So I just read "Blood Meridian" *spoilers*

[thekingrat]

I had just recently finished what became one of my favourite books: Blood Meridian. This is one of the greatest novels I have ever read and I am curious what you guys think of some key talking points relating to the plot/themes:

• What do you think the Judge did to the kid at the end?
• Is the judge right when it comes to morals, in reference to his speech about the story he told about the young man and the con artist?
• What is up with the eldress in the rocks?
• Does this book deserve the reputation it gets from people like Harold Bloom?

I have my thoughts and theories about each, but I am curious as to what the community thinks. If you have any other points of discussion please mention them in your response.

[Pompey Bum]

I had just recently finished what became one of my favourite books: Blood Meridian. This is one of the greatest novels I have ever read and I am curious what you guys think of some key talking points relating to the plot/themes:

Yes, it's a great novel: the 20th century's Moby Dick. Many's the academic Walter Mitty who's fancied himself one of the Glanton gang, heedless that Harold Bloom always comes for you in the end.

What do you think the Judge did to the kid at the end?

Well, he killed him. I imagine he scalped him and maybe gutted or skinned him--something hideous. But more importantly he brought him his karma, which he had been running from. You don't ride with Satan or Yaldabaoth or whatever the Judge was--the god of Sethian Gnosticism--without paying the fee. The Judge says something to the Kid when they are talking at the saloon, something like: Did you really think you could just hide from me? But he's like Chigurh in No Country For Old Men: he'll always get you, but it's really not that personal. The Judge expresses a general disappointment in the way the Kid turned out, but that's all; and Chigurh even tells a victim he's sorry it had to be that way--but it did. I think these are These are crypto-supernatural characters--McCarthy's demons--who bring a kind of karmic Law devoid of Grace to those who have it coming. McCarthy trades in this kind of character. There is another demonic figure in Outer Dark, and the god of Valentinian Gnosticism (who is not retributive--just kind of grouchy) may make a cameo appearance in The Road. But to return to your question, the Judge brings the Kid (then called the Man) his comeuppance.

Is the judge right when it comes to morals, in reference to his speech about the story he told about the young man and the con artist?

It's been a few years. Do you mean the scene at the revival meeting near the start?

What is up with the eldress in the rocks?

I'm sorry, but you are going to have to remind me of that one, too. Was it when they were among the painted rocks? A page number would help (if you have the paperback edition).

Does this book deserve the reputation it gets from people like Harold Bloom?

Yes, but Harold Bloom doesn't deserve his reputation (well, maybe a little). I suspect he merely fell in love with his own reflection in the Judge. But without him the novel would probably be forgotten now--which goes to show what critical and commercial success (which it lacked) add up to.

[thekingrat]

Yes, it's a great novel: the 20th century's Moby Dick. Many's the academic Walter Mitty who's fancied himself one of the Glanton gang, heedless that Harold Bloom always comes for you in the end.



Well, he killed him. I imagine he scalped him and maybe gutted or skinned him--something hideous. But more importantly he brought him his karma, which he had been running from. You don't ride with Satan or Yaldabaoth or whatever the Judge was--the god of Sethian Gnosticism--without paying the fee. The Judge says something to the Kid when they are talking at the saloon, something like: Did you really think you could just hide from me? But he's like Chigurh in No Country For Old Men, he'll always get you, but it's not personal (the Judge expresses a general disappointment in the way the Kid turned out, but that's all; and Chigurh even tells a victim he's sorry it has to be this way). These are crypto-supernatural characters who bring a karmic Law devoid of Grace. McCarthy trades in this kind of character. There is another demonic figure in Outer Dark, and the god of Valentinian Gnosticism may make a cameo appearance in The Road. But to return to your question, the Judge brings the Kid (then called the Man) his comeuppance.




It's been a few years. Do you mean the scene at the revival meeting near the start?



I'm sorry, but you are going to have to remind me of that one, too. Was it when they were among the painted rocks? A page number would help (if you have the paperback edition).



Yes, but Harold Bloom doesn't deserve his reputation (well, maybe a little). I suspect he merely fell in love with his own reflection in the Judge. But without him the novel would probably be forgotten now--which goes to show what critical and commercial success (which it lacked) add up to.

