Talk:Blood Meridian

[resolved] stub

Why is this still a stub?

I don't know if this is nit-picking, but I'm concerned about the line that says the Kid is "brutally murdered" by the judge. Actually, it's never explicitly stated that he's killed. All we know is that the judge is waiting for him in the latrine, and that later some bar patrons are horrified by something they see. Sure, it's probably murder, but for the sake of pure objectivity could we change this line to something less specific...came to a bad end, or something like that?

Resolved

 – Untitled50reg (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

[resolved] Characters

Yeah in the characters section under Toadvine it says that him the kid and Bathcat sat out "the most violent massacre" or whatever but I'm pretty sure that never happens their in on every one. I remember at one point that Toadvine speaks up against murdering innocent Gilenos before the first massacre but never anything about them sitting it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.203.2 (talk) 07:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Untitled50reg (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Redirect

Shouldn't this redirect to "Blood Meridian, Or the Evening Redness in the West"?

I think that the standard naming practice in the case of a novel with two names is to use the primary name as the name of the article. See Doctor Fischer of Geneva, the full title of which is Doctor Fischer of Geneva or the Bomb Party. | Klaw Talk 04:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

No real need for discussion, just go ahead and merge.Plowboylifestyle 21:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[resolved] The Kid was murdered?

Murdered?

Actually, due to some earlier references to the judge's possible homosexuality (the naked dead boy in the fort, the saving-then-killing-and-scalping of the indian boy, the naked fool in the judge's room) and the fact that the judge is naked when the kid enters the latrine, along with the reaction of the men outside the latrine, I thought that there was somthing far different from murder going on at the end of that novel.

Um source? Naked != sex. LilDice 20:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Blood Meridian. It's pretty good. You should read it sometime, or at least the Wiki article. — LlywelynII 13:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

The Kid was murdered?

I agree with the other comments....I just reread the ending. Both times I've read it I did not get the impression that the judge kills the Kid, though I suppose that is consistant with the text. [not signed]

The Murder

I finished the novel last night and thought it was obvious that the judge murdered the kid at the end. Most horribly, as Bloom noted. The kid enters the jakes, goes in and the judge, naked, rises behind him puts his giant arms around him, pulling him close to his "terrible flesh." Then the judge locks the door. Later the two men are horrified at the scene. Who knows what the judge did to him, but it didn't end well for the kid. I think the judge was naked becuase he just raped and murdered the missing girl. Perhaps he violated the kid as well, but I don't think so right now. Certainly with the judge, anything is possible. He killed him though, as the judge is the one true dancer. Bears that dance, bears that don't.

Yea I agree with you, the people who read rape into it can if they want, but regardldess the kid got what was coming to him. LilDice 01:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Another One on the Murder

Just want to follow-up with this discussion to say that I'm a bit surprised by the statement that the Kid was "brutally murdered" by the judge too -- I'd remembered it being much more ambiguous then that. [not signed]

It's Obvious

It's perfectly fair to say that the kid was murdered by the judge. Whether he was also buggered by the judge is a less clear. But it doesn't matter. It's enough that he obviously could have been. Those who would insist on being more cautious about saying whether the kid was killed by the judge are the same who would hold out for the possibility that Hemmingway's "Hills Like White Elephants" might be about something other than abortion. Additionally, you've got heavy-weight, professional judgement about the matter with Bloom. This is not something to toil over. --Docblueson 10:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely; and not only does Bloom believe the Kid to be dead but as does the majority of critical thought on the novel. In fact, I honestly can't recall a single statement theorizing the kid to have survived the ending. The only debate is to whether he was raped prior to his murder by the Judge. Qjuad 16:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Murdered? Maybe but not realy important IMO

Seems likely to me that the Judge represents War/Death (or a specific form of violence), and that the Kid now a Man represents a now outdated time and practice (perhaps the initial Indian Wars), his death (or more likely in my opinion, Suicide in the Jakes), represents the passing of this time and the coming of a new set of wars (namely the Range Wars and the Civil War), the first of which is hinted at in the epilogue. I might tend to read subtexts that arent their, but to me the Judge is an embodiement of a force of mankind and the debate over murder and sodomy are far to literal and belittle the power of the writing.

