Blood Meridian discussion - This is a terrible place to die in

[wtfNeedSignUp]

The book came up in the Wendigoon thread due to being featured in a massive 5 hour video, since I'm going to effort post and other people like to talk on the book we might as well make it its own thread. I'm going to write a lot of my ideas about the book, of course I'm not a native English speaker and not that much of an avid reader so most of it will probably be idiotic but might as well.

Who is Judge Holden?
Might as well start with the biggest question of the book, Judge Holden is the most memorable character in the book and is a beast of a man in both physical and mental attributes. Most of the people theorize about him being some sort of divine/devilish being since it's pretty much the only thing that makes sense considering his attributes, abilities and claims. I see him as either a character that was part of the gang or a gestalt of the gang members doing certain things. At the very least after the massacre of the Yuma he only exists as an allegory to the life of crime and pleasure that the remnants of the gang either cling on or move away from (which explains how the remnant of the gang that is "captured" by him isn't killed by him despite him going off to chase The Kid.
While The Judge claims he represents the concept of war, that's misleading. The Judge represents bestial violence, the primal urges of men to mutilate, kill and fuck. The gang members (save the priest) have seen him before joining since their lives before the gang involved being connected to this idea. The Judge seems to have an affinity to "pure" being, primarily children as they are more connected to the bestial violence he symbolizes (not unlike another famous literary Holden). The being the judge seems to be most connected to is the Idiot, who he doesn't kill upon violating, as the Idiot is the ultimate pure being who remains pure in his idiocy.

What happens to the protagonist in the end?
The Boy grows up to be a man, leaves the life of crime and reaches some status. However his new way of life never saved his soul and he still has a connection to the bestial violence (The Judge). A good example of it is him trying to save an already dead woman - it's too late for him to do the right thing. One thing I'm pretty sure of is that The Boy was the one responsible for the child killings featured in the book, while usually people claim it in The Judge, it's kind of pointless in a narrative sense since The Judge is a terrible person as it is who does horrid things in the open. But the boy, who is hidden away by the gang in his actions, is appropriately also hidden away with the dead children (not to mention it's a common thread of him with the Judge).
Upon reaching the town in the end he is reminded of his past with the girl and the bear, he surrenders to his needs and kidnaps and kills the girl and finally decides to "quit the dance" by committing suicide in the restroom. Edit: A different way to interpret the ending is The Man finally getting possessed by The Judge and "dying" that way, with the restroom containing some orgiastic act of violence so great it is impossible to understand, though it kinda goes against The Man quitting the dance.

Tropes subverted
I've heard people talking about the book subverting the ideas of colonialism and mighty whitey cowboy. Both I disagree on, on the former everyone is terrible and think about themselves and it is clear that the Indians are a menace, while the latter the gang is as stereotypical villains as possible in any work, with their task being inexcusably horrific and disgusting. The trope that does seemed to be subverted is the "diverse gang of do-gooders" (ie, Red Dead Redemption 2), the gang is diverse and somewhat tolerates each other but everyone there is for himself and being non-white doesn't amount to some greater morals.

Animals and moral decay
It's pretty interesting that some of the gang care more about animals than humans. Glanton adopts a dog and the gang consistently seems to care more about horses than other human beings (including a snake bitten donkey over the people in the same camp). It could be a way to humanize some of them as not complete monsters, or show how the time period in general is such that animal companionship and worth is greater than most individuals.

 

[frozen_runner]

This is my favorite novel of all time from my favorite author period.

Happy to discuss it with other people. I shall return to the thread!

 

[Jeff_the_Thriller]

It's crazy this thread started two days after I started listening to the audiobook. I didn't read too much into the op because I don't want anything ruined but since it's a Cormac McCarthy book I'm sure The Kid gets a happy ending where he leaves the gang to settle down with a wife and kids on the homestead land he was promised.

