And with apologies to all for posting rather late in the day, let me say that someone else needs to praise this book, as I hated it and had to force myself through it. It is beautifully written, the literary references are deep and interesting (and I didn't catch all the ones Hungerford points out) but its soul-lessness, its contempt for morality and love and meaning in the world, and the way it reveled, bathed and soaked in blood and atrocities made me feel deeply depressed. And argumentative, as that is most certainly not the way I think the world is.

I can't say I loved it, although I found the character of the Judge intriguing. More later when I'm on my pc.

It must have really rocked, though. This thread is blowing up in here.

I didn't catch *any* of the ones Hungerford pointed out. I *have* read Moby Dick, but never really studied it, have not read any more of Milton than was required in high school, and while I like to read good literature, was not an english major so do not study it at that level.

I agree with your concern about the book's ultimate contempt for the idea of meaning, morality, etc. Gee, I thought I was the only one. I didn't think it reveled in the atrocities so much as it showed them without the "Gunsmoke" blinders or prettying it up. One random thought is that there is a modern tendency to portray Native Americans as noble and peaceful, and some of them weren't. Yes, the fact that European types were taking their land makes some of it understandable, but boy howdy did some of them enjoy their violence. Makes it kind of a two-way street of atrocity, in some respects.

You know, initially I thought the book showed atrocities without prettifying. But they went on and on and on. Even some of the most notorious and worst atrocity committers in US history, e.g. George Custer and Phil Sheridan (infamous for "the only good Indian is a dead Indian") did not rack up this level of endless violence. I mean, we even had the murder of puppies, not to mention the mass obliteration of whole towns, collection of body parts as jewelry, and endless scalping. It was just too much, even for the worst sort of people.

I'd add that although there were plenty of warlike Native Americans, as you say, I sure didn't appreciate the book's willingness to drop all such characters into a common vat of viciousness, very reminiscent of the highly offensive 19th century view of Native Americans as "savages." Not one was even carved out with the individuality of "the Kid."

I did love the painstaking and creative descriptive passages of the book, the use of geological and biological terms which are obscure but were very appropriate, and the creative invention of words that didn't exist until this book came along. Sadly, though -- and here's a huge contrast with Moby Dick too -- there was no plot to hang these descriptive passages onto. Not to mention, as discussed, the lack of any character with any humanity whatsoever. I suppose McCarthy thinks that there is no such thing as humanity, but again, I could not disagree more.

its contempt for morality and love and meaning in the world, and the way it reveled, bathed and soaked in blood and atrocities made me feel deeply depressed.

I don't see that contempt. Do you remember that section where the women happen upon a mentally retarded man kept in a cage and wallowing in his own shit? And they clean him in the river and dress him in normal clothes and treat him with love and respect?

Did that strike you as an ironically rendered scene, that the two women were meant to be figures of fun?

I don't think that the book celebrates blood and brutality, merely presents them as fundamental facts of life.

"Before man was, there was war."

Moreover, the book is arguing that we, as civilized people, like to kid ourselves about mortality, about the nature of the world. There's a term I remember from another book "eggshell morality", which I always interpreted as a feeble self-righteousness that is the product of a society alienated from nature, where death takes place behind sterile hospital doors.

From the epigram:

"More and more you fear blood. Blood and time."

I'm actually quite shocked that you find this book depressing. I find it inspiring.

Even some of the most notorious and worst atrocity committers in US history, e.g. George Custer and Phil Sheridan (infamous for "the only good Indian is a dead Indian") did not rack up this level of endless violence. I mean, we even had the murder of puppies, not to mention the mass obliteration of whole towns, collection of body parts as jewelry, and endless scalping. It was just too much, even for the worst sort of people.

Some historians estimate that c. twenty million indigenous people were murdered during the four centuries of colonizing the Americas.

All existing societies from the Arctic down to Tierra Del Fuego are built on genocide and ethnic cleansing and enslavement.

Not a pretty story.

I'd add that although there were plenty of warlike Native Americans, as you say, I sure didn't appreciate the book's willingness to drop all such characters into a common vat of viciousness, very reminiscent of the highly offensive 19th century view of Native Americans as "savages." Not one was even carved out with the individuality of "the Kid."