The Judge raped and killed the girl who owned the bear, then killed the Kid and set it up as the Kid killed the girl. The novel ends as it begins: the real pedophile sets somebody else up but escapes clean himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.66.245.5 (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course the Judge murdered the Kid

Agree with the above: It's clear that the kid was murdered by the judge. Any "ambiguity" stems from McCarthy's method of storytelling.

However, what's less than clear is whether the "murder" was consensual: I get the feeling that the Kid's wandering around prior to re-encountering the judge was a way for CM to show how spiritually dead The Kid is, and by the time he meets the judge in the outhouse he's ready to "meet his maker" (ie, the Judge), who lovingly embraces The Kid and sends him to the logical end that he had been avoiding (at least in the Judge's mind). I noticed that during the fortune telling, the Judge refes to the kid as Blastharius.

I think this un-ambiguity should probably make it into the article, given the above discusion. (193.133.92.229 (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)gea-141020) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.133.92.229 (talk) 21:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

sorry but all interpretations need proper third party sources. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 21:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Untitled50reg (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Gnosticism ?

Could more information be provided regarding the parallels to gnostic beliefs ?

I saw many allusions and references to all forms of Christian mythology. Why limit it to gnosticism? Vatic Reverie 16:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree. The gnostic reading is based on a single article by someone who is not a Gnostic expert. In addition, the article is fairly short and the connections seem tenuous or trivial at times. The gnostic reading is valid, are there does seem to be some connections, but they are not overwhelming and it is far from a "gnostic" novel. Meanwhile, the Christian symbolism, images, and myth seem to be throughout the entire novel (the ruined churches for example). I think this section should be removed and combined with comments on other religious readings.

I realized this a necro comment, but I concur and have boldly removed the section. Arguing that gnostic thought is central to the work, is OR by proxy since McCarthy hasn't said anything about it one way or another. Including an entire section on the theory is giving it undue weight. One could just as easily argue that the Judge was a Jungian archetype or any of the Gods of War. - CompliantDrone (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

An IP editor has stated that "Cormac does mention gnostic/mysticism in his epigram to the book". I am unable to verify this in my copy. Regardless, I have no objection to the Gnostic hermeneutics section being re-added, but it needs to be either heavily pruned or heavily sourced by more than Leo Daugherty's essay. - CompliantDrone (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is the case. All editions of the book have 3 epigraphs which appear on the page preceeding the very first page of the novel. To my knowledge there has never been an edition which did not print Cormac's 3 epigrraphs. These are identified in sequence in the Epigraph and Ending section of this wikipage. The second one is the one about Gnostic/mysticism as quoted by Cormac.

The normal cycle for edits is Talk-Discuss-Edit. Your idea is feasible though cutting/deleting the entire section seems extreme since Cormac himself includes the epigraph and identifies the topic as relevant. Can you try to get any edition of the book so that you can see the epigraph for yourself, and then make a suggestion to possibly shorten this section, maybe by quoting the actual epigram, and placing it here in Talk before posting.209.3.238.62 (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The Gnostic themes in Blood Meridian are one of the main things readers notice about the book. Gnostic writings from the early Christian era are also full of Christian imagery. Of course there's going to be Christian themes in a story set in 19th century America. Anyway, McCarthy never gave interviews or wrote essays explaining his books, but lots of people notice the Gnostic themes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:F00:1CB4:CDB4:1AE:79B:24C0 (talk) 06:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth the actual epigraph is simply topical and sourced to Jacob Boehme, who was a freethinking German Protestant/Lutheran and not a Gnostic in any meaningful and nonORy sense. — LlywelynII 14:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Black John Jackson - stated to be an escaped slave?

I've looked through the text, and while it is possible or even likely that the sullen John Jackson character was an 'escaped slave', there is no actual reference or even hint of this that I can find. If no-one else can point something out, then I'll remove this reference.

References or links would be good for the statement 'Scholars have written pages about single paragraphs in the novel'.