 

[frozen_runner]

Who is Judge Holden?
Might as well start with the biggest question of the book, Judge Holden is the most memorable character in the book and is a beast of a man in both physical and mental attributes. Most of the people theorize about him being some sort of divine/devilish being since it's pretty much the only thing that makes sense considering his attributes, abilities and claims. I see him as either a character that was part of the gang or a gestalt of the gang members doing certain things. At the very least after the massacre of the Yuma he only exists as an allegory to the life of crime and pleasure that the remnants of the gang either cling on or move away from (which explains how the remnant of the gang that is "captured" by him isn't killed by him despite him going off to chase The Kid.
While The Judge claims he represents the concept of war, that's misleading. The Judge represents bestial violence, the primal urges of men to mutilate, kill and fuck. The gang members (save the priest) have seen him before joining since their lives before the gang involved being connected to this idea. The Judge seems to have an affinity to "pure" being, primarily children as they are more connected to the bestial violence he symbolizes (not unlike another famous literary Holden). The being the judge seems to be most connected to is the Idiot, who he doesn't kill upon violating, as the Idiot is the ultimate pure being who remains pure in his idiocy.

The Judge is being very upfront about what he is, much like Glanton himself is (horrifyingly) said to be "complete at every hour" because he fully embraces the truth of his identity: one who kills. At one point the Judge says something like, "whatever exists without my consent is offensive to me," and he isn't kidding. He violates children because they are pure, yes, but he delights in destroying their purity in much the same way he delights in destroying the ancient relic he finds at some point in the story. (It's been some time since I last read the book, so please forgive me for not being more specific.) Purity is the opposite of war, in a sense. And purity is offensive
to the Judge because , I think, of its weakness and helplessness in the face of murderous strength. Because ultimately that is all that matters, he says. And is he wrong?

There is no distinction between "war" and "bestial violence," because the latter is what leads to warfare. The Judge is using the word to refer to the eternal, atavistic, evolutionary drive to destroy that exists in all creatures on some level. The "ultimate argument" that superceeds all other arguments. That is the war he embodies. That is what the "communion" of fire in the desert, that draws all the creatures in a rare moment of truce around that burning bush (read: war as the voice of God), represents.

That is what the Judge is. That's why he's immortal, why he appears to be the same age when he meets the "boy" later as a man. "He says that he will never die." And he never will.

What happens to the protagonist in the end?
The Boy grows up to be a man, leaves the life of crime and reaches some status. However his new way of life never saved his soul and he still has a connection to the bestial violence (The Judge). A good example of it is him trying to save an already dead woman - it's too late for him to do the right thing. One thing I'm pretty sure of is that The Boy was the one responsible for the child killings featured in the book, while usually people claim it in The Judge, it's kind of pointless in a narrative sense since The Judge is a terrible person as it is who does horrid things in the open. But the boy, who is hidden away by the gang in his actions, is appropriately also hidden away with the dead children (not to mention it's a common thread of him with the Judge).
Upon reaching the town in the end he is reminded of his past with the girl and the bear, he surrenders to his needs and kidnaps and kills the girl and finally decides to "quit the dance" by committing suicide in the restroom.

This is a mostly wrong reading of The Boy and the ending. You are in good company: most people seem to read into this ending various things instead of what's on the page.

The Boy is hidden from us for most of the novel. We do not know what he thinks about most of what happens. We do not know exactly what he does along with the gang during the massacres. We do not know who he is until we observe him, like a scientist observing an animal to understand its instincts. (That is not a coincidence, thematically speaking.) And up until the ending, where is a grown man, we observe very little about our main character. It is maddening on a first reading. (And, despite the book being infamously "unfilmable," I think if you did try to adapt it, you would have to get creative to depict him at all. I have my ideas.)

I think McCarthy wrote The Boy his way because there's an inherent tension and drama in not knowing. We witness some of the worst violence put to paper by pen. Disgusting, senseless, revolting violence. And nobody in the book seems to have a problem with any of it, and that upsets and angers us on some level.

But what about the Boy? He's growing, so in some real sense he doesn't know who he is or what he thinks about anything. He is potential. And we want him to instinctively revolt against what's happening around him. We want him to decide it's evil and wrong. And we see him hesitate (I'm thinking specifically of his reluctance to shoot the horses in the desert, to strand The Judge.)
as he goes along.

We know the violence and cruelty will continue. We know it won't be fully stopped, because that's the nature of the novel's world. We just want someone else to say it's wrong and to refuse to participate.

