Of the reading, Chapter V (pg. 55-73) was the most compelling. One reason: there are many religious parallels that I almost do not know what to do with myself. I have several ideas that I’m currently flirting with and trying to hash out.
The men from Captain White’s little group of men (mainly the Kid and Sproule, as the chapter deals mostly with them) encounter things which resemble biblical themes. After the native attack (your traditional pagan-like group), they follow the stars to wander throughout the desert in search of water. As in the Bible (with the women at the well) the men received a sort of ‘refreshed spiritual life,’ to continue their journey through the desert in crusade or pilgrimage-like fashion – through the way they come across multiple examples of the Indian attack, the most important being the slaughter at the church, which heighten their feelings against the natives (which can be interpreted as identification with Christianity, etc.)
What stuck out the most to me was the prophecy of the Mexican leader they met and got water from: “When the lambs is lost in the mountain, he said. They is cry. Sometime come the mother. Sometime the wolf” (65). The Mexican is comparing the Kid and Sproule to lambs [of God]. The mother has already come to them, in the form of water, so only the wolf is left. He seems to foresee the capture of the two men, who thus join back up with their army mates, by the sort of barbaric townspeople. In a way, it is an enslavement of sorts, much like the Jews in Egypt (“Gods profoundest peons”—71).
This is all I’m going to say about it here, but keep in mind this is only from this one chapter and I didn’t even address everything. There’s still things like, “…wings outstretched in attitudes of exhortation like dark little bishops” (59), and, “…vultures squatted… in the carved façade hard by the figures of Christ and the apostles…” (72).
From what we have read so far in the previous chapters, I find that Blood Meridian reveals the true savagery of the "Wild West" time period. Blood Meridian introduces the character of the Kid, a young man struggling to find his way after running away from home. Introduced to a world of violence, he symbolizes individualism and the corruption of innocence as he is forced to adapt in this kill or be killed environment. I believe that the Kid represents all children who are forced into maturity and ultimately lose their way as they struggle to survive against day-to-day brutality.
Blood Meridian also plays with the idea of destroying the fantasized image of the Wild West that every child grew up listening to stories about. The great John Wayne movies where the gallant gunfighter saves the town from destitution at the hands of the savage natives are roughly cast aside with this story. All the Bonanza episodes that we watched with the three dashing Cartwright brothers and their wise father are burned at the stake as McCarthy introduces a world of violence and cruelty far beyond the borders of the Ponderosa. Blood Meridian is a book that reaches into the darkest corners of reality, and demolishes the false image of the west that everyone was so fixated on.
Commenting on Myranda's post about Blood Meridian and the religious connection, the scene where Sproule and Kid walk into the church with all the remains of the dead seemed a little ironic. It was interesting thinking that all the townsfolk ran into the building seeking sanctuary, believing that their faith would save them from massacre. Yet the Indians climbed onto the roof to shoot down on the civilians and thinking from the perspective of someone who was inside the church, it must have sucked to have looked up expecting to see God welcoming you with open arms when really it was an arrow straight to the face.
I have never been a fan of Westerns. Because of their excruciatingly dry settings, I often need a tall glass of water whenever I watch or even think about one, because I'm afraid I may die of dehydration. In Blood Meridian, this is not the case. McCarthy avoids this, despite the arid setting and because of that, he has slightly changed my opinion of how Westerns can be portrayed. As Kate said, Blood Meridian plays with the idea of destroying your classic Western, and I am very thankful for that. There's nothing I hate more than a good old John Wayne movie.
I feel as though the main aspect of McCarthy's style that I like the most is his description of violence and horror. Unlike your average western that on a town and a main character, McCarthy focuses on the background setting as well. His details are impressive. He opens Chapter V with, "The ground where he'd lain was soaked with blood and with urine from the voided bladders of the animals and he went forth stained and stinking like some reeking issue of the incarnate dam of war herself" (55). Not only is this disturbing, but it is entertaining. Well, at least for me.
As Chase and Kate said, Westerns have been overly romanticized. I like that McCarthy has reveled the truth about the late 1800's or the "Western era". The Wild West wasn't all about Cowboys roaming around saving the day, defeating the bad guy and getting the girl. It wasn't that plain and simple, there is more than what meets the eye. What I also like about McCarthy is that he always keeps you wanting more. at the end of chapter five he ends the chapter with, "He shuffled through the straw and stood looking down at him. You don't know me, do ye? he said. The kid spat and squinted up at him. I know ye, he said. I'd know your hid in a tanyard." As a reader, you want to know what happens after that. What I don't like about this book is the summarized sections at the beginning of each chapter. I feel like this is a spoiler for the chapter. I tend not to read them. Other than this I really like the book.
Sorry, Julio, but I would have to disagree with your opinion on the short phrases at the beginning of the chapter, though I certainly know where you're coming from. When I first started the novel, I was like, "oh, man, I'm already going to know what happens." This is far from the truth. We've already discussed in class that McCarthy is aware of what the reader's perspectives are, and thus how they might interpret what he it saying. For example, I thought that the black heart would be figurative (like almost a black-sploitation thing), when it turned out to be very literal: a real black man's heart. Despite this, it's giving you snippets rather than the whole picture, leaving room for surprise. Almost like movie stills instead of the motion picture.
Plus, it could be his nod toward traditional literature. It was common for people writing in all genres to detail what the chapter pertained before the actual text. For example, in Voltaire's Candide (which I talk about too much), Chapter XVI starts out with a subtitle of, "What happened to our two Travellers with two girls, two Monkeys, and the savages called Oreillons." You know what's involved, but not exactly what happens (it's also quite a shocker.) Good point though.
I notice that most people have focused more on what McCarthy reveals about the idealized & romanticized west, which I acknowledge is one of the larger pieces of this reading, but I wanted to focus more on the actual writing style and syntax of Blood Meridian. Although Mr. Largy vouches for the avoidance of using quotation marks and standard formatting, I feel as though it makes reading the text over complicated and unenjoyable. I was talking to Cory earlier today with Mr. Largy and I feel as though both of our difficulties with sometimes comprehending what is going on often branches from the hard to follow structure of the text. Had McCarthy followed some of the standards of today’s literature formatting, I would find this book much easier to read and enjoy.
Up to chapter fourteen, I have noticed a very strong influence of religion within the novel which ordinarily I would not place in a stereotypical cowboy scene. However, there are the priest who was murdered indirectly by the Judge, then there is the religion of people praying to God for safety and the one man who prays to God to help all of the world because his son was cut by a knife in a card game. When we go further into the novel, we realize that many of the cowboy characters are strong believers that there is a higher being present and I woud not typically suspect that to be normal behavior for a cowboy. A typical "cowboy" to me is an individual who is independent and doesn't let anyone else boss him around and goes by his own set of rules such as in The House of the Seven Gables when Hepzibah tells Phoebe that Mr. Holgrave has his own set of rules. That being said, these characters seem to depend on this higher being and it shows that Mccarthy had no intention of keeping this novel as a stereotypical cowboy novel. Personally, I feel like the way Mccarthy writes takes away from the total enjoyment for my sake because it is difficult to differentiate who is speaking and when a new speaker begins and where the other one stops. Having no quotations takes out of the novel, the sense of conversation and makes it more analysis based then a dialogue. With that being said I would enjoy this novel better if I was accustomed to the style of writing Mccarthy uses but I am not, so for me the story is sometimes lost and I get frustrated because this novel seems like it has so much adventure that's flying right over my head; losing the importance of the conversations at points. Lastly, in typical Western novels, there is usually a love interest of the cowboy that keeps him to one town and makes him fight for her but in this novel, the main character the Kid, seems to have no interest in a girl what so ever which strikes me as a little odd. why would Mccarthy take out such a vital part of the typical western novel? Maybe to show that a man does not need a woman to better himself, but the Kid is actually in the opposite situation. He has people influencing him left and right, and he's basically hanging out with the "wrong crowd." So maybe we haven't met the girl of his dreams, or maybe she will never come because he isn't in a place to love someone.