Lastly, as a matter of interest only, it is notable that New York Times critic Caryn James, who reviewed 'Blood Meridian' on its publication in 1985, clearly didn't understand the book, and her review could be seen as contributing to it's initial muted reception: [1]. Centrepull 08:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The "Scholars have written pages about single paragraphs in the novel" comment seems trivial. It is a common practice among literary scholars to write pages on a single paragraph.

John Jackson never hints at his past, but it would be likely. It would explain his temper, and his anger when the Judge tries to pass him off as some kind of exotic savage who doesn't shake hands. "Suttree" has a black character who finds violence the most honorable response to racism. There was also a famous freed slave named John Andrew Jackson who became a famous lecturer in England. Maybe his name is a tribute, or a mirror version ... out West an escaped slave might see military service as a way to restore their destroyed self-esteem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:F00:1CB4:CDB4:1AE:79B:24C0 (talk) 06:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Which part of that did you think missed the mark? That's a completely apt review from someone who simply didn't like it and could point out exactly where the seams are stitched together. I'm amazed that this turned out to be McCarthy's fifth book rather than his first, given how self-parodizing some of the turns of phrase and setups are. Or it shouldn't count just because Moby Dick and "biblical" didn't show up? — LlywelynII 14:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

[resolved] Accuracy corrections made

The kid should be noted as a formidable and vicious fighter after his encounter with the bartender (important given the later activities of the Glanton crew). White's crew were irregulars. The kid and Sproule were not the only survivors of White's filibustering expedition. He meets three others at Chihuahua, and the Mexican guide Candelario mysteriously disappeared before the slaughter. Centrepull 10:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Untitled50reg (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

POV Weirdness, etc

There are moments in the page when I feel like I'm being sold Blood Meridian. For example, "Scholars have written pages about single paragraphs in the novel." You could probably say the same thing for almost any popular text in the 20th century, so it feels like someone is just trying to tout the novel.

And then there's this weirder passage: "John Emil Sepich's Notes on Blood Meridian was the first and remains, arguably, the most thorough examination of the novel's sources, their context and significance. Sepich's 1993 version of this book is out of print, and has become a collector's item, often commanding high prices. However, as of December 2006, contracts have been signed for a revised and expanded edition of Notes by John Emil Sepich to be published by University of Texas Press as part of the Southwestern Writers Collection. The book is expected to be available in Fall 2007. Additional books and articles have also examined McCarthy's sources for the novel."

The fact that it's "arguable" that it's the most thorough, well, makes it POV. Is there something special about "Notes on Blood Meridian" - an out of print scholarly book - that it deserves a full paragraph rather than a little note on the works cited \ further reading page? And then there's the final sentence, "additional books and articles have also examined," etc, as if this is somehow different from any other novel.

I also think that the article feels a little bloated. Wikipedia isn't Spark Notes; there's no reason to list all the characters & "themes" and give such a long plot synopsis. Jordansc 22:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right on the the first couple counts -- feel free to fix it. However the article is certainly not bloated, there is not enough information if anything. It's an important novel and has had plenty written on it so there's no reason not to include themes, and a thorough snyposis. LilDice 00:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's an important novel, but is it a function of wikipedia to provide detailed synopses and themes? I think we should include a synopsis, but there's no reason to describe the entire plot. What use would that have for the wiki reader? And detailing themes is a form of literary criticism; that seems like original research to me. It's one thing to summarize what important literary critics have said about the novel under reception but it's another to announce that Blood Meridian is "about" violence, etc, as if an encyclopedic entry can have the final word on the novel's interpretation. Jordansc 23:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Per the synopsis every major novel/film on wikipedia has a plot synopsis, it's useful to provide context to the rest of the article. Detailing themes is not original research if it's sourced. Take a look at Moby Dick they do the same thing there. LilDice 23:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think there should be a synopsis but I don't know how useful it is to describe everything that happens in the novel. I guess that's just me.

