r/cormacmccarthy

What if it was Judge Holden who had finally won and killed us all but in his victory he became purposeless and weak and enfeebled and full of despairing regret for all he had done. A being with such depravity and power now a wretch in the wasteland who will never die.

Edit: FYI this theory is neither likely nor verifiable. Just a need idea my brain spawned a few minutes ago.

We know for a fact the judge was not included at all in the first draft. Considering the fact that he plays such an important part in the last 5 chapters of the final draft or so, I'm honestly wondering how the plot concluded in the first one

This was around twenty years ago. My father, an overwhelmingly positive guy who was a hippie in his youth, started reading Cormac books after I recommended them to him. I was SHOCKED that he loved them since they tend to be overwhelmingly bleak.

He gave a copy of The Orchard Keeper to his father. This man was pre-Navy SEALS special forces, served in Korea, became an officer then retired and worked as an electrical engineer for AT&T.

He read the book and his review was just:

“The Depression wasn’t THAT depressing.”

Always thought that was hilarious. Thought some people here might get a kick out of it, too.

Maybe I’m phrasing it wrong with the word “perspective,” but I feel the narration has switched from third person omniscient to first person. The narrator is using terms such as “we” instead of “the men.” Maybe I missed something.

I’ve heard conflicting things about this book of his. It’s one of the few ones that I’ve not read yet. Some say it’s incredibly funny, others say that it’s “gross” and that’s it. Is it really intense? Linear?

Tell me your thoughts. I’m divided between reading Child of God next or The Orchard Keeper.

PS: No spoilers please! Thank you.

Been thinking to buy Cormac McCarthy's books and read them for some time, What's the philosophy of Cormac McCarthy in a nutshell? Is it Gnosticism, Nihilism, Militarism - which of his books explains his core philosophy the best?

I've been into the ideas of non-violence and pacifism, but so few people apply this stuff and animals don't apply it at all.

I've been thinking a lot about the following quote from BM and about Christianity, the nature of the world. On why the Christian God doesn't intervene already and stops all the cruelty of mankind and nature, on why there's so much suffering.

"And the answer, said the judge. If God meant to interfere in the degeneracy of mankind would he not have done so by now? Wolves cull themselves, man. What other creature could? And is the race of man not more predacious yet?" - Blood Meridian.

Finished Blood Meridian, my first McCarthy (yeah i know), this week and loved it. Well as much as you can love such a book hahah. I can't stop thinking about it. I've seriously been considering diving right back into, but I'll probably save that after I read more McCarthy and probably Moby Dick.

So where to next? The Road, No Country For Old Men, and All the Pretty Horses all sound interesting rn. I've heard Suttree is incredible.

We see horrifying things in the books written by Cormac. But which book do you think was more horrifying?

Like the title says has scholarship around McCarthy changed since the revelations? I only really know about Cormac McCarthy scholarship through the Reading McCarthy podcast which is an excellent source, though, I was a little frustrated that the host seemed to write off the possibility the problematic relationship between Bobby and Alicia could have been influenced by McCarthy's own problematic relationship between himself and Augusta.

Hey guys I was wondering if anyone knows any good books explaining the more complicated aspects of his writing or maybe a book of lectures about his novels..Does anything come to mind ? Who is the best expert on McCarthy to read along side the novels to get the most out of them ?

One of the main themes throughout the book and a point she consistently drives home is the fact that mathematics represent something external to the human mind.

She says

1. “equations who had conspired to usurp their own reality from the questionable circuitry of the creator’s brain”,
2. “When you get to topos theory you are at the edge of another universe. You have found a place to stand where you can look back at the world from nowhere. It’s not just some gestalt. It’s fundamental”
3. and
4. “that the equations were not a supposition of the form whose life was confined to the symbols on the page which described them but that they were there before my eyes. In actuality.”

When she says that it’s “not just some gestalt”, it seems that she is saying “it’s not just some illusion”, it’s not just some perceived totality, it’s an actual external reality.

On top of this, she explains that intelligence is numbers, not words. This plays into the idea that math represents an objective truth, she even says in another passage that the point of quantum mechanics is to explain the universe. Words and language are subjective symbols, we simply overlay these symbols overtop a world that has objective rules. She even acknowledges that music has concrete rules as well. The only flexibility she gives to the “objectivity” of math is that mathematical ideas have a certain shelf life, as we are constantly relearning and reshaping them. But even that is a statement about human subjectivity, not external flexibility.

In my opinion, her “solipsism” is simply a mask she wears in order to cover up her intellectual elitism and a way of denying the fact that she is insane. She constantly reiterates that other people are not qualified to discuss and doubt her sanity. She says that collective consensus is not the same thing as objective truth, and that “one’s convictions as to the nature of reality must also represent one’s limitations as to the perception of it.” She does not like to take others at their word. In the first chapter when talking about Grothendieck, she is asked if she thinks he went crazy. Her response is that answering that question calls into question the nature of reality and what truly ‘exists’. “Define exists.”

She is very adamant about the fact that her cohorts are not hallucinations, they are vivid, she has no power over them, and they continue to exist when they are no longer in her presence. The fact that they continue to exist outside of her perception is an argument for them existing objectively, not subjectively.

Her hallucinations are simply evidence that she is special, and that she has peculiar insights, because only she is able to see them. This is not a statement about her mind shaping reality, it is a statement about her ability to perceive certain things others are not capable of seeing. It’s a statement about the limited subjectivity of her peers, not a denial of external truth. It is a reinforcement of external truth.

Her hallucinations, from her perspective and as she argues, are a combination of Schopenhauer’s will, Plato’s realm of forms, and Jung’s archetypes. They are her brain’s way of processing things in this world that have no physical representation, something only she can perceive

Why did John Grady leave the gun trap towards when he was in the wilderness with the captain? Was he setting a noise diversion to get the Captains men on the wrong track? Sorry if this isn’t a typical post. I realize now I might’ve just missed something but I turned it in to the library and can’t go re-read that section.