^^^nice Anyways What I noticed in chapter 13 is that now the gang is called the "Americans" also the irony within the beginning. When they come back to town the Mexicans have a celebration for them. However, once the Americans dry up the town of its wealth and food "they rode out three days later the streets stood empty, not even a dog followed them to the gates." pg 172. Also on page 172 it says "Mejor los indios" which means they would have rather have the Indians than the "Americans" which is ironic because they paid the Americans to kill the Indians now they would rather have the Indians. Also we see the power of the Judge in action within this chapter. when he picks up the man by his head and then breaks his neck. They have always talked about the power that Judge Holden has but in this chapter it is displayed. Now in chapter 14 what I noticed about the Judge has a soft side for kids on page 191 "He'd fill his pockets with little candy deathsheads and he sat by the door and offered these to children passing on the walk under the eaves." and in chapter 12 the Judge took an Indian kid and feed him and took care of him before he scalped him. I feel as though the Judge has a soft side for the younger generation.
Though we have already ready up until Chapter XVI of the book, I really wanted to share with the class something that I briefly mentioned in an old homework assignment for Chapters XI & XII. Specifically what I am about to launch into is from Chapter XI, page 141, and about the judge.
I have been making connections pretty much the whole book, and so it seems to be my go-to strategy for reading purpose. Well, anyway, with this book the bulk of my connections come from the Bible, which is interesting because when I did actually go to church in the early 2000s, Sunday school was such a bore. Luckily, I picked up on some hints in the text which tell me that McCarthy is probably alluding to the Bible and can googles the possible Bible thing, but that is not what I am taking about right now. Just look at me! Droning on and on and on; man, I am such a dull person.
Okay, so, what I have in store is from another book which I talk about way too much, Oscar Wilde’s Picture of Dorian Gray. After having a portrait of him painted by a friend he says, “If it were I who was to always be young, and the picture that was to grow old... I would give my soul for that!” (28).
Compare to an excerpt from BM: “he’d [the judge] once drawn an old Hueco’s portrait unwittingly chained the man to his own likeness. For he could not sleep for fear an enemy might take it and deface it so like was the portrait that he would not suffer it creased nor anything to touch it… he begged his counsel as to how he might preserve the thing…”
Rather than preserve him and forsake the picture, as with Dorian, this Hueco would rather trade in himself to preserve the picture. Both of their lives are directly linked to their pictures, just inversely. He allows his flesh and blood image (i.e. the real person) to be ruined in begging to the judge to help him, all to save the picture. There is also the similarity of selling one’s soul to the devil, which Dorian (“I would give my soul”) and the Hueco (being drawn by the judge, an anti-Christ figure) did. Likewise, both become enslaved by representations of this devil: Dorian partakes gluttonously of life’s “pleasures” and the other guy is compelled to seek out the judge and subject himself to the judge’s will.
There’s some other stuff, too, but this is already too long for my liking.
In chapter 13 it showed a change in tempo in the story. The posse is now called the "Americans" and they kill Mexican citizens instead of Apaches.Even though they always killed the citizens, it's just that there is more emphasis on the civilians in this chapter.It seems that McCarthy described the citizens more in this chapter than any other.This chapter was also ironic because the "Americans" get a celebration from doing the opposite the Governor asked of them when they are no better than the Apaches. McCarthy continues to show the string of violence woven throughout this book when he has the "Americans" kill the citizens to show how clever Glanton and the Judge are by having them find alternate ways to get scalps.
Chapter 14 is a crazy chapter I agree with Julio on the fact that the Judge has a soft spot for kids but besides this it is a very dark chapter.For example Glanton goes crazy, a girl goes missing, and puppies get thrown over a bridge and get shot at. These events are just more examples of the serious violence shown in this book.
I feel as though the reason why I enjoy this book is because it parodies the "classic western", and is in fact the exact opposite of what a western should be. I want to keep reading this book because I am interested in what McCarthy can do next in terms of destroying a western. It was mentioned that there are many similarities between this novel and the Bible. I don't know a single thing about the Bible or what happens in it, but I do know that, as Sophia mentioned, a western should not really share similarities to it. This is why I find this book interesting. Also, the fact that there is no love interest shows that McCarthy is messing around with westerns, screwing up the traditions completely. Additionally, McCarthy also messes around with punctuation and proper grammar, which, in a way, parodies writing in general, showing his independence as an artist.
I find myself very focused on finding what McCarthy can screw around with next.
After reading chapter 13, the biggest thing that stood out to me was the way the men treated people in the towns that they travelled through. They were treated as saints by all of the people, but within the few days that they stayed in each town, they caused so much trouble that they practically ran the whole town away. Why would they do this? Do they really want people to think that they are all powerful and that no one should ever mess with them? If I were them, I would be more respectful to people because the way they are acting is getting them the wrong attention. Yes, some people want to be feared by everyone around them, but they should not have these people scared in this way. All they do is cause trouble in each town and that is not okay. They should be more respectful to the people in town so that they can return and have the people in town look up to them and to have them help them when they need help. What happens if they run out of men or supplies? Would a town who is completely scared of them want to join their group of men? They might give them the supplies they need, but out of fear and fear only.
I agree with Julio as well, that we do see a soft side to the judge for chidlren, yet children all through out this book have been a symbol of death or sadness. Previously, we saw in the ghost carriage a dead boy with a man. There was also a little boy in the Inn of that same chapter who was sitting in the corner all alone, which was found to be dead the next day. Then in chapter 14, you see a missing girl that everyone is looking for. McCarthy is definitely trying to relate children to something along the lines of death or sadness in this book.