But as far as themes go, I still feel like any description of a novel's themes - however sourced - is going to be a very selective and therefore POV'ed one. And, again, what use is it to tell the wiki reader that Blood Meridian is "about" violence? Jordansc 23:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No, if there is undue weight to any particular sourced item then you start to get into POV territory, however merely selecting a published work to include in the article is not POV, think about it you could say the same for any article, we're simply reporting the facts on what themes critics write about. As for the 'about' violence bit, i'm not sure what part in the article you're talking about. LilDice 00:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I think my objections have more to do with Wikipedia's treatment of literature in general rather than this particular wiki article. Since I spend my time reading \ trying to write about literature, anything that looks like it's trying to fully describe a book in X words seems too reductive to me.

Anyway, on a more modest note, the first two paragraphs of the violence section need to be sourced. The final paragraph of the section has sources, but based on the quotes it's difficult to see how they support the idea of a "warlike nature of man." Jordansc 03:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hop on it, just add {{fact}} tags. LilDice 03:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[resolved] Title

Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books), we shouldn't use the subtitle in article names. If no one objects, I'll move the page over to Blood Meridian, and merge the page histories of the two versions.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess I should note that I went ahead and did this the other day.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Untitled50reg (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

[resolved] Two questions about the plot

There are two points about the plot that I would like to be clarified. Is there any point in the novel in which the kid actually shows any compassion for the victims, as the judge accuses him of doing? I seem to remember that at one point somebody said some such words, but I thought it was Toadvine. I can't find the passage now. The second question is why was the kid released from jail after the judge accused him? One explanation is that, since the judge has accused him of murdering Toadvine and Brown, and we find out later that they are still alive and have been arrested, the authorities discovered that the judge was lying. Eubulide (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything scene that shows the Kid demonstrating compassion for their victims, but he doesn't operate with a total lack of concern for others like most of the group does. Toadvine expresses discontent with what they're doing a few times. I think the point is we see almost nothing about what the characters think internally, all we can judge them by are their actions.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a point where the kid helps 'Davy' Brown with the arrow in his leg when no one else will.

Though that scene brings up an odd twist to the narrative, the gang is a total 'onry' lot, but do cooperate at times, and this scene of no one helping Brown, when it seems a simple thing to do sort of foreshadows the gang's demise. In such a harsh environment lack of cooperation will lead to deadly consequences , which is what happens.--aajacksoniv (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The Judge charges him with having clemency for the heathen in his heart. Clemency means mercy or gentleness, not compassion. The heathen might not refer to Indians, but the Judge himself, who The Kid refused to shoot. Perhaps the heathen is Tobin. One could imagine that either of them betrayed Toadvine and Brown to the hangman. The Kid does show compassion and regret for the Indians in one scene: when he has a breakdown in front of the mummified old woman, who'd been dead for years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:F00:1CB4:CDB4:1AE:79B:24C0 (talk) 05:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Untitled50reg (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Length of the plot

