already dying?

I read and reread over that part to try and make some sense of it, but I don't quite understand just what was happening there.

[iamnobody]

I think the answer is both. It seems that she is likely to die anyway, and they are supposed to be getting scalps.

I'm glad this book was chosen, it was on my TBR list anyway and so far a very good read.

[Virgil]

Earlier I retracted my point that McCarthy was mythologising and agreed that he was de-Romanticizing.

I have to amend all that now that I'm a third of the way through the novel. I don't know if I'm going to be able to express this, but I think McCarthy is on one level de-Romanticizing but on another level he is re-Romanticizing, all of which becomes a mythologizing.

Yes, he is de-Romanticizing by bringing down the Romantic vision of westerns to a raw naturalism, but the from the very extreme of naturalism, McCarthy puts forth a new Romanticized view of the early western frontier that ultimaltely rests upon its own mythos.

Let me take three passages from chapter VIII. But I want to take them out of sequence, backwards actually. Let's start with that concluding scene where the black jackson kills the white Jackson.

The white man swung his head, one eye half closed, his lip loose. His gunbelt lay coiled on the ground. He reached and drew the revolver and cocked it. Four men rose and moved away.

You aim to shoot me? said the black.

You don’t get your black *** away from this fire I’ll kill you graveyard dead.

He looked to where Glanton sat. Glanton watched him. He put the pipe in his mouth and rose and took up the apishamore and folded it over his arms.

Is that your final say?

Final as the judgement of God.

The black looked once more across the flames at Glanton and the he moved away in the dark. The white man uncocked the revolver and placed it on the ground before him. Two of the others came back to the fire and stood uneasily. Jackson sat with his legs crossed. One hand lay on his lap and the other was outstretched on his knee holding a slender black cigarillo. The nearest man to him was Tobin and when the black stepped out of the darkness bearing the bowieknife in both hands like some instrument of ceremony Tobin started to rise. The white man looked up drunkenly and the black stepped forward and with a single stroke swapt off his head.

Two thick ropes of dark blood and two slender rose like snakes from the stump of his neck and arched hissing into the fire. The head rolled to the left and came to rest at the expriest’s feet where it lay with its eyes aghast. Tobin jerked his foot away and rose and stepped back. The fire steamed and blackened and a grey cloud of smoke rose and the columnar arches of blood slowly subsided until just the neck bubbled gently like a stew and then that too was stilled. He was sat as before save headless, drenched in blood, the cigarillo still between his fingers, leaning toward the dark and smoking grotto in the flames where his life had gone.

Glanton rose. The men moved away. No one spoke. When they set out in the dawn the headless man was sitting like a murdered anchorite discalced in ashes and sark. Someone had taken his gun but his boots stood where he’d put them. The company rode on. They had not gone forth one hour upon that plain before they were ridden upon by the Apaches.

What is startling here is how much religious diction accentuates the scene. "Final judgement of God," "instrument of ceremony," "anchorite," and "discacled." But even more startling is how the white Jackson becomes a ceremonial sacrifice in the manner of the Old Testament burnt offerings. From Leviticus, chapter 1:

(1)Then the LORD called to Moses and spoke to him from the tent of meeting, saying,
2"Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, 'When any man of you brings an offering to the LORD, you shall bring your offering of animals from the herd or the flock.

3'If his offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he shall offer it, a male without defect; he shall offer it (F)at the doorway of the tent of meeting, that he may be accepted before the LORD.

4'He shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, that it may be accepted for him to make atonement on his behalf.

5'He shall slay the young bull before the LORD; and Aaron's sons the priests shall offer up the blood and sprinkle the blood around on the altar that is at the doorway of the tent of meeting.

Another word for the burnt offerings is halocaust, meaning whole burnt. Now the second passage, earlier in the chapter:

In the morning two of the Delawres were gone. They rode on. By noon they had begun to climb toward the gap in the mountains. Riding up through wild lavender or soapweed, under the Animas peaks. The shadow of an eagle that had set forth from those high and craggy fastnesses crossed the line of riders below and they looked up to the mark where it rode in that brittle blue and faultless void. They came up through the pinon and the scruboak and they crossed the gap through the high pine forest and rode on through the mountains.