First off, may I agree with Caitlyn that the pattern of devastation in the novel is as follows: Americans come to a new town, residents are suspicious yet hospitable, Americans then party and drink rivaling that of college frat boys only to bring the entire town to ruin as they take their leave the following day in search of more victims. To me it seems that the only constant theme within the novel so far is that of bloody destruction. Moving on, I have discovered through chapters 13 and 14 that Blood Meridian strikes many comparisons with another novel written around 10 to 15 years before its completion. Lonesome Dove and Blood Meridian are both post twentieth century western resources chronicling the lives of rough men in the even rougher wild west. Glanton and Judge lead a band of Americans in Blood Meridian, while their counterparts are that of Gus and Woodrow in the novel Lonesome Dove, who also are in charge of a group of American cowboys if you will. Glanton, in my opinion, can be compared to Gus in that both men had their wild tendencies. However, in the end they were still in charge and respected and willing to get into bloody fights to defend themselves. Meanwhile, the Judge is more similar to Woodrow, being stern and more of a commander-in-chief than Glanton. I mean both men are still equally respected, but the Judge seems to wear the pants in this whole strange bloodthirsty family. Anyways, if you haven't read Lonesome Dove you will have absolutely no clue as to what I am going off about so I digress, let me just say though that Glanton and the Judge are not exactly like Gus and Woodrow, in fact they are worse. Killing puppies? I doubt that Woodrow ever would. Quoting scripture and philosophy? That was more of a job for Gus not Woodrow, as Blood Meridian would persuade you to believe. Again, though, I will move on... I think I would also like to bring up one last thing before I return to the hutches of more homework assignments, has anyone else noted the random bursts of religion this novel possesses? What from the judge's outbursts of morals to the endless line of priests roaming the towns you would think this western read more like the new testament... kind of. Any who, I found it ironic that one town had the captured Americans baptized prior to execution, and then just pages before that the band of Americans had left their fellow men slumped against a wall of a saloon, without a proper burial. It is the inconsistency of religion that really gets me in this novel, and how most classic westerns always have a "last goodbye" to their fallen comrades, while in this text it is a cold adios as the men trot away. Furthermore, most westerns seems to have a powerful goal in which they are in pursuit, while the only goal so far is to make it down through Mexico with a bunch of skinned caps as bounty. Why are they doing this? I feel as if the true reason of their journey has yet to be revealed, and has anyone else noticed that "the kid" has not said anything in awhile. Whatever. I guess we will just have to keep reading. PS In chapter 14 when the were taking that long and deadly nature walk (actually the same thing happened repeatedly for about eight other chapters prior to chapter 14) all I could think of was Lord of the Rings and the Two Towers where Sam and Frodo are basically on a long walk to Mordor, so is Mexico actually Mordor in this novel? O_o hmm PPS Don't judge me on my AIM username, I made it in sixth grade okay, and I haven't been on AIM since then. :P that is all.
Although I agree with others that Blood Meridian is not like your typical western, I also believe that McCarthy wrote this novel in such a way that is not your typical style of writing either. To be honest I feel I would enjoy this book a lot more if I could decipher what is going on half the time/tell who is saying what when there is dialogue.. It seems like the author plays by his own rules when it comes to writing, and as you keep reading you are forced to adapt to his style. This book, for me at least, is definitely not a book you can fully absorb the first time. I would have to agree with Myranda that McCarthy takes your expectations and completely flips them around. You go into the chapter thinking you know what is going to happen because of the "snippets" of information given to you, and you come out surprised by how that chapter closes. I think that's exactly what McCarthy's intentions were when writing this book, and he definitely succeeded.
Chase, i'll let you borrow my bible sometime. Great piece of work. I think Dan Brown wrote it?
Anywhozles, The judge and the fiddler seemed a little strange to me. After all this murdering and killing in the towns they visit, for the judge to pay a fiddler to play and then dance in the street, bowing to ladies who seemed frightened by this dancing giant, it seems out of character. Or it could just go to show that the judge is insane.
I think that we are completely forgetting what is important: Gabi's AIM username. Going way back to what Chase was saying earlier, I do like what McCarthy has done with the Western as a genre. While I am a fan of original Westerns, I do like the transitions and differences that McCarthy brings to the table. As I've mentioned in class before, and will probably mention again, I enjoy the style of McCarthy's writing. He gets rid of punctuation in some paragraphs, not to annoy English teachers, but rather to drive the story forward. If there was proper grammar, than the grotesque and violent scenes would not be as dramatic and enticing. This brings me to my next point: The violence. I love it. And not in a weird way. I love how McCarthy uses so much violence and gore throughout the book, because it is so different from other works, including Westerns. I'm not saying that Westerns and other books don't use violence, I'm just saying that they don't use it in such a vivid and descriptive manner. In any massacre or ambush scene, McCarthy will go into great detail describing exactly what was done to each person (once again not using proper grammar) and making the reader feel like they are right there watching all of this. Gabi mentioned that she thought that the theme of the book is "Bloody Destruction" and I completely agree with her. This book is extremely bloody, which makes it very exciting and almost intoxicating, and I'm loving every bloody, murderous minute of it. I realize that I may not be bringing anything new to the table, but I really felt that I should emphasize how much I love the different take on Westerns that this book is taking. I am very excited to see where McCarthy takes this book next.
I've been finding it very difficult to get into this book and it wasn't immediately obvious why. Most of the thought that I've put into the book has gone more into processing and analyzing my reaction to it, which, when I thought about it, didn't seem to make much sense. (This isn't surprising in and of itself; most people, in my experience, put very little thought into why they react to things the way they do.)
My first thought for why I don't like this book would have been its writing style. McCarthy's eschewing of quotation marks and his sparse use of new paragraphs both seem to contribute to a disconnected, vaguely surreal atmosphere that pervades the book. On reflection, however, that doesn't seem like quite enough to make me as aggressively disinterested as I am; I enjoyed Angela's Ashes (which I want to say I read last year) considerably more than I enjoyed Blood Meridian, though they are stylistically similar.
So I looked for differences between Angela's Ashes and Blood Meridian, and the best I could come up with was that I don't seem to be able to connect with any of the characters in Blood Meridian. In Blood Meridian, there doesn't seem to be a character for you – or for me, at least – to latch on to as a protagonist. You never see inside the kid's head in Blood Meridian – he doesn't seem to do much at all, honestly – and none of the other characters fit as a protagonist. In Angela's Ashes, I could empathize with the protagonist, and so I could enjoy the book a lot more.
That's pretty much the extent of the thinking that I've been doing about this book. I hope it was kind of somewhat insightful or something.
I understand that a lot of people have been having a hard time adjusting to the writing style in this book and are getting confused by the change in events. I think we've all noticed McCarthy's use of the annoying run-on sentences, lack of quotation marks and peculiar punctuation. At first, I thought that McCarthy's refrain from quotation marks was to make the characters seem as if there were no boundaries between their perspectives or thoughts, as if each and every man is just as brutal and savage as the next. However, that is simply not the case. I decided to dig a little deeper and discovered that when questioned about his unique style of writing in an interview, Cormac McCarthy remarked "Punctuation is not necessary if the writer writes properly." So there you go ladies and gentlemen, Cormac McCarthy must be a genius and the only writer to have ever accomplished a successful book because I know I've NEVER had the pleasure of feeling like a complete idiot when reading before. Although, I know I'm being a bit harsh because McCarthy has some really prominent themes throughout the book relating to race, religion, nature and innocence. While reading this delightful story, we all must remember that once upon a time "Catcher in the Rye" was despised by many as well. It was hated so much that it was banned from many libraries and schools because it was believed to be a horrific interpretation of teenage angst. So I think we owe Cormac McCarthy a little credit, because who knows, maybe in fifty years teenagers like us will be reading this saying "Yes! He gets it!" just like we did with J.D. Salinger (even though I personally despised his book). After discussing it with Mr. Largy a little bit, I've finally come to accept that the reason for McCarthy's confusing sentence structure has to do with the manner in which he wishes for the story to be told. We all know he has succeeded in destroying our ideas of the fantasized West, and I think that he makes the sentences harder to comprehend intentionally because he wants the plot and its characters to be as unfamiliar and uncomfortable as possible for us as we indulge ourselves in it (as painful as it may be at times).