This is about the disagreement between me and Cuchullain about whether some details of the plot should be removed from the article. I tried to find a Wikipedia policy about the length of a plot summary but there is none. The only guideline is the generic one about length of an article, and according to that this article is well between bounds. I object to deleting any accurate information from a Wikipedia article because it is "too much". As for any other kind of content, if you delete something you have to give a reason: it is incorrect, non-encyclopedic, point of view, original work, or other motivation. None of this applies to the plot details that you deleted. I don't see how my edits where wrongly formatted, but if they were, just format them correctly, don't delete them. (By the way, you also deleted some content that were already there before my edits.) Eubulide (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The plot summary is becoming too long to be useful to the reader. Plot summaries should be limited to the essential details, per WP:PLOT. This article is not as bad as some in that it isn't just plot summary, but contains receptions and analysis sections as well, but the plot summary does need to be trimmed down. There's no rule saying you must cite a policy or guideline when removing material in order to improve the encyclopedia, and that's what I was doing. I did explain myself - we don't need every plot point and detail listed off here. Parts of your edits were formatted incorrectly (you put sentences on their own lines, I assume hitting return instead of space), I would have just fixed it rather than reverting except I didn't think the edits added to the article. Finally, according to the page history I didn't remove anything besides your additions.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:PLOT doesn't state that plot summary should be limited to the essential. It only requires that an article does not consist exclusively of summary. On the other hand, WP:WAF and WP:LENGTH give suggestions on what to do when a section or an article becomes too long: a section should be divided into subsections, an article split into subarticles. If you feel that the summary in this article is too long to be useful, you may split it into subsections about groups of chapters. Nowhere in Wikipedia's guidelines can I found the suggestion that information can be removed only because there is too much of it. In any case, you should give reasons for every deletion, not just erase part of an article indiscriminately. Eubulide (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I did give reasons for reverting you both times you did it - that there's no need for all that detail. It's nothing personal. The goal is to transmit an understanding of the book, not to collect every plot point without regard for their importance. WP:PLOT calls for a brief plot summary in terms of a larger article also dissecting themes and meaning - this plot summary takes up far too much space to be useful. There's no way this would ever pass for a Featured Article with a plot summary this long. Splitting the plot section into its article would not be a good idea.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:PLOT states that "A brief plot summary may sometimes be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic". Notice the "sometimes" and "may be". That this is a strict rule barring longer summaries is just your interpretation. Also your evaluation of when a summary is too long is subjective. On the other hand WP:SIZE clearly states that "Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage; certainly, size is no reason to remove valid and useful information." When information becomes too big to be useful, you should restructure it so that it becomes more accessible, not delete it. Size of the summary will not prevent the article from been featured (can you cite a case in which an article has been denied FA status only on the grounds of length of the summary, and such that the summary was of the same size as Blood Meridian?) Check the many featured articles about video games: they all have lengthy plot descriptions. You will not convince me that a the plot of a video game has more cultural relevance than a literary masterpiece. Eubulide (talk) 09:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like this has been resolved at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Length_of_a_plot_summary at by the current wording at WP:PLOT and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Plot summaries.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Untitled50reg (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why anyone thinks it's useful to go through these comment threads and tag/mark them without adding anything whatsoever to the conversation but—Cuch's opinion to the contrary—the discussion about plot length isn't actually resolved. I find it bizarre that the current treatment passes over Chief Gomez and Gov. Trias (Spanish article) in complete silence despite both being important to the plot and carry-overs from actual history. There are massive holes with at least the current version of the plot summary. — LlywelynII 14:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

The Ending - The Epilogue

With all the discussion of the ending in the main article there are only two short notes about the Epilogue. I am one of those who finds the ending ambiguous and mysterious all very much like McCarthy's work in this novel and elsewhere.... does not bother me in the least. Yet, for some confounding reason , which I can not seem to analyze , it seems, to me, that the Ending and the Epilogue are tied together and possibly in some abstract way a solution , or partial solution to the ending. Anyone noted this before?--aajacksoniv (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No, but interested to hear what you have in mind. Post to my talk said if you like. Landed little marsdon (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Alas! It may yet come to be , but by damned there seems some connection I cannot figure out, McCarthy seems to have trumped us all, ... , something that seems simple to many, does not seem simple to me. I shall cogitate up on it, but the solution it not forthcoming ... quickly.... --aajacksoniv (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think it's one of the strangest concluding sections in American literature, and it has that quality Bloom calls "canonical strangeness" in one of his books (Genius maybe?) What we'd need is a reliable source to cite. I think Bloom himself wrote about it somewhere. Antandrus (talk) 02:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

He did, as noted above. Famous as he may be, he obviously overstepped himself claiming the kid is certainly killed when the author went extremely far out of his way to avoid making that certain. — LlywelynII 14:22, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

[resolved] Tobin's Name

"The expriest" Tobin is listed in the article as having the first name "Benjamin," without a citation. I don't recall this name appearing in the novel, nor could find it in a cursory flip-though. Does this name appear in the novel at all, or is it from another source, like Chamberlain's book? If it doesn't appear in the novel or come directly from McCarthy, I don't think that we can assume that Tobin the McCarthy character shares a first name with any Tobin that appears in another work, even if we know that the latter influenced the former. --68.222.49.70 (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I am also thinking that this is not correct. I don't recall Tobin's first name as Benjamin. I will look into this for a few days. If I don't find it or hear from other editors then I will probably remove it. (two years later). Steve Quinn (talk) 00:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Untitled50reg (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