In the evening they came out upon a mesa that overlooked all the country to the north. The sun to the west lay in a holocaust where there rose a steady column of small desert bats and to the north along the trembling perimeter of the world dust was blowing down the void like the smoke of distant armies. The crumpled butcherpaper mountains lay in sharp shadowfold under the long blue dusk and in the middle distance the glazed bed of a dry lake lay shimmering like the mare imbrium and herds of deer were moving north in the last of the twilight, harried over the plain by wolves who were themselves the color of the desert floor.

"The sun to the west lay in a holocaust..." That is where the title of the novel comes from: Blood Meridian, Or the Evening Redness in the West. Thorugh the violence, McCarthy is creating a mythos. I don't believe it's associated with either Christianity or Judaism, but he's taking the imagery and diction from Christianity and Judaism and constructing a myth that rises to the level of religion from the events of the novel. The naturalistic blood elements - the ravenous world of wilderness - have a spiritual dimension that I assume as the novel goes on rises to a sacredness. Here is the third passage from that chapter. It's a homily by an old Mexican man, speaking in broken English, to the kid, Toadvine, and others from the comapny.

He looked up. Blood, he said. This country is give much blood. This Mexico. This is a thirsty country. The blood of a thousand Christs. Nothing.

He made a gesture toward the world beyond where all the land lay under darkness and all a great stained altarstone. He turned and poured his wine and poured again from the waterjar, temperate old man, and drunk.

The kid watched him. He watched him drink and he watched him wipe his mouth. When he turned he spoke neither tho the kid nor Toadvine but seemed to address the room.

I pray to God for this country. I say that to you. I pray. I don’t go in the church. What I need to talk about them dolls there? I talk here.

He pointed to his chest. When he turned to the Americans his voice softened again. You are fine caballeros, he said. You kill the barbarous. They cannot hide from you. But there is another caballero and I think no man hides from him. I was a soldier. It is like a dream. When even the bones is gone in the desert the dreams is talk to you, you don’t wake up forever.

He drained his cup and took up his bottle and went softly away on his sandals into the farther dim of the cantina. The man at the wall moaned and called upon his god. The Vandiemenlander and the barman spoke together and the barman gestured at the dark in the corner and shook his head and the Americans chambered down their last cups and Toadvine pushed the few tlacos toward the barman and they went out.

The wine and its association with blood and the act of killing are mingled into a religious affiliation, a creation of a western myth of the sacred.

[Rores28]

Because I myself have studied the Tarot and have done some reading of cards myself and collect different Tarot decks, I found the fortune telling scene to be quite interesting, even if I did not understand half of what was acutally being said LOL.

But I was intrigued so I decided to look up the card which the kid drew, Cuatro de Cuaps, which turns would be the four of cups, and I found this website which offers a good description of the meaning of the card, which I think quite aptly could be applied to the character of the kid.

http://esoterismos.com/arcano-menor-cuatro-de-copas/

The site is in Spanish, I was not able to post the link for the translated version, you can just copy and paste the link into google and than click where it says translate page.


Possible Spoiler for end of Chapter 7

I was a bit confused about the episode with the shooting of the old woman. Did they kill her just becasue they wanted to take her scalp? Or was she suppose to be already dying?

I read and reread over that part to try and make some sense of it, but I don't quite understand just what was happening there.

I think in some way this is meant to be ambiguous... it seems like many of the characters motivations are actually somewhat murky or obscured...

I think there is a theme going on here as to whether men forge their own destinies or the world is too big for man and so it basically shapes his destiny for him. If the second is true then man's motivation will be driven by things outside his control and understanding... and so I think McCarthy tries to put those things outside the reader's understanding as well..


Also I'd like to retract my statement earlier about the prose... the density of amazing prose is growing as I progress through the novel.

[iamnobody]

Is it just me? Is anyone else feeling drained by the relentless brutality of this book?
I'd almost decided to quit reading, (I really don't want any more) but I will soldier on.
However I must amend my previous statment. While I do think this very good writing, this is Not a good read. (please no more murdered babies)