Moving on, I noticed something that reoccurs a lot throughout each and every chapter of Blood Meridian. When the Kid first sets out with Glanton and the Judge and the whole gang, their soul purpose is to bring back scalps and take the head of some dude named Gomez. After massacring a village of defenseless women and children way back in Chapter 12, then killing their men who try to come riding into the rescue, Glanton decapitates the leader and sticks the head on a pole and parades around with it like he has a million dollars. However, when the Judge informs Glanton that the head is not that of this dude Gomez, Glanton simply remarks something like "Do you think it will pass for him?" meaning is it possible for him to pull a scam and collect the reward anyways. It occurred to me finally that these so-called heroes we are reading about really do care who they kill as long as they get paid. The same idea reoccurred when the judge scalped that young boy that had been sitting on his lap just moments before his own death.
What i have noticed in the last two chapters and much of the book, is Cormac McCarthy's excellent use in description. Like most of what Kate, Chase, and Julio have said, this western novel has not made itself out as your average western. It has kept my interest in ways many others westerns have not done so before. Although I do not oppose to classic westerns such as Chase does, I find this one more intriguing in McCarthy's approach as an author. His use in disruptive language is what has captured me the most. I like the way he describe the gory and intense battle scenes in addition to the way he unfold other parts within the novel. An example of his excellent use of description from our last reading is on page 187,"...wildflowers, acres of golden groundsel and zinnia and deep purple gentian and wild vines of blue morninglory and a vast plain of varied small blooms reaching onward like a gingham print." These lines especially stuck out to me because they were setting the scene for what they are traveling through. His details on the plants around them gives you a good picture of the scene. His environmental change to the book keeps things interesting. Its no longer your dry and dusty western scene. It'll be interesting to see how McCarthy continues to use description in the conclusion of the book.
Even though many people have said that this is not your typical western, I agree and disagree at the same time. Yes "the kid " is not your normal golden hero riding into town on a great horse, but he happens to fit the role of a typical kid during the time of the great wild west. This story does not fit into your typical story of a hero and a villain but it does fit a typical person in the wild wild west. A boy trying to fend for his life, doing what is necessary to stay alive and make something out of himself. Like others have said, McCarthy does not use a typical writing strategy,but it does fit this type of story. It is an awkward story, a boy riding a donkey riding around and then ends up falling into a war zone having to fight for his life. Not using quotes would fit this story. It seems right, a not so normal writing style with a not so right story.
This book shows a very violent description of the old west and the things that were going on during the time period. There is a theme of murder and of violence that goes on during the novel and in chapter 13, it does not shy away from this violent nature, as in this chapter the violence is even more present. Glanton and everyone in his gang are going wild killing everything in sight and doing it so in the most out right vicious way. This is a great example of the time period which is a time of running free and doing what eve you want. Killing and stealing can only be stopped by another person’s gun. Glanton does not just lead the gang to kill some who might be against him but the fact that he kills innocent people shows that many lies can be crossed during this time. I find it interesting that even though almost every one in the gang is just as responsible as the next for murdering all the people, that all the members in the gang were quick to put the blame all on Glanton as a way to get a way free. This really shows the way of west back then, every man for themselves.
I've noticed that in this novel the conflicts which the characters face are usually found in their environment, whether it may be with the Apache, Mexican soldiers, men in bars, travelers or even the harsh weather and terrain they live in, they always over come these obstacles with force and persistence. The only type of conflict that has yet t be addressed are internal disputes. Internal Disputes can help a reader connect with even the cruelest of characters, but this isn't possible with Blood Meridians third person writing style. So this, along with the numerous massacres of innocent people, leaves the main characters of the book in a very bad light. I have began to question the groups motives for the same reason. At first i assumed that their senseless killing was for money, which would be a sad but reasonable explanation. But, in chapter 14, the men turned in their scapled collected their cash and immediately blew it all on food, alcohol and new cloths. this left them in the same state as before, and left me once again with no answer to the question of their goal. If it was money they wanted, why were they so quick to waste it. So now i am left to decide whether these men even really care about the future. Maybe, they go day by day with no plan for the next, that lifestyle would suit them perfectly, but until it is justified it won't be sure. Are they heartless villains? Do they (any of the characters) have a motive to live for? Lydia George
I think one thing I would like to comment on is how yes, this western isn't like most westerns, but then again you can disagree and have valid points for why it is or isn't and I think plenty of us have been saying this from the get-go. In some ways I can feel myself waiting for, and most of the time expecting the novel to be a classic western. And I think that McCarthy plays upon this, one example being the violence. I think that he knows the readers are just going to be expecting a classic western and so he pushes his limits. With the violence especially. There is violence everywhere you look in the book. Gun shots and arrows being fired on each page, dead animals, attacking Indians/bats, scalpings of men, women AND children, and even a tree of dead babies. The reason I believe that there is a handful or horrific violence in this western is because McCarthy is aware that the audience will be waiting for is, so all he does is keep it coming. Also kind of changing subjects, something else that I felt that was occuring often was that animals and how they described often match the landscape. It seems to me that because the setting has such a big role in this book that everything in its own way becomes the setting, including the animals. For example when the gang is riding for long periods of time through the bare, dry dessert the people in the gang are described as parched and the horses are described as almost withering. This might just be me but I think the way the setting is used in the story is really very interesting and I think I might use it for my paper.
After speaking in class I keep coming back to the idea that Mr. Largy and Myranda had exposed when talking about the roll of nature in the novel. Once giving it some thought, I agree that nature is depreciated in the story, on the contrary of the often romanticized nature in the movies. I feel as though McCarthy does this to prove the brutality of the obscure forces working against the men and to foreshadow a downfall of the kid and his men, despite common Western stereotypes. On that note, it appears to me that nature is used in every sense as a way of going against all of the western stereotypes. Now for a separate thought: Mr. Largy's point that all of the naturalistic elements of the story accumulate to a character, although we are undecided about whether or not it is a secondary or primary, intrigued me. If we were to go through the story and take out the nature scenes and descriptions, what would we be left with? A story of a depressing teenage boy who runs away and faces brutality of the world around him....Oh wait, doesn't that sound familiar?
Reading Blood Meridian is like reading someone's dream, and like a dream it is very hard to follow. Everything that happens seems to be so random, the story just seems to happen. "The Boy" doesn't even appear to complain but just goes with things, knowing that that's just how things are. Crazy things that are a big deal such as scalping young babies, stabbing people with broken glass, almost being on the brink of dieing are told sort of in a passing matter. The fact is told and then McCarthy moves swiftly on to a totally different idea and setting and mood. His style is fast-paced and continuous like a long run-on sentenced that keeps going and going not stopping too long to go into great lengths of one detail. At some points I need to go back and reread because it is hard to keep up but I do like this book and the gruesome gory subject matter brought up. It says things that you don't find in most books these days. -kelsey gowen
Of the reading, Chapter V (pg. 55-73) was the most compelling. One reason: there are many religious parallels that I almost do not know what to do with myself. I have several ideas that I’m currently flirting with and trying to hash out.