As an actual resolution of this point, one of the editors must've misunderstood one of the references to the judge's "benjamin", which Wiktionary claims is dated mostly British slang for a kind of small coat. — LlywelynII 14:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Film adaptation

Has anyone commented in a significant source on whether the film should be made? I'm looking for something like my forum post called "Please Mr. Franco, don't make "Blood Meridian" except that is a forum post so we obviously can't use it here. Have any significant film/literature critics commented? 175.38.205.106 (talk) 04:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I would love to see this novel made into a movie. It would be awesome!--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, although at this point it's less people filling their wordcount assignments with why it's a bad idea in principle and more with the diverse ways in which the actual attempts to do it have specifically failed over the years. — LlywelynII 14:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

[resolved] Writing

The uncited parts of the Background and Writing state that McCarthy wrote this in 1981 while living off his MacArthur Fellowship grant. However, in an article published at Slate.com. the author, who visited Texas State University, San Marco (which holds Cormac McCarthy's papers), states that McCarthy began Blood Meridian in 1975 and had been working on it off and on for some time. While, perhaps, McCarthy might have made a serious push to finish in 1981 (something that cannot be independently confirmed it seems), this hardly seems like "he started writing it."

It even states how the initial drafts did not have the infamous Judge, but that the character was created and inserted by the late 1970s. It also discusses the editing process. The article can be found here: Cormac McCarthy Cuts to the Bone Blood Meridian used to be a much different novel. McCarthy’s early drafts reveal how an American masterpiece was born. Perhaps a serious rework of the "Background and Writing" needs to be done? ValensDragosee (talk) 02:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, McCarthy's biography at "the official website of" the Cormac McCarthy Society states that McCarthy received a 1981 MacArthur Fellowship "genius grant" and "McCarthy used this money to live on while writing his next novel, an apocalyptic western set in Texas and Mexico during the 1840s..." 1.

I am guessing this is where the he "wrote his novel in 1981" came from. So, it seems this [is] at least inaccurate. It's not clear from this sentence when he actually started writing this novel. The author of the biography probably didn't have access to that kind of information when it was written. According to the Slate article, the McCarthy collection of papers did not become available until 2008.

So, I think the article needs to be updated. Everything else in the "Background and Writing section seems to be accurate, based on recollections of the literary critiques I have read. I will have to go exploring to find these literary critiques again. Other than that I will go ahead and update the information on when McCarthy actually started and finished Blood Meridian. User:ValensDragosee, thanks for pointing this out, and providing this link. I think I actually came across this article before, or something similar, because I was doing research on the particular novel, last year ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Untitled50reg (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

[resolved] Epilogue

The section on the epilogue seems to be original research. Specifically, the guilty lines are: "...apparently in the construction of an extended fence. This cordoning off of territories into plots of land suggests the domestication of the "Old West" and the end of the frontier that came shortly after the events of the novel." and "The images of the epilogue seem to serve as a harbinger of the more ordered and settled civilization which will soon replace the war-torn chaos of the West, with its own rituals and codes very unlike those portrayed in the novel's setting."

The epilogue is of course deeply ambiguous and makes no mention of any of these things. This is strictly interpretive--and totally unsourced. If this interpretation can be found in the critical literature, then it should be presented attributed to the critic and sourced. If it does not then the section needs a total rewrite. 208.101.164.4 (talk) 03:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I fixed the problem, hopefully to your satisfaction. Thanks for the note! Binksternet (talk) 05:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Untitled50reg (talk) 19:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Adaptions?