I had never thought of Holden's... actions, at the end of the book in the way you described with the pay the piper analogy, but I really like it. I personally do not think he is murdering the man, but does something worse that I can not even begin to comprehend. The judge did something to the man that was so horrible that he sees it "in the round (world)" (page 345). He wants to live through the kid, when he first laid eyes on him he has seen the kid he wanted him ruined so he (the kid) can truly dance...

The judge tells the story in chapter 11 (page 148-153)

The eldress in the rocks is right at the end of chapter 22 (page 327-328)

I am using the 25th anniversary Vintage International edition

For the most part I like Harold Bloom, but his treatment of David Foster Wallace came off as a little butthurt in lack of a better term.

[Pompey Bum]

I had never thought of Holden's... actions, at the end of the book in the way you described with the pay the piper analogy, but I really like it. I personally do not think he is murdering the man, but does something worse that I can not even begin to comprehend.

Well, he sends him off to damnation, I think. My guess is that he chopped him up first because that's what the Glanton gang did to everyone in their path, and the Judge's morality is karmic. The fact that McCarthy does not describe what happened (when the rest of the book is so graphic) is probably a way to suggest something that was too horrible to comprehend.

But I think he does kill him. The Judge is the devil or maybe the god of a world without redemption (note that he hasn't aged and he says he doesn't sleep and will never die) and the circle dance in the saloon with the intoxicated revelers and the whores baring their breasts is a pagan or even Satanic ritual for which the Kid is the sacrifice. Another indication (through its symmetry) that the Kid's life has come to an end is the detail that stars are falling from the sky. It is subtly presented, but the Kid was born during a similar event--the Leonid meteor shower of 1833.

He wants to live through the kid, when he first laid eyes on him he has seen the kid he wanted him ruined so he (the kid) can truly dance...

Remember that every member of the Glanton gang had run into the Judge earlier in his life. Later, Glanton found him waiting in the wilderness--like Satan in the Gospel story of Jesus' temptation. His role is to lead all of them to destruction. And he succeeds. The Kid just lasts longest.

The judge tells the story in chapter 11 (page 148-153)

The eldress in the rocks is right at the end of chapter 22 (page 327-328)

I am using the 25th anniversary Vintage International edition

Thanks. My edition seems to have slightly different page numbers, but I will read chapters 11 and 22 this afternoon and let you know what I think. In the meantime, feel free to respond to this post if you like. I'd be interested to hear your ideas.

For the most part I like Harold Bloom, but his treatment of David Foster Wallace came off as a little butthurt in lack of a better term.

Well, Bloom is obviously a brilliant man. My problem with him has more to do with the orthodoxy (small o) that has come to surround his approach. We are sometimes plagued on LitNet with "Bloomers" (heh heh) who have paid a lot of money to learn that Bloom's opinions are the only ones possible (whether he believes that is another matter). But I read Western Canon and his book on Shakespeare and enjoyed both. Bloom's okay.

[BEL6]

Now I want to re-read that book. It truly was great.

There might be a lot of interpretation of the Kid's death. I think that it depends on how do you consider the whole Blood Meridian. At first I've seen just a western story in which was some kind of McCarthy's philosophy with thoughtful metaphors. But have you tried to look at the whole story like it's already afterlife? Like they've already lived and then came to the desert, full of subconscious frustartion or hatred with which they should deal with those feelings. And in the end all of them messed up this resocialization (they might be seen as prisoners of purgatory or just their hatred or this resocialization might mean finding out something like morality... which also means living in society, nvm), so there's only hell for them. Here I'm also thinking about Judge as voice of conscience - in both ways it could be. He might come at the end of the journey as madness (overgrown in bad way conscience) or Satan (which is as Pompey Bum said "leading all of them to destruction"), but thinking of what they did (like pointless murdering mules) it is likely to be a mental illness. Also - I wrote "end of the journey", every time Judge is showing up to "take" someone, I have a feeling that it's like it should be. It wasn't surprising, rather like winter coming after autumn. Obvious, isn't it?
So I could say that the Judge is the inevitable end. But this end might bring death or another life and death might be fast or slow and painful. It's hard to believe as he was shown rather as a unscrupulous brutal, the scene in which he was saying about taking control about whole world and describing all creatures he met (bugs...? I don't remember details, just idea) - it might be considered as he's all-mighty Satan (all-mighty only in his hell? was it all hell?), but to me it was important to get his some kind of thirst of knowledge. And the being that want knowledge shouldn't be seen as "just black" or "just white", because it might to be black, but in order to take things to the point those things should be (or something/someone want those things to be in specific point) it could be necessary. That point might not be black at all, but actions leading to white point might be black. So was the Judge really Satan? Did he really kill the Kid? Or brought him further? Or anything else? Was the all Blood Meridian in hell or hell started after their death? It all depends on interpretation - whether it all was one huge metaphore or epic story with reflection on the end. That's why I loved that book.
Ah, and I'm not looking on the date, which bring one more way of interpretation.