ReplyDeleteThe men from Captain White’s little group of men (mainly the Kid and Sproule, as the chapter deals mostly with them) encounter things which resemble biblical themes. After the native attack (your traditional pagan-like group), they follow the stars to wander throughout the desert in search of water. As in the Bible (with the women at the well) the men received a sort of ‘refreshed spiritual life,’ to continue their journey through the desert in crusade or pilgrimage-like fashion – through the way they come across multiple examples of the Indian attack, the most important being the slaughter at the church, which heighten their feelings against the natives (which can be interpreted as identification with Christianity, etc.)
What stuck out the most to me was the prophecy of the Mexican leader they met and got water from: “When the lambs is lost in the mountain, he said. They is cry. Sometime come the mother. Sometime the wolf” (65). The Mexican is comparing the Kid and Sproule to lambs [of God]. The mother has already come to them, in the form of water, so only the wolf is left. He seems to foresee the capture of the two men, who thus join back up with their army mates, by the sort of barbaric townspeople. In a way, it is an enslavement of sorts, much like the Jews in Egypt (“Gods profoundest peons”—71).
This is all I’m going to say about it here, but keep in mind this is only from this one chapter and I didn’t even address everything. There’s still things like, “…wings outstretched in attitudes of exhortation like dark little bishops” (59), and, “…vultures squatted… in the carved façade hard by the figures of Christ and the apostles…” (72).
From what we have read so far in the previous chapters, I find that Blood Meridian reveals the true savagery of the "Wild West" time period. Blood Meridian introduces the character of the Kid, a young man struggling to find his way after running away from home. Introduced to a world of violence, he symbolizes individualism and the corruption of innocence as he is forced to adapt in this kill or be killed environment. I believe that the Kid represents all children who are forced into maturity and ultimately lose their way as they struggle to survive against day-to-day brutality.
ReplyDeleteBlood Meridian also plays with the idea of destroying the fantasized image of the Wild West that every child grew up listening to stories about. The great John Wayne movies where the gallant gunfighter saves the town from destitution at the hands of the savage natives are roughly cast aside with this story. All the Bonanza episodes that we watched with the three dashing Cartwright brothers and their wise father are burned at the stake as McCarthy introduces a world of violence and cruelty far beyond the borders of the Ponderosa. Blood Meridian is a book that reaches into the darkest corners of reality, and demolishes the false image of the west that everyone was so fixated on.
Commenting on Myranda's post about Blood Meridian and the religious connection, the scene where Sproule and Kid walk into the church with all the remains of the dead seemed a little ironic. It was interesting thinking that all the townsfolk ran into the building seeking sanctuary, believing that their faith would save them from massacre. Yet the Indians climbed onto the roof to shoot down on the civilians and thinking from the perspective of someone who was inside the church, it must have sucked to have looked up expecting to see God welcoming you with open arms when really it was an arrow straight to the face.
I have never been a fan of Westerns. Because of their excruciatingly dry settings, I often need a tall glass of water whenever I watch or even think about one, because I'm afraid I may die of dehydration. In Blood Meridian, this is not the case. McCarthy avoids this, despite the arid setting and because of that, he has slightly changed my opinion of how Westerns can be portrayed. As Kate said, Blood Meridian plays with the idea of destroying your classic Western, and I am very thankful for that. There's nothing I hate more than a good old John Wayne movie.
ReplyDeleteI feel as though the main aspect of McCarthy's style that I like the most is his description of violence and horror. Unlike your average western that on a town and a main character, McCarthy focuses on the background setting as well. His details are impressive. He opens Chapter V with, "The ground where he'd lain was soaked with blood and with urine from the voided bladders of the animals and he went forth stained and stinking like some reeking issue of the incarnate dam of war herself" (55). Not only is this disturbing, but it is entertaining. Well, at least for me.
As Chase and Kate said, Westerns have been overly romanticized. I like that McCarthy has reveled the truth about the late 1800's or the "Western era". The Wild West wasn't all about Cowboys roaming around saving the day, defeating the bad guy and getting the girl. It wasn't that plain and simple, there is more than what meets the eye.
ReplyDeleteWhat I also like about McCarthy is that he always keeps you wanting more. at the end of chapter five he ends the chapter with, "He shuffled through the straw and stood looking down at him. You don't know me, do ye? he said. The kid spat and squinted up at him. I know ye, he said. I'd know your hid in a tanyard." As a reader, you want to know what happens after that. What I don't like about this book is the summarized sections at the beginning of each chapter. I feel like this is a spoiler for the chapter. I tend not to read them. Other than this I really like the book.
Sorry, Julio, but I would have to disagree with your opinion on the short phrases at the beginning of the chapter, though I certainly know where you're coming from. When I first started the novel, I was like, "oh, man, I'm already going to know what happens." This is far from the truth. We've already discussed in class that McCarthy is aware of what the reader's perspectives are, and thus how they might interpret what he it saying. For example, I thought that the black heart would be figurative (like almost a black-sploitation thing), when it turned out to be very literal: a real black man's heart. Despite this, it's giving you snippets rather than the whole picture, leaving room for surprise. Almost like movie stills instead of the motion picture.
ReplyDeletePlus, it could be his nod toward traditional literature. It was common for people writing in all genres to detail what the chapter pertained before the actual text. For example, in Voltaire's Candide (which I talk about too much), Chapter XVI starts out with a subtitle of, "What happened to our two Travellers with two girls, two Monkeys, and the savages called Oreillons." You know what's involved, but not exactly what happens (it's also quite a shocker.) Good point though.
I notice that most people have focused more on what McCarthy reveals about the idealized & romanticized west, which I acknowledge is one of the larger pieces of this reading, but I wanted to focus more on the actual writing style and syntax of Blood Meridian. Although Mr. Largy vouches for the avoidance of using quotation marks and standard formatting, I feel as though it makes reading the text over complicated and unenjoyable. I was talking to Cory earlier today with Mr. Largy and I feel as though both of our difficulties with sometimes comprehending what is going on often branches from the hard to follow structure of the text. Had McCarthy followed some of the standards of today’s literature formatting, I would find this book much easier to read and enjoy.
ReplyDeleteUp to chapter fourteen, I have noticed a very strong influence of religion within the novel which ordinarily I would not place in a stereotypical cowboy scene. However, there are the priest who was murdered indirectly by the Judge, then there is the religion of people praying to God for safety and the one man who prays to God to help all of the world because his son was cut by a knife in a card game. When we go further into the novel, we realize that many of the cowboy characters are strong believers that there is a higher being present and I woud not typically suspect that to be normal behavior for a cowboy. A typical "cowboy" to me is an individual who is independent and doesn't let anyone else boss him around and goes by his own set of rules such as in The House of the Seven Gables when Hepzibah tells Phoebe that Mr. Holgrave has his own set of rules. That being said, these characters seem to depend on this higher being and it shows that Mccarthy had no intention of keeping this novel as a stereotypical cowboy novel.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I feel like the way Mccarthy writes takes away from the total enjoyment for my sake because it is difficult to differentiate who is speaking and when a new speaker begins and where the other one stops. Having no quotations takes out of the novel, the sense of conversation and makes it more analysis based then a dialogue. With that being said I would enjoy this novel better if I was accustomed to the style of writing Mccarthy uses but I am not, so for me the story is sometimes lost and I get frustrated because this novel seems like it has so much adventure that's flying right over my head; losing the importance of the conversations at points.
