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.