You really think that the book traffics in a 19th century view of Indians?

Did you catch that over-the-top speech the captain makes to the kid on pages 33 and 34 (Chapter 3)?

Do you think that the author is endorsing his point of view?

This is a comment from user MacDuff, which was accidentally posted as a new thread:

We have just arrived in Florida and I have read some of the comments about Blood Meridian. I know that Anne Frank said that she believed that people are good of heart before she died in a concentration camp. I know that humans are capable of horrendous atrocities and McCormac has described actual incidents in a poetic, allegorical, and symbolic style with amazing literary virtuosity drawing upon Melville, Milton, Anglo Saxon, and Biblical influences.
But Milton's Satan was justified and admirable, Melville's Ahab was justified-after all Moby Dick did eat Ahab's leg. Blood Meridian's Judge Holden was evil for no reason. The kid and later when he became a man is no Ishmael or Queequeg. While there are humans like the judge and Toadvine (Dicken's use of names to indicate character ) I , like Anne Frank prefer to read about characters who are inspirational role models rather than humans who are more beastly than the bears they kill.

Did that strike you as an ironically rendered scene, that the two women were meant to be figures of fun?

Yes.

You really think that the book traffics in a 19th century view of Indians?

Not exactly. I think the lack of humanity among the Indians portrayed, and that about 90% of them engage in ongoing violence, is a less than enlightened or refreshing view.

Did you catch that over-the-top speech the captain makes to the kid on pages 33 and 34 (Chapter 3)?

Yes.

Do you think that the author is endorsing his point of view?

No. McCarthy trashes all viewpoints, including moral and humanistic ones. I'd say if he has a viewpoint,it is nihilistic and death loving.

I'm in agreement with MacDuff's view of this book, myself.

Not exactly. I think the lack of humanity among the Indians portrayed, and that about 90% of them engage in ongoing violence, is a less than enlightened or refreshing view.

Well, consider the context. The book tells the story on a gang of marauders, racists and cutthroats. They do not come in peace; they don't even bother to adopt a high-minded fig leaf like Christianity or Western Civilization. They just want to kill. You can't have civilized, rational interactions with them any more than you could negotiate with the Ebola virus.

When a group like that shows up in your neighborhood, you had better be prepared to engage in some ongoing violence, some viciousness.

So why would the violent behavior by the Indians be so unflattering? As far as I'm concerned, that's just what human beings do when they're threatened with extinction.

For the record, I get the fact that these warlike Indians are being vicious because they're being visited by vicious people of other races. So I don't see it as unflattering, nor is it particularly a "19th century view" in my eyes. I think it's an attempt to be realistic.

I think 19th century view was "noble white men encountered irrational savagery among these natives while they tried to take the land that was rightfully theirs"

However, I think sometimes 20th/21st century view is also overly simplistic: "noble Indians were all killed by white men without putting up a fight."

I think the truth is that for most all of man's history, it's pretty much been "might makes right." A depressing picture to be sure, and depending on how you feel about God and religion, one unrelieved by much of anything else. The question of whether there IS a solution is another whole kettle of fish, but in terms of reporting the facts of what has happened, that's been pretty much it.

A word about the literary style, which I think goes to why we never see anything particularly informative about what these Indians or native americans if you will were thinking - NOTHING is ever explained or translated. You get the sensory perceptions of what is experienced, and that's it. Mostly from over the kid's shoulder, so you aren't given any more background of what's happening than he would have.

You are right on the money about the literary style, RandOmkeystrike, and I think it is quite deliberate. Every character lives in a purely sensory way, without reflection or inner life, except perhaps the Judge, whose inner life seems appalling. Even emotion is absent. Experience is everything, there is nothing else.

I have only met a few people like this, who I'd characterize as psychopaths. To me they are notable for how different they are from regular people -- not the normal type.

And finally, I don't think McCarthy has a 19th century viewpoint. I just don't like the echoes of his portrayal with the dehumanizing way Indians were viewed in the 19th century and onward. But I don't like McCarthy's dehumanizing view of everyone, Indians included.