Lastly, in typical Western novels, there is usually a love interest of the cowboy that keeps him to one town and makes him fight for her but in this novel, the main character the Kid, seems to have no interest in a girl what so ever which strikes me as a little odd. why would Mccarthy take out such a vital part of the typical western novel? Maybe to show that a man does not need a woman to better himself, but the Kid is actually in the opposite situation. He has people influencing him left and right, and he's basically hanging out with the "wrong crowd." So maybe we haven't met the girl of his dreams, or maybe she will never come because he isn't in a place to love someone.
^^^nice
ReplyDeleteAnyways What I noticed in chapter 13 is that now the gang is called the "Americans" also the irony within the beginning. When they come back to town the Mexicans have a celebration for them. However, once the Americans dry up the town of its wealth and food "they rode out three days later the streets stood empty, not even a dog followed them to the gates." pg 172. Also on page 172 it says "Mejor los indios" which means they would have rather have the Indians than the "Americans" which is ironic because they paid the Americans to kill the Indians now they would rather have the Indians. Also we see the power of the Judge in action within this chapter. when he picks up the man by his head and then breaks his neck. They have always talked about the power that Judge Holden has but in this chapter it is displayed.
Now in chapter 14 what I noticed about the Judge has a soft side for kids on page 191 "He'd fill his pockets with little candy deathsheads and he sat by the door and offered these to children passing on the walk under the eaves." and in chapter 12 the Judge took an Indian kid and feed him and took care of him before he scalped him. I feel as though the Judge has a soft side for the younger generation.
Though we have already ready up until Chapter XVI of the book, I really wanted to share with the class something that I briefly mentioned in an old homework assignment for Chapters XI & XII. Specifically what I am about to launch into is from Chapter XI, page 141, and about the judge.
ReplyDeleteI have been making connections pretty much the whole book, and so it seems to be my go-to strategy for reading purpose. Well, anyway, with this book the bulk of my connections come from the Bible, which is interesting because when I did actually go to church in the early 2000s, Sunday school was such a bore. Luckily, I picked up on some hints in the text which tell me that McCarthy is probably alluding to the Bible and can googles the possible Bible thing, but that is not what I am taking about right now. Just look at me! Droning on and on and on; man, I am such a dull person.
Okay, so, what I have in store is from another book which I talk about way too much, Oscar Wilde’s Picture of Dorian Gray. After having a portrait of him painted by a friend he says, “If it were I who was to always be young, and the picture that was to grow old... I would give my soul for that!” (28).
Compare to an excerpt from BM: “he’d [the judge] once drawn an old Hueco’s portrait unwittingly chained the man to his own likeness. For he could not sleep for fear an enemy might take it and deface it so like was the portrait that he would not suffer it creased nor anything to touch it… he begged his counsel as to how he might preserve the thing…”
Rather than preserve him and forsake the picture, as with Dorian, this Hueco would rather trade in himself to preserve the picture. Both of their lives are directly linked to their pictures, just inversely. He allows his flesh and blood image (i.e. the real person) to be ruined in begging to the judge to help him, all to save the picture. There is also the similarity of selling one’s soul to the devil, which Dorian (“I would give my soul”) and the Hueco (being drawn by the judge, an anti-Christ figure) did. Likewise, both become enslaved by representations of this devil: Dorian partakes gluttonously of life’s “pleasures” and the other guy is compelled to seek out the judge and subject himself to the judge’s will.
There’s some other stuff, too, but this is already too long for my liking.
In chapter 13 it showed a change in tempo in the story. The posse is now called the "Americans" and they kill Mexican citizens instead of Apaches.Even though they always killed the citizens, it's just that there is more emphasis on the civilians in this chapter.It seems that McCarthy described the citizens more in this chapter than any other.This chapter was also ironic because the "Americans" get a celebration from doing the opposite the Governor asked of them when they are no better than the Apaches. McCarthy continues to show the string of violence woven throughout this book when he has the "Americans" kill the citizens to show how clever Glanton and the Judge are by having them find alternate ways to get scalps.
ReplyDeleteChapter 14 is a crazy chapter I agree with Julio on the fact that the Judge has a soft spot for kids but besides this it is a very dark chapter.For example Glanton goes crazy, a girl goes missing, and puppies get thrown over a bridge and get shot at. These events are just more examples of the serious violence shown in this book.
I feel as though the reason why I enjoy this book is because it parodies the "classic western", and is in fact the exact opposite of what a western should be. I want to keep reading this book because I am interested in what McCarthy can do next in terms of destroying a western. It was mentioned that there are many similarities between this novel and the Bible. I don't know a single thing about the Bible or what happens in it, but I do know that, as Sophia mentioned, a western should not really share similarities to it. This is why I find this book interesting. Also, the fact that there is no love interest shows that McCarthy is messing around with westerns, screwing up the traditions completely. Additionally, McCarthy also messes around with punctuation and proper grammar, which, in a way, parodies writing in general, showing his independence as an artist.
ReplyDeleteI find myself very focused on finding what McCarthy can screw around with next.
After reading chapter 13, the biggest thing that stood out to me was the way the men treated people in the towns that they travelled through. They were treated as saints by all of the people, but within the few days that they stayed in each town, they caused so much trouble that they practically ran the whole town away. Why would they do this? Do they really want people to think that they are all powerful and that no one should ever mess with them? If I were them, I would be more respectful to people because the way they are acting is getting them the wrong attention. Yes, some people want to be feared by everyone around them, but they should not have these people scared in this way. All they do is cause trouble in each town and that is not okay. They should be more respectful to the people in town so that they can return and have the people in town look up to them and to have them help them when they need help. What happens if they run out of men or supplies? Would a town who is completely scared of them want to join their group of men? They might give them the supplies they need, but out of fear and fear only.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Julio as well, that we do see a soft side to the judge for chidlren, yet children all through out this book have been a symbol of death or sadness. Previously, we saw in the ghost carriage a dead boy with a man. There was also a little boy in the Inn of that same chapter who was sitting in the corner all alone, which was found to be dead the next day. Then in chapter 14, you see a missing girl that everyone is looking for. McCarthy is definitely trying to relate children to something along the lines of death or sadness in this book.