So, to me:
1. I think the Judge came for payment for the Kid's violence and then took him further - maybe to afterlife or afterlife after Blood Meridian's afterlife.
2. I don't remember clearly that speech and my book is far away from me at this moment, but I as remember it was one of elements that made me think the Judge is above morals (which are human's invention and which still are rather abstract) and we can't judge the Judge. From words - it's not to us judging him. We can't see the objective truth only the Judge knew as it was causing his actions and as he was above all people in BM.
3. I don't know how to translate "eldress" to my language and I don't know what part that was, so I'll ask someone or find English book and then answer how I understood that.
4. Here in Poland I've never heard about Harold Bloom, so again: I'll need to read until I answer.

I'm glad there's one more fan of McCarthy's book.

[Pompey Bum]

Is the judge right when it comes to morals, in reference to his speech about the story he told about the young man and the con artist?

This is a challenging text. Its mention of "[man's] meridian," and "the evening of his day" evokes the novel's title, Blood Meridian or The Evening Redness in the West, and suggests thr story is important to McCarthy's larger ideas. Obviously it is a parable, one one told (paradoxically) by Judge Holden. McCarthy accentuates this aspect with language resonating with Jesus' parables: "One day a certain man came by and the harness maker...asked this certain man for some coins."; "The father dead has euchered the son out of his patrimony," etc. The interruptions of the woebegone gang members seem to evoke (or lampoon?) reactions to the Biblical parables. And the murdered traveler may even be taken as Jesus--or at least as an interpretation of the Christian message.

Your question was: "Is the judge right when it comes to morals, in reference to his speech about the story he told about the young man and the con artist?" As challenging as the text is, the answer to that question, at least, is easy. No. Or more properly, not for me. The Levitical Judge preaches a world in which forgiveness is a hypocritical absurdity--and more importantly irrelevant. The murderous father in his parable obtains forgiveness in old age from his son; but since he had not wronged his son, in what way was he qualified to forgive him? In fact, the son is said to have hated the traveler, so the very integrity of his forgivenesx is called into question; ultimately he goes west "and he himself became a killer of men."

This last detail makes the son sound more than a little like the Kid. The Judge adds the strange detail that later in life the boy's mother used to tell people that the traveler's grave was her son's, "and perhaps by that time it was so." This could mean that the traveler's Golden Rule teaching had so touched the woman that she came to think of him as her son--but that doesn't sound much like the Judge talking. It could also bear a kind of quasi-Nietzschean interpretation in which the "real world" killer instinct of her son/the Kid has superseded the conventional Christian morality of the murdered traveler. Another remark of the Judge's also seems to carry a Nietzschean sense: "For whoever makes a shelter of reeds and hides has joined his spirit to the common destiny of creatures [that is, death] and he will subside back into the primal mud without even a cry. But who builds in stone seeks to alter the structure of the universe and so it was with these masons [ancestral Indians in contrast with poor modern ones] however their primitive their work may seem to us."

But if the Judge has some things in common with Neitzsche, it remains open to discussion whether McCarthy does. The Judge is hardly a reliable narrator (when he does narrate) and some of his comments from this section--for example his remark that children ought to be culled by being placed in a pit of wild dogs--are surely meant to be seen as repulsive. The Kid also makes a rather dubious Superman. In fact, hiding away is exactly what he was doing when the Judge finally catches up to him at the end (although many years had passed and admittedly the Judge expresses disappointment in the way he ended up).