Was there any adaptions of the novel?--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

[resolved] Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Blood Meridian/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The mob did not kill Rev.Green. They were drawing a posse in the bar when the Judge let them in on the joke. 206.212.236.2 (talk) 02:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 02:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 09:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Untitled50reg (talk) 19:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The mob did not kill the reverend on screen. The judge told some of the people helping round up a posse that he had been lying—which incidentally we don't know is true—and they hung out at the bar laughing and drinking up. Very pointedly, no one leaves to go tell any of the larger number of other people gunning for the reverend that they should call off the mob. — LlywelynII 14:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

[resolved] Proposed film adaptation section

I think it would be prudent to have a section about the attempt(s) to have this novel adapted into a feature-length film. Although James Franco's attempt was unlawful and ultimately died in its crib, I believe its mention is warranted in this article. I mean, hell, there probably won't even be a stand-alone article about a film. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 01:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Go ahead.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I kicked things off, but I have to admit that there is a ton of content to include, as this project's been attempted so many times. Baby steps. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 11:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Untitled50reg (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

[resolved] Article content and organization within plot

Hi! I am in a Professional and Technical Editing course and will be working on editing this article over the next couple of weeks. I noticed that there has been discussion involving the length of the plot summary in regards to similar articles and the unspoken Wikipedia rules along this front. Involving the plot summary, I plan to reorganize and rewrite some of the article in order to better facilitate a neutral and concise synopsis as a potential option to edit this section. Additionally, I plan on performing similar edits within the Major Characters section to achieve a holistic summarization that mimics Wikipedia pages of similar content.

I'll start working on the article in my Blood Meridian Sandbox, and it would be great to hear any suggestions or feedback from the community. I'm also interested in discovering if anybody has any more recent information about this discovery and research. Thanks! Sisypheantasks (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

In looking at other novel wiki pages, I noticed a growing precedent concerning brevity in character and plot sections. While Blood Meridian is a fairly dense novel, I think the page could benefit from a streamlined approach in these two sections. I will continue to consider this and implement changes within my Blood Meridian Sandbox. —Preceding undated comment added 00:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Moving forward, I will begin to implement the changes found in my Blood Meridian Sandbox. I will address the plot section within separate changes because these changes deal with minor suggestions/edits, while also affecting a content-based portion of the page Sisypheantasks (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Untitled50reg (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

As noted above I disagree strongly. There are some aspects where the text may be too prolix but any plot summary that loses Gomez or the governor isn't actually following the plot terribly well and is missing too much of the setting and historical backdrop that the novel went out of its way to mention and evoke. — LlywelynII 14:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Jan. 2021, recent edits

I proposed to Rublov:

I would like to suggest that you revert Blood Meridian to your "missing period" edit. Everything from there was egregiously pernicious to the article. One example is reverting to a problematic plot summary and then tagging it as a problematic plot summary.

Rublov replied:

I believe that we agree that the plot summary needs to be shorter, but I think that interest is better served by trimming the existing summary. If you'd like to work together to improve it, I'd be happy to continue this discussion on the talk page.

The plot is one problem, not the problem. Consider for example the lead. The kid is now allegedly referred to only as the kid. But this is false.

Consider for example the Judge's character which twice calls him socially refined.

It is possible to enumerate each problem subsequent to the aforesaid missing period edit, and it is possible to work together to address each problem. But I again suggest merely reverting to the missing period edit. Untitled50reg (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough for the two specific problems you noted. I've reverted those. I do still think that plot summary at the time I edited it was not an improvement over the version I restored. For instance:

• Describing the epigraphs as touching respectively blood and darkness and scalping is so vague as to be unhelpful. If we're going to mention the epigraphs at all, we should provide enough information to make it clear what relation they bear to the book.
• expriest Tobin should be ex-priest Tobin
• The kid travels. - again, without further information this sentence is pointless.
• The scene with the judge and the man in the outhouse is not adequately described. For instance, the original plot summary quotes the book as [the judge] "gathered him in his arms against his immense and terrible flesh", which was changed to the naked judge "gathers" him. If you haven't read the book, it's very difficult to tell what this is supposed to mean.
• The book ends with an enigmatic epilogue. It seems worth an extra sentence or two to describe what happened, which the original plot summary had.
• In places the new plot summary is choppier than the original, e.g. The kid and Tobin enter San Diego. They both need a doctor and Tobin goes looking for one. The kid is arrested. The judge visits him. The kid is released and finds a doctor and has the surgery he needed.
• Archaic words like therefrom and thereto are used unnecessarily.