First off, may I agree with Caitlyn that the pattern of devastation in the novel is as follows: Americans come to a new town, residents are suspicious yet hospitable, Americans then party and drink rivaling that of college frat boys only to bring the entire town to ruin as they take their leave the following day in search of more victims. To me it seems that the only constant theme within the novel so far is that of bloody destruction. Moving on, I have discovered through chapters 13 and 14 that Blood Meridian strikes many comparisons with another novel written around 10 to 15 years before its completion. Lonesome Dove and Blood Meridian are both post twentieth century western resources chronicling the lives of rough men in the even rougher wild west. Glanton and Judge lead a band of Americans in Blood Meridian, while their counterparts are that of Gus and Woodrow in the novel Lonesome Dove, who also are in charge of a group of American cowboys if you will. Glanton, in my opinion, can be compared to Gus in that both men had their wild tendencies. However, in the end they were still in charge and respected and willing to get into bloody fights to defend themselves. Meanwhile, the Judge is more similar to Woodrow, being stern and more of a commander-in-chief than Glanton. I mean both men are still equally respected, but the Judge seems to wear the pants in this whole strange bloodthirsty family. Anyways, if you haven't read Lonesome Dove you will have absolutely no clue as to what I am going off about so I digress, let me just say though that Glanton and the Judge are not exactly like Gus and Woodrow, in fact they are worse. Killing puppies? I doubt that Woodrow ever would. Quoting scripture and philosophy? That was more of a job for Gus not Woodrow, as Blood Meridian would persuade you to believe. Again, though, I will move on... I think I would also like to bring up one last thing before I return to the hutches of more homework assignments, has anyone else noted the random bursts of religion this novel possesses? What from the judge's outbursts of morals to the endless line of priests roaming the towns you would think this western read more like the new testament... kind of. Any who, I found it ironic that one town had the captured Americans baptized prior to execution, and then just pages before that the band of Americans had left their fellow men slumped against a wall of a saloon, without a proper burial. It is the inconsistency of religion that really gets me in this novel, and how most classic westerns always have a "last goodbye" to their fallen comrades, while in this text it is a cold adios as the men trot away. Furthermore, most westerns seems to have a powerful goal in which they are in pursuit, while the only goal so far is to make it down through Mexico with a bunch of skinned caps as bounty. Why are they doing this? I feel as if the true reason of their journey has yet to be revealed, and has anyone else noticed that "the kid" has not said anything in awhile. Whatever. I guess we will just have to keep reading.
ReplyDeletePS
In chapter 14 when the were taking that long and deadly nature walk (actually the same thing happened repeatedly for about eight other chapters prior to chapter 14) all I could think of was Lord of the Rings and the Two Towers where Sam and Frodo are basically on a long walk to Mordor, so is Mexico actually Mordor in this novel? O_o hmm
PPS
Don't judge me on my AIM username, I made it in sixth grade okay, and I haven't been on AIM since then. :P that is all.
Although I agree with others that Blood Meridian is not like your typical western, I also believe that McCarthy wrote this novel in such a way that is not your typical style of writing either. To be honest I feel I would enjoy this book a lot more if I could decipher what is going on half the time/tell who is saying what when there is dialogue.. It seems like the author plays by his own rules when it comes to writing, and as you keep reading you are forced to adapt to his style. This book, for me at least, is definitely not a book you can fully absorb the first time. I would have to agree with Myranda that McCarthy takes your expectations and completely flips them around. You go into the chapter thinking you know what is going to happen because of the "snippets" of information given to you, and you come out surprised by how that chapter closes. I think that's exactly what McCarthy's intentions were when writing this book, and he definitely succeeded.
ReplyDeleteChase, i'll let you borrow my bible sometime. Great piece of work. I think Dan Brown wrote it?
ReplyDeleteAnywhozles, The judge and the fiddler seemed a little strange to me. After all this murdering and killing in the towns they visit, for the judge to pay a fiddler to play and then dance in the street, bowing to ladies who seemed frightened by this dancing giant, it seems out of character. Or it could just go to show that the judge is insane.
I think that we are completely forgetting what is important: Gabi's AIM username.
ReplyDeleteGoing way back to what Chase was saying earlier, I do like what McCarthy has done with the Western as a genre. While I am a fan of original Westerns, I do like the transitions and differences that McCarthy brings to the table. As I've mentioned in class before, and will probably mention again, I enjoy the style of McCarthy's writing. He gets rid of punctuation in some paragraphs, not to annoy English teachers, but rather to drive the story forward. If there was proper grammar, than the grotesque and violent scenes would not be as dramatic and enticing. This brings me to my next point: The violence. I love it. And not in a weird way. I love how McCarthy uses so much violence and gore throughout the book, because it is so different from other works, including Westerns. I'm not saying that Westerns and other books don't use violence, I'm just saying that they don't use it in such a vivid and descriptive manner. In any massacre or ambush scene, McCarthy will go into great detail describing exactly what was done to each person (once again not using proper grammar) and making the reader feel like they are right there watching all of this. Gabi mentioned that she thought that the theme of the book is "Bloody Destruction" and I completely agree with her. This book is extremely bloody, which makes it very exciting and almost intoxicating, and I'm loving every bloody, murderous minute of it. I realize that I may not be bringing anything new to the table, but I really felt that I should emphasize how much I love the different take on Westerns that this book is taking.
I am very excited to see where McCarthy takes this book next.
I've been finding it very difficult to get into this book and it wasn't immediately obvious why. Most of the thought that I've put into the book has gone more into processing and analyzing my reaction to it, which, when I thought about it, didn't seem to make much sense. (This isn't surprising in and of itself; most people, in my experience, put very little thought into why they react to things the way they do.)
ReplyDeleteMy first thought for why I don't like this book would have been its writing style. McCarthy's eschewing of quotation marks and his sparse use of new paragraphs both seem to contribute to a disconnected, vaguely surreal atmosphere that pervades the book. On reflection, however, that doesn't seem like quite enough to make me as aggressively disinterested as I am; I enjoyed Angela's Ashes (which I want to say I read last year) considerably more than I enjoyed Blood Meridian, though they are stylistically similar.
So I looked for differences between Angela's Ashes and Blood Meridian, and the best I could come up with was that I don't seem to be able to connect with any of the characters in Blood Meridian. In Blood Meridian, there doesn't seem to be a character for you – or for me, at least – to latch on to as a protagonist. You never see inside the kid's head in Blood Meridian – he doesn't seem to do much at all, honestly – and none of the other characters fit as a protagonist. In Angela's Ashes, I could empathize with the protagonist, and so I could enjoy the book a lot more.
That's pretty much the extent of the thinking that I've been doing about this book. I hope it was kind of somewhat insightful or something.
I understand that a lot of people have been having a hard time adjusting to the writing style in this book and are getting confused by the change in events. I think we've all noticed McCarthy's use of the annoying run-on sentences, lack of quotation marks and peculiar punctuation. At first, I thought that McCarthy's refrain from quotation marks was to make the characters seem as if there were no boundaries between their perspectives or thoughts, as if each and every man is just as brutal and savage as the next. However, that is simply not the case. I decided to dig a little deeper and discovered that when questioned about his unique style of writing in an interview, Cormac McCarthy remarked "Punctuation is not necessary if the writer writes properly." So there you go ladies and gentlemen, Cormac McCarthy must be a genius and the only writer to have ever accomplished a successful book because I know I've NEVER had the pleasure of feeling like a complete idiot when reading before. Although, I know I'm being a bit harsh because McCarthy has some really prominent themes throughout the book relating to race, religion, nature and innocence. While reading this delightful story, we all must remember that once upon a time "Catcher in the Rye" was despised by many as well. It was hated so much that it was banned from many libraries and schools because it was believed to be a horrific interpretation of teenage angst. So I think we owe Cormac McCarthy a little credit, because who knows, maybe in fifty years teenagers like us will be reading this saying "Yes! He gets it!" just like we did with J.D. Salinger (even though I personally despised his book). After discussing it with Mr. Largy a little bit, I've finally come to accept that the reason for McCarthy's confusing sentence structure has to do with the manner in which he wishes for the story to be told. We all know he has succeeded in destroying our ideas of the fantasized West, and I think that he makes the sentences harder to comprehend intentionally because he wants the plot and its characters to be as unfamiliar and uncomfortable as possible for us as we indulge ourselves in it (as painful as it may be at times).