My guess is that McCarthy sees the Judge as truly repulsive, but that he simply doesn't see an alternative to him. The posthumous son of the murdered traveler--in other words modern Christians--cannot think of his father in any but perfect terms; he is therefore "broken before a frozen God and he will never find his way." The reality is that sin draws us from choices to compulsion; that is the history of the Glanton gang, which hardly knows or cares who or why it is murdering by the end. The Kid endures, but without the possibility of redemption, there is only inexorable karma to be suffered--and this he hides from. The shock at the book's end is that our just desserts turn out to be delivered by our longtime companion in sin: Yaldabaoth, the devil, the Judge. Or has he merely been culling the morally weak in his world of wild dogs?

So to return to your question (and to my answer), no, this point of view is not for me. I believe that though we live in a world of sin, redemption is still possible.

What are your thoughts on this story?

P.S. My analysis took longer than I thought. I will have to look at the other story tomorrow.

[Pompey Bum]

Now I want to re-read that book. It truly was great.

Bel! How nice to have an intelligent and independent thinker with us again! I was just thinking the same thing about Blood Meridian--I really have to reread it. Eldress, by the way, is just the feminine form of elder. It means an old woman, usually an important or venerated one. I will read your comments closely and give you my thoughts pretty soon (I have to answer the rest of TKR's questions first). Wonderful to see you again!

[Pompey Bum]

What is up with the eldress in the rocks?

Okay, this will be a much shorter analysis. I don't know what's up with the eldress in the rocks. She sounds like a natural mummy, but I don't understand her significance in the story overall. Perhaps, since the Kid is trying to be kind to her, she is a sign that it is too late for that sort of thing. He is a killer and she is just another corpse. Or perhaps, because she seems to be ancient, she is a way to say that the violence exhibited by the Glanton gang is ancient, too; that women like her have been killed as long as there have been humans; that it is just the way people are. But I really don't know.

What are your thoughts?

[Pompey Bum]

There might be a lot of interpretation of the Kid's death. I think that it depends on how do you consider the whole Blood Meridian. At first I've seen just a western story in which was some kind of McCarthy's philosophy with thoughtful metaphors. But have you tried to look at the whole story like it's already afterlife? Like they've already lived and then came to the desert, full of subconscious frustartion or hatred with which they should deal with those feelings. And in the end all of them messed up this resocialization (they might be seen as prisoners of purgatory or just their hatred or this resocialization might mean finding out something like morality... which also means living in society, nvm), so there's only hell for them.

It is an interesting idea that they may already be in hell. It would be easy to say that they may as well be in hell. I think this is a product of McCarthy's essentially Gnostic vision of a blighted world in the thrall of a Power that may as well be thought of as the devil. For McCarthy (though not the ancient Gnostics), there is not even a possibility of redemption. The members of the Glanton gang live a hellish existence, and they are also hell bound. My unresolved question is: to what extent was choice involved? Did the Kid take the wrong path (and if so, when?) or did he walk the only path there was? Which does McCarthy think and which do I think? That's what I want to know.

Here I'm also thinking about Judge as voice of conscience a Satan (which is as Pompey Bum said "leading all of them to destruction"), but thinking of what they did (like pointless murdering mules) it is likely to be a mental illness.

This also goes to the question of volition, since few would argue that mental illness is a choice. The story of the Glanton gang seems to me like a progression from choice/complicity to sin/crime to compulsion/madness. But even at the end when the members are killing without discrimination, I don't think they lack responsibility. So perhaps compulsion does not proceed to madness. To the Judge, in any case, they remain responsible. But as you say, perhaps he is the madness.

Also - I wrote "end of the journey", every time Judge is showing up to "take" someone, I have a feeling that it's like it should be. It wasn't surprising, rather like winter coming after autumn. Obvious, isn't it?

The Judge also feels it should be. His morality is karmic and retributive as opposed to gracious and redemptive. You sin, you pay. He the inexorable agent of that morality. But he is also the one who draws you into sin. So perhaps you merely pay for your choices you have made under the spell of his temptation. But perhaps not. There is something about the Judge that seems fatalistic. He carries a book in which he records things and sketches people. This is part of a folk belief about the devil (the girl's at Salem/Danvers used to talk about it all the time); the book is a registry of the damned--it records those who have already given over their souls. But there is a curious bit of dialogue in Chapter 11 in which a gang member named Webster does not want to be sketched in the book:

"My book or some other book said the judge. What is to be deviates no jot from the book wherein it's writ. How could it? It would be a false book and a false book is no book at all."