Overall, the new plot summary did not appear to me to be a sufficient improvement to warrant wholly revising the old summary. Rather, I felt that trimming the existing summary was a better approach. I'm sure that there are aspects of the new summary that are indeed better; hopefully in this discussion we can come to a consensus about what those are. Rublov (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Rublov: For your first point, it is not clear what relation the epigraphs have. The article possibly even says so. Next, ex-priest and expriest is not much different either way so I contemn this particular point. Next, the ambiguity of gathering is so because it is inherently ambiguous. Next, the elaboration over the epigraph is entirely speculative and worthless. Next, choppier is more concise. Next, the "unnecessary" use of archaic terms pertains again to concision and lack of the "unnecessary". Overall basically every difference in the article subsequent to the aforesaid missing period is a problem to me. The differences pertain mostly to errors and concision. Further discussion from myself shall not be forthcoming because I have already said. Untitled50reg (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

If there are particular factual errors in the plot summary, then please point them out and I'd be happy to correct them. I didn't exhaustively review the differences between the new and original plot summaries as I assumed that the previous longstanding summary was accurate, and your edit summary made no mention of factual errors. But if you think there are, let me know and I can check against my copy of Blood Meridian if necessary.

I will reiterate my openness to working with you to improve the plot summary, but you'll have to do better than unsubstantiated accusations of egregiously pernicious editing when all I did was restore a perfectly good, if overlong, plot summary and trim it a little bit. Rublov (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Rublov: Throw physic to the dogs, I'll none of it. Untitled50reg (talk) 12:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, obviously there should've been more good faith assumed even if only the 1st and 5th points mentioned are actually well taken.

In general, it's a tricky business doing a summary of something this important and literary but too new for critical concensus to have fully congealed and begun oscillating between set camps. You don't want things to be unsourced but neither do you want to treat opinions from even major sources like Bloom as authoritatively correct; they need to be treated as just some of the critical reception. You don't want to retell the whole story (as some previous versions of the page did), you don't want to omit important beats like Gov. Trias (es) and Gomez (as the article currently does), you don't want WP:UNDUE weight given to WP:FRINGE theories like how 'Gomez' etymologically is 'son of man' (or even 'Son of man' or 'Son of Man') by way of Visigothic, but you should include sourced treatment of the major theories about the work—particularly how people tend to react to the ending as variously implying that the judge kills the mankid, rapes the mankid, kills and rapes the mankid in some order, or represents the collapse of the mankid into complete despair or violent acceptance of his own immorality.

The best you can do is go piecemeal and improve the obviously wrong or missing bits instead of trying to treat it as a project to completely redo in a way that invites tossing the babies out with the bushes. — LlywelynII 14:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

There should also be mention somewhere of the pulse of the judge's stories/sermons/parables through the narrative, whether in the overview, summary, or character description. The parable for the Anasazi in particular seems to tie precisely into the book's violence, as if the story is reminding the rest of us just what beasts our fathers actually were and letting us off the hook for failing to live up to what we are otherwise told of their "example" and how the present age is a fall from any time of greater civility, grace, or communion with G-d. (Obviously anything close to that needs a better WP:RS than just saying c'mon look at It. Doesn't make it wrong either.) — LlywelynII 00:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 February 2019 and 3 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sisypheantasks. Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

If this even needs to be called out 3 years later, can't this just be combined with Sisy's comments above? — LlywelynII 14:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Jakob Böhme

I made two edits to the article, one for removing the 'Gnostic' association from Jakob Böhme and the second to make his spelling in German. As I'm new to Wikipedia I'm unsure if English Wikipedia articles are supposed to have more anglicized names where possible or not.

As for him being labeled a 'Gnostic' Christian, he was not a Gnostic. He was a Lutheran, more specifically a mystic and more specific still a Christian theosophist. I suppose either of these three labels are fair. Sagacious91 (talk) 11:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)