And what he find after the time jump is that he seems to know
the Judge is right. He shoots the young boy (probably the same age he was when the book started) because it was inevitable that he would come back to try and murder The Man. He would have done the same thing at that age. It's sad, but nothing can be done. "You wouldn't have lived anyway."

But, ultimately? When he meets the ageless Judge in the saloon at the end, he rejects the Judge's offer of joining in "the dance." Referring to the abused dancing bear performing for the patrons (which is meaninglessly killed for fun) he says, "Even a dumb animal can dance." It means nothing to kill, he's saying. And he choses not to do it unless he has to. In other words, to him, life and purity have some value.

And the Judge cannot abide that. Because everything is meaningless and powerless in the face of the ultimate argument. And so when the Man goes to piss or shit, the Judge, great and horrible and naked, seizes him in the outhouse... and that's all we know based on the text.

My take? He destroys him completely. For daring to understand fully what "war" is in this world and for spinelessly, weakly, foolishly (as the Judge thinks of it) turning his back on it. And isn't that what a commitment to peace amounts to in the face of war?

More to come.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

There is no distinction between "war" and "bestial violence," because the latter is what leads to warfare. The Judge is using the word to refer to the eternal, atavistic, evolutionary drive to destroy that exists in all creatures on some level. The "ultimate argument" that superceeds all other arguments. That is the war he embodies. That is what the "communion" of fire in the desert, that draws all the creatures in a rare moment of truce around that burning bush (read: war as the voice of God), represents.

If there was no difference than The Judge would have joined the army rather than a gang of psychos. The Judge's arguments are as cynical as they can be and are told to people who are already at a spot where they have no spot in civilized society and thus no way to resist them. He is in a gang because the freedom of doing what he wants to people weaker with him without comeuppance. Or, in short, while he has some good points about human nature, he is full of shit.

Also like I said, I don't like the idea of The Judge as a supernatural being since it kinda removes a lot of agency of the characters. But I'll agree it's kinda unlikely to be the case.

 

[Your Starter for 10]

All I know is they need to hurry the fuck up and make a movie while Greg Davies is still young enough to play the part of Judge Holden. Sure, he'd grouse about having to shave his head, but otherwise literally nothing needs to change.

 

[Weeb Slinger]

I have heard the Judge aptly described as a fusion of Prometheus and the Devil. It is hard not to regard him as either a supernatural force, or the earthly vessel for such a force.

He furnishes men and civilizations with the means to bring about their own destruction. In the short term his gifts and support point the way towards wealth, freedom, advancement, etc, all of which eventually build to a critical mass and annihilate the recipient or recipients. It has been a while since I read the book, but I recall a chapter in which the party make camp in a long-abandoned settlement. It is implied that the Judge has been through there before and is responsible for the fall of the people.

His willingness to provide the assistance and resources necessary for development is informed by the pleasure that he derives from watching the inneivtable fall.

 

[Meat Target]

If I were an English teacher, I would make this book required reading.

Tropes subverted
I've heard people talking about the book subverting the ideas of colonialism and mighty whitey cowboy. Both I disagree on, on the former everyone is terrible and think about themselves and it is clear that the Indians are a menace, while the latter the gang is as stereotypical villains as possible in any work, with their task being inexcusably horrific and disgusting. The trope that does seemed to be subverted is the "diverse gang of do-gooders" (ie, Red Dead Redemption 2), the gang is diverse and somewhat tolerates each other but everyone there is for himself and being non-white doesn't amount to some greater morals.

I think it does subvert Western genre tropes, but the Spaghetti Westerns of the 60's and 70's had already started that trend. Those were already flying in the face of their forebears, the more wholesome and maudlin Westerns of the 40's and 50's.

Blood Meridian is the tail-end of what's now known as the "anti-Western". You have the traditional hero (The Lone Ranger), then the anti-hero (the Man With No Name), and then full-blown villain protagonists (the Glanton Gang).

On the question of colonialism and the genocide of the Indians, it takes a very clinical, matter-of-fact approach. McCarthy isn't trying to make a sermon about white guilt, nor is he a Manifest Destiny apologist. He doesn't sugar-coat the white man's conquest, but he also doesn't fall into the opposite problem of valorizing the Noble Savage. The Mexicans hate the Apaches, too. They only sour on the whiteys after they wear out their welcome and cause even more trouble ("mejor los indios").