There is also the peculiar detail of the meteor shower that attends the Kid's birth and (apparent) death at the hands of the Judge--as if that had always been part of some grand cosmic scheme (like, as you say, winter coming after autumn). These ideas seem contrary to notions of choice and retributive karma. The next time read Blood Meridian I will note these issues closely.

So I could say that the Judge is the inevitable end. But this end might bring death or another life and death might be fast or slow and painful. It's hard to believe as he was shown rather as a unscrupulous brutal, the scene in which he was saying about taking control about whole world and describing all creatures he met (bugs...? I don't remember details, just idea) - it might be considered as he's all-mighty Satan (all-mighty only in his hell? was it all hell?), but to me it was important to get his some kind of thirst of knowledge.

One of the things I've noticed about the Judge is that he is neither omnipotent nor omniscient. He may not age or sleep or die, but it takes him a long time to catch the Kid, presumably because he didn't know where and his constant search for information demonstrates that there is much he does not know. But he only wants these things for his book. After they are there he destroys them. He says his goal is to obliterate them from human memory.

So was the Judge really Satan? Did he really kill the Kid? Or brought him further? Or anything else? Was the all Blood Meridian in hell or hell started after their death? It all depends on interpretation - whether it all was one huge metaphore or epic story with reflection on the end. That's why I loved that book.

I agree. We must each make of it what we can.

[WyattGwyon]

I always thought the Judge was Manifest Destiny, in a metaphorical sense, the driving force in Western "civilization" to control and tame all things human (and thus his mastery of the arts of war and brutality) and natural (hence his quest for scientific and linguistic knowledge and classification). He is the disembodied manifestation of the drives and ambitions that are the scourge of the world.

I imagine he rapes the Kid with head down in the jakes and then dismembers him leaves him to rot where the smell will scarcely be noticed.

[Pompey Bum]

I wondered if he had been raped, too, since all we know at the end is that the Judge gathers him in his arms.

[ennison]

You mentioned Moby Dick above as a comparable text but though both have a love of language there's a great deal tongue-in-cheek humour in Moby Dick - something absent from McCarthy. Whatever way you interpret the end it seems bleak. Much bleaker than The Road.

[Vota]

I Hated Blood Meridian. I've read some dark stuff before, but damn, that novel is the essence of bleak. I'm sure that is part of the point, but the reaction it provoked in me was so hostile I vowed never to approach the book again. I made it about 100 pages in and couldn't take it anymore.

I can see the appeal of the book, despite my aversion to it. McCarthy's descriptions at times are beautiful, and I think he writes action scenes superbly.

That said, I think Moby Dick is a superior work. Yes, I realize I didn't finish Blood Meridian.

[desiresjab]

I Hated Blood Meridian. I've read some dark stuff before, but damn, that novel is the essence of bleak. I'm sure that is part of the point, but the reaction it provoked in me was so hostile I vowed never to approach the book again. I made it about 100 pages in and couldn't take it anymore.

I can see the appeal of the book, despite my aversion to it. McCarthy's descriptions at times are beautiful, and I think he writes action scenes superbly.

That said, I think Moby Dick is a superior work. Yes, I realize I didn't finish Blood Meridian.

The darkness did not discourage me. I was bored to death by the writing. However, I finished it. Sorry, folks, no one likes everything. I do not think he or the book deserve their grand reputation. I am certainly not out to argue with anyone over it, just giving my simple opinion. There are obviously people who got a great deal more out of it than I did. I am not into this writer at all. I detested his style. I will not say more, for to say more would mean I would have to reread it and look for details, and that appeals to me like fitting my mouth over a parking meter. Maybe I only picked the book up at the wrong time. The thing is, I would not pick it up again.

[WyattGwyon]

The darkness did not discourage me. I was bored to death by the writing. However, I finished it. Sorry, folks, no one likes everything. I do not think he or the book deserve their grand reputation. I am certainly not out to argue with anyone over it, just giving my simple opinion. There are obviously people who got a great deal more out of it than I did. I am not into this writer at all. I detested his style. I will not say more, for to say more would mean I would have to reread it and look for details, and that appeals to me like fitting my mouth over a parking meter. Maybe I only picked the book up at the wrong time. The thing is, I would not pick it up again.

I don't think BM is his best work. McCarthy has at least three completely different modes. I would try The Orchard Keeper or Suttree before you write him off.