ReplyDeleteMoving on, I noticed something that reoccurs a lot throughout each and every chapter of Blood Meridian. When the Kid first sets out with Glanton and the Judge and the whole gang, their soul purpose is to bring back scalps and take the head of some dude named Gomez. After massacring a village of defenseless women and children way back in Chapter 12, then killing their men who try to come riding into the rescue, Glanton decapitates the leader and sticks the head on a pole and parades around with it like he has a million dollars. However, when the Judge informs Glanton that the head is not that of this dude Gomez, Glanton simply remarks something like "Do you think it will pass for him?" meaning is it possible for him to pull a scam and collect the reward anyways. It occurred to me finally that these so-called heroes we are reading about really do care who they kill as long as they get paid. The same idea reoccurred when the judge scalped that young boy that had been sitting on his lap just moments before his own death.
And that's all I feel like saying for now...
What i have noticed in the last two chapters and much of the book, is Cormac McCarthy's excellent use in description. Like most of what Kate, Chase, and Julio have said, this western novel has not made itself out as your average western. It has kept my interest in ways many others westerns have not done so before. Although I do not oppose to classic westerns such as Chase does, I find this one more intriguing in McCarthy's approach as an author. His use in disruptive language is what has captured me the most. I like the way he describe the gory and intense battle scenes in addition to the way he unfold other parts within the novel. An example of his excellent use of description from our last reading is on page 187,"...wildflowers, acres of golden groundsel and zinnia and deep purple gentian and wild vines of blue morninglory and a vast plain of varied small blooms reaching onward like a gingham print." These lines especially stuck out to me because they were setting the scene for what they are traveling through. His details on the plants around them gives you a good picture of the scene. His environmental change to the book keeps things interesting. Its no longer your dry and dusty western scene. It'll be interesting to see how McCarthy continues to use description in the conclusion of the book.
ReplyDeleteEven though many people have said that this is not your typical western, I agree and disagree at the same time. Yes "the kid " is not your normal golden hero riding into town on a great horse, but he happens to fit the role of a typical kid during the time of the great wild west. This story does not fit into your typical story of a hero and a villain but it does fit a typical person in the wild wild west. A boy trying to fend for his life, doing what is necessary to stay alive and make something out of himself.
ReplyDeleteLike others have said, McCarthy does not use a typical writing strategy,but it does fit this type of story. It is an awkward story, a boy riding a donkey riding around and then ends up falling into a war zone having to fight for his life. Not using quotes would fit this story. It seems right, a not so normal writing style with a not so right story.
This book shows a very violent description of the old west and the things that were going on during the time period. There is a theme of murder and of violence that goes on during the novel and in chapter 13, it does not shy away from this violent nature, as in this chapter the violence is even more present. Glanton and everyone in his gang are going wild killing everything in sight and doing it so in the most out right vicious way. This is a great example of the time period which is a time of running free and doing what eve you want. Killing and stealing can only be stopped by another person’s gun. Glanton does not just lead the gang to kill some who might be against him but the fact that he kills innocent people shows that many lies can be crossed during this time. I find it interesting that even though almost every one in the gang is just as responsible as the next for murdering all the people, that all the members in the gang were quick to put the blame all on Glanton as a way to get a way free. This really shows the way of west back then, every man for themselves.
ReplyDeleteI've noticed that in this novel the conflicts which the characters face are usually found in their environment, whether it may be with the Apache, Mexican soldiers, men in bars, travelers or even the harsh weather and terrain they live in, they always over come these obstacles with force and persistence. The only type of conflict that has yet t be addressed are internal disputes. Internal Disputes can help a reader connect with even the cruelest of characters, but this isn't possible with Blood Meridians third person writing style. So this, along with the numerous massacres of innocent people, leaves the main characters of the book in a very bad light.
ReplyDeleteI have began to question the groups motives for the same reason. At first i assumed that their senseless killing was for money, which would be a sad but reasonable explanation. But, in chapter 14, the men turned in their scapled collected their cash and immediately blew it all on food, alcohol and new cloths. this left them in the same state as before, and left me once again with no answer to the question of their goal. If it was money they wanted, why were they so quick to waste it. So now i am left to decide whether these men even really care about the future. Maybe, they go day by day with no plan for the next, that lifestyle would suit them perfectly, but until it is justified it won't be sure.
Are they heartless villains?
Do they (any of the characters) have a motive to live for?
Lydia George
I think one thing I would like to comment on is how yes, this western isn't like most westerns, but then again you can disagree and have valid points for why it is or isn't and I think plenty of us have been saying this from the get-go. In some ways I can feel myself waiting for, and most of the time expecting the novel to be a classic western. And I think that McCarthy plays upon this, one example being the violence. I think that he knows the readers are just going to be expecting a classic western and so he pushes his limits. With the violence especially. There is violence everywhere you look in the book. Gun shots and arrows being fired on each page, dead animals, attacking Indians/bats, scalpings of men, women AND children, and even a tree of dead babies. The reason I believe that there is a handful or horrific violence in this western is because McCarthy is aware that the audience will be waiting for is, so all he does is keep it coming.
ReplyDeleteAlso kind of changing subjects, something else that I felt that was occuring often was that animals and how they described often match the landscape. It seems to me that because the setting has such a big role in this book that everything in its own way becomes the setting, including the animals. For example when the gang is riding for long periods of time through the bare, dry dessert the people in the gang are described as parched and the horses are described as almost withering. This might just be me but I think the way the setting is used in the story is really very interesting and I think I might use it for my paper.
After speaking in class I keep coming back to the idea that Mr. Largy and Myranda had exposed when talking about the roll of nature in the novel. Once giving it some thought, I agree that nature is depreciated in the story, on the contrary of the often romanticized nature in the movies. I feel as though McCarthy does this to prove the brutality of the obscure forces working against the men and to foreshadow a downfall of the kid and his men, despite common Western stereotypes. On that note, it appears to me that nature is used in every sense as a way of going against all of the western stereotypes.
ReplyDeleteNow for a separate thought: Mr. Largy's point that all of the naturalistic elements of the story accumulate to a character, although we are undecided about whether or not it is a secondary or primary, intrigued me. If we were to go through the story and take out the nature scenes and descriptions, what would we be left with? A story of a depressing teenage boy who runs away and faces brutality of the world around him....Oh wait, doesn't that sound familiar?
Reading Blood Meridian is like reading someone's dream, and like a dream it is very hard to follow. Everything that happens seems to be so random, the story just seems to happen. "The Boy" doesn't even appear to complain but just goes with things, knowing that that's just how things are. Crazy things that are a big deal such as scalping young babies, stabbing people with broken glass, almost being on the brink of dieing are told sort of in a passing matter. The fact is told and then McCarthy moves swiftly on to a totally different idea and setting and mood. His style is fast-paced and continuous like a long run-on sentenced that keeps going and going not stopping too long to go into great lengths of one detail.
ReplyDeleteAt some points I need to go back and reread because it is hard to keep up but I do like this book and the gruesome gory subject matter brought up. It says things that you don't find in most books these days.
-kelsey gowen