 

[guidmaker]

Not the biggest fan of the book but the audiobook is incredible for obvious reason, it's also extremely well narrated by Richard Poe.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

Blood Meridian is piss

 

[CyrusHowler]

I just found out about this book and the author gives me the impression of an Autistic Internet Edgelord but before the internet existed.
“Lmao imma write a western but the main characters are all insane murdering cannibal pedos”
Good job Chief I’ll stick to All Quiet on The Western Front thanks.

 

[Osama Bin Laden]

i’m necroing this thread but i’ve been listening to the audiobook when i’ve been working my job.

i wouldn’t consider myself a reader but the way the author has a way with words and uses descriptions to paint a very dark and evil picture.

i just finished the book today and ive never read something that made me question my opinion on certain topics. i think judge holden is a perfect villain. he’s someone you want to hate but can’t help but listen to his monologues

 

[frozen_runner]

i’m necroing this thread but i’ve been listening to the audiobook when i’ve been working my job.

i wouldn’t consider myself a reader but the way the author has a way with words and uses descriptions to paint a very dark and evil picture.

i just finished the book today and ive never read something that made me question my opinion on certain topics. i think judge holden is a perfect villain. he’s someone you want to hate but can’t help but listen to his monologues

Blood Meridian said many things I knew were true but couldn't articulate. It might be the most important novel I've ever read. It's certainly my favorite, and not because I like the violence.

If you enjoy McCarthy's use of language and the book's themes, you'll enjoy a lot of his other work. (He wrote in two different styles, one more plain and one more ornate.) I've read it all. Let me know if you want further suggestions.

 

[pork and beans]

guy in my poetry seminar today was reading blood meridian sitting on the floor

 

[Osama Bin Laden]

Blood Meridian said many things I knew were true but couldn't articulate. It might be the most important novel I've ever read. It's certainly my favorite, and not because I like the violence.

If you enjoy McCarthy's use of language and the book's themes, you'll enjoy a lot of his other work. (He wrote in two different styles, one more plain and one more ornate.) I've read it all. Let me know if you want further suggestions.

one of the main things i really like about blood meridian is that it does an excellent job of planting clues about future events that you don’t typically notice at first read but then when you read it again, it was there the whole time.

one of the things i like about the writing style is that it’s not proper, but you know exactly who is saying what dialogue. i can honestly say this is one of the greatest books ive ever read

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

I just found out about this book and the author gives me the impression of an Autistic Internet Edgelord but before the internet existed.
“Lmao imma write a western but the main characters are all insane murdering cannibal pedos”
Good job Chief I’ll stick to All Quiet on The Western Front thanks.

It is an Autistic Internet Edgelord book, but it's based on a real story about the Glanton Gang.

 

[CyrusHowler]

It is an Autistic Internet Edgelord book, but it's based on a real story about the Glanton Gang.

Yeah. It’s still poopy tho.

 

[Taki Supremacy]

I read the book before Wendigoon's video came out. On my read of the ending, I thought that it was some fourth wall breaking shit. The Judge is talking about everyone being gathered to this place and not knowing why, he points to an idiot drooling and mumbling to himself and asks The Man why he is there and The Man has no answer. The Judge talks about a ritual that needs to take place. I thought it was a wink to the camera. The Judge is a demon that has realized he has been written into a book and is trying to find away to escape at the end of the story.

That's just crazy though.... right?

 

[San Marino]

i’m necroing this thread but i’ve been listening to the audiobook when i’ve been working my job.

i wouldn’t consider myself a reader but the way the author has a way with words and uses descriptions to paint a very dark and evil picture.

i just finished the book today and ive never read something that made me question my opinion on certain topics. i think judge holden is a perfect villain. he’s someone you want to hate but can’t help but listen to his monologues

This is unrelated to the thread but a few weeks ago I thought ”man, it would be cool if he became “Osama Bin Holden” and now I am happy that I could see it happen lol.

Spoiler: For future reference

 

[naaaaiiiiillllll!!!]

C’mon guys, we’re discussing who Judge Holden is, but we can ask @Judge Holden here and now!