Hello, all!
It's time for discussion of the first half of the book, or through the end of chapter 12. I hope everyone's enjoying the book so far and has made it the whole way. Some medical issues and an inordinate amount of work have forbidden me from being all the way, but I've gotten most of the way and I'm absolutely loving it. I'll discuss more in the comments, along with everyone else.
eightbitsamurai, StJohn, DiamondLou86, AnSionnachRua, _refugee_, minimum_wage, flagamuffin, fuffle, b_b, hugitout, JakobVirgil, zebra2, AdSeriatim, mk, thenewgreen, SufficientGrace, ecib, kleinbl00, cliffelam, hootsbox, lil, rezzeJ, cgod, blackbootz, onehunna, AshShields, BLOB_CASTLE, insomniasexx, kuli, cowboyhaze, louderwords, Floatbox, maynard, hiss, NikolaiFyodorov, Meriadoc, wasoxygen, BlackBird, jayfixkleenit, crimsonlight, Kaius, spearhard
@eightbitsamurai@, @StJohn@, @DiamondLou86@, @AnSionnachRua@, @_refugee_@, @minimum_wage@, @flagamuffin@, @fuffle@, @b_b@, @hugitout@, @JakobVirgil@, @zebra2@, @AdSeriatim@, @mk@, @thenewgreen@, @SufficientGrace@, @ecib@, @kleinbl00@, @cliffelam@, @hootsbox@, @lil@, @rezzeJ@, @cgod@, @blackbootz@, @onehunna@, @AshShields@, @BLOB_CASTLE@, @insomniasexx@, @kuli@, @cowboyhaze@, @louderwords@, @Floatbox@, @maynard@, @hiss@, @NikolaiFyodorov@, @Meriadoc@, @wasoxygen@, @BlackBird@, @jayfixkleenit@, @crimsonlight@, @Kaius@, @spearhard@So, Cormac McCarthy lived in El Paso for a while, presumably traveled in Mexico. And not in the best of circumstances, he was dirt poor. I think that when he set out to write a western/military history novel, he asked himself, "what sort of man would have lived where I live, 150 years ago?" And then he wrote a series of characters who are archetypal or at least typical of the setting, but overshadwed by it -- because west Texas, south Texas and desert Mexico are overwhelming, scary places. They're dry, they're unforgiving, and they're empty -- and so are McCarthy's fucking characters. I love it. His depiction of violence is just realism. I don't see the need to subscribe symbolic value to it. Texas/Mexico (the distinction was blurry then) in the 1800s was a really dangerous place, with a lot of competing factions centered in a small area. All the history of the time that I've ever read indicates McCarthy's violent scenes are by no means beyond normal.
Very true, and while the 1800's were a violent time I think that McCarthy writes about violence as if its a part of our makeup. I think i mentioned it in an earlier post but at the very start of the book he added 3 epigrams:
It is not to be thought that the life of darkness is sunk in misery and lost as if in sorrow. There is no sorrowing. For sorrow is a thing that is swallowed up in death, and death and dying are the very life of the darkness–Jacob Boehme Clark, who led last year’s expedition to the Afar region of northern Ethiopia, and UC Berkeley colleague Tim D. White, also said that a reexamination of a 300,000-year-old fossil skull found in the same region earlier shows evidence of having been scalped–The Yuma Daily Sun, June 13, 1982 It's not that this one period is violent; its that we as species are violent and always have been. So in a sense perhaps the violence in this novel should not be considered all that important to what the author is trying to say.His depiction of violence is just realism. I don't see the need to subscribe symbolic value to it. Texas/Mexico (the distinction was blurry then) in the 1800s was a really dangerous place, with a lot of competing factions centered in a small area. All the history of the time that I've ever read indicates McCarthy's violent scenes are by no means beyond normal.
Your ideas are terrifying and your hearts are faint. Your acts of pity and cruelty are absurd, committed with no calm, as if they were irresistible. Finally, you fear blood more and more. Blood and time–Paul Valery
Slowly dying in the desert only to be awoken by a vulture picking at your rancid oozing wound is far more terrifying than any vampire or zombie.His depiction of violence is just realism.
-That's the way I see it too. But then, violence is so horrible in reality, that sensationalizing it actually has the result of making it more palatable not less. What I mean is that McCarthy's telling of the violence is so much more disturbing because it isn't glorified, vilified or sensationalized in any way. It just is... and that makes it all the more real and oddly relatable.
I agree with this interpretation. I mentioned it in an earlier post as well, and it's even more unsettling that it's really the first time I've read something that doesn't glorify it in any way; it's absolutely clear cut. What kind of society are we are part of that so few depictions of violence are such?
That's a good point, it is a bit disturbing that violence is never presented in a matter of fact way. That said, it's got to be a defense mechanism to protect oneself from the raw brutality of it. To somehow keep us above the animal nature of violence. He keeps the psychology of violence largely out of this too. He mentions when people are scared etc, but doesn't dwell in analyzing or over-hyping the internal dialog or conflicts. -There is no internal dialog to speak of really. It's just "this happened" and then they move on.
It's wonderful in that regard. It keeps the flow precise and makes the beauty that much more enjoyable; there'sno moraliz ing, no opinions, no purple, nothing but depiction and story. None of those things, save purple prose, are bad, but there's something so meaningful in the writing that can express itself, to simply be from a mastery of language and mere existence.
Another thought, I've learned more words from this book than I have from the last 30 combined I've read.
And as another discussion topic, it was mentioned at least one on the subject of representation in the book, specifically if the violence is representative of anything or has any real meaning or purpose, or perhaps the lack of purpose is the statement within itself, along with the lack of emotion of strong individuality between characters.
As the first thing to mention at least, I absolutely love the pacing and its part in the creation of the atmosphere. It has a weird warping on time despite being fairly constant. Like the crawl through the desert early on, it feels quick even though it's desolate and the characters seem to have no emotions during it, and yet while the sam rhythm is applied during the first exectution Glanton performed, time sems absolutely stopped and you could feel the silence from the town and the company as everything played out. Haunting.
Perhaps that's his secret, he gives you just enough and trusts you to fill in the blanks.As the first thing to mention at least, I absolutely love the pacing and its part in the creation of the atmosphere.
I actually wish I understood how he does this, he sets an atmosphere and it remains throughout. And not only that but he does it with almost no drama or labor. Other Authors will describe in detail what they want you to see and think and then tell you again and again to make sure you got it. McCarthy does none of that but he still manages to create a strong atmosphere.
They're both fantastic characters. You know very little about them in reality but there's a full profile to who they are. The judge speaks in long monologues, occassionally only tangentially related. and Glanton rarely says more than three word sentences, but they're very lingering characters regardless.
The kid is an odd character, because he's not much of a character at all. We meet him and find out about his life early on, but then he just becomes a backdrop against which the story is told. Glanton and the Judge seem to be whom the story is "actually" about. As for the Judge, I think he is an amazing character, and my favorite passages of the book are his long monologues.