Yeah, a while ago. I think I should have written something up while it was still fresh. I remember I didn't really care for the ending, what with the kid dying in the can (am I remembering that right?). I remember thinking that it's odd that there were so many names of characters in that band of scalp hunters, but that in the end it's really only the judge and the kid that matter. I'm not really sure how much I got out of that book honestly. I'd be willing to give it another read at some point in the future.
I had a similar feeling regarding the ending, I wasn't thrilled with it but given the rest of the book I didn't really expect to be -meaning I knew it wouldn't be a "happy" affair. What I got out of reading BM was more about style than anything. Don't get me wrong, it had substance too but it was written in a way that no other book I've ever read has been. It took a while before I felt totally comfortable with the lack of punctuation but eventually I was cool with it. However, I do think there were times when I wasn't clear on who was speaking. Anyone else? The Judge is evil incarnate. Spooky literary character. If this were Stephen King, he would be Flagg. I don't have much else to say about the book but I will say I'm glad I read it. I've had Cormac McCarthy on my list for a while now. I'm up for another round of book club though if ya'll are....?
I was really fascinated by the ending, actually. The way the Judge set the Kid up as a Judas, very heavy on the biblical (or satanic) imagery during that conversation in the cell. This felt almost like a dark myth at times. Weird book. I truly feel like McCarthy discovered this Judge character in his head one day and created a place for him to exist in equilibrium, and that place was Blood Meridian.
I agree with this . . . but not with this. One reason, is that for the whole narrative, McCarthy builds up the mystery of why the Judge meticulously documents things and then destroys them, while alluding to his superhuman abilities of speaking any language he needs to, his fiddle playing and numerous other skills. Also, I don't think equilibrium is the word, since this book is pretty clearly about what happens when equilibrium is lost. The Kid is not a foil to the Judge: The Kid seems to represent the everyday evil that is complicity. thenewgreen, I definitely feel like this book was more style than substance (which I sometimes don't mind) but in this case it left me feeling like I've missed something. That said, I don't feel compelled to work out what that is.I truly feel like McCarthy discovered this Judge character in his head one day
and created a place for him to exist in equilibrium, and that place was Blood Meridian.
To me it merely seems that the world adapts to shape the Judge rather than vice versa. Say not 'equilibrium', but 'his natural state'. If, as you both seem to agree, the book is more style than substance, I may be misreading/reading too much into this -- but I'm not sure I agree with your assessment. For one thing, McCarthy has some definite ideas about humanity, war, the place violence has in nature, so on. For another, the Judge's monologues seem to be all substance and no style (in the sense that you get also with Ayn Rand when the belief behind the narrative briefly overcomes the narrative in a way that doesn't flow or make sense contextually). Ultimately it depends on the author's sincerity.
I'm having trouble remembering the details of the environs of the book. I remember they were in the mountains with snow and in the desert, but not exactly what was going on around/within those scenes. When the mercenaries enter the towns and cities, it goes from civilized to debauched in a matter of sentences, but I can't say I recall an instance where I centered that change on the Judge. This was one of those books that seemed to be a vehicle for the author to talk about human nature, like 2666. The characters aren't really characters at all, but figures positioned to comment on one thing or another, or to illustrate it. However, I don't feel (from what I remember) that the Judge's monologues really accomplished any direct commentary. It feels like it was supposed to illustrate the kinds of rationales used by individuals who end up being deemed "evil" but without any real exploration of it. Every piece of writing depends on the writer's sincerity, even if it's a piece of satire or entirely a joke. No doubt McCarthy had ideas about what this story might evoke in a reader, but I don't feel like the book and I succeeded in discovering what that might be.To me it merely seems that the world adapts to shape the Judge rather than vice versa. Say not 'equilibrium', but 'his natural state'.
For another, the Judge's monologues seem to be all substance and no style (in the sense that you get also with Ayn Rand when the belief behind the narrative briefly overcomes the narrative in a way that doesn't flow or make sense contextually).
Inre: first part. The environs aren't so much important as is the extremely lawless aspect of the time and place. The Judge has characteristics that couldn't exist in a lot of other places. McCarthy decided to write a book where war could indeed be god, and he set it in a place where that was often true. I said at the outset that this reminded me a ton of 2666. Same setting, same non-characters like you say. Same commentary on humanity (though done worse in 2666).