Is this book not a textbook definition of hyper-reality? Of the realer than real? The caricature which replaces the reality? Of the ultra-sensational that leaves all concepts of violence in the dust? It seems to in my mind replace all notions of the historical reality of the American southwestern history in the mid 1800s. Was McCarthy aware of Baudrillard? Interested to discuss.
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Shut up nerd
jesus, read a single other book
I'm sorry, what?
I don’t think so. Sure the violence and some characters are stylized but the novel’s pretty rooted in actual history. Moreover, the thrust of the narrative is the battle between the empty, desolate Real and the search for narrative meaning. If that sounds hyperreal to you then I guess I just don’t understand Baudrillard well enough.
It took me about 3 full readings to really grasp this book. Am I moronic?
No
>It seems to in my mind replace all notions of the historical reality of the American southwestern history in the mid 1800s
At the time of the novel the Comanche had turned into Ghengis Khan tier horse lords wreaking havoc on all the tribes that had displaced them to the plains peripheries, ultimately getting their revenge on Apaches themselves turned into mostly mountain peoples blood feuding with heavy handed Mexicans that didn't keep the tribute peace the Spanish had established. The violence is atypical of American frontier crime rates (closer to modern day Japan)-- it is not atypical of border disputes with Mexico and hostile natives. Cherokee kept their slaves into the 1890s for instance.
The judge is a bit obtuse, sure. Revisit the chapter subheadings and do the necessary translation where relevant, they do add context.
Simulacra and simulation was published in English in 1983 which is the year McCarthy finished writing Blood meridian. He likely didn't read him until after.
Synchronicity then perhaps
hyper reality isn't realer than real
it's just a map (vs territory)
so any novel, esp a historical novel will confuse some people thinking it's territory when it's just words
BM is not a textbook definition of hyper-reality
in fact a surprising amount of the book isn't invented
it's encrusted with obsolete language (which I enjoyed hunting down)
but that encrustation was to obscure the fact that so much of it was lifted from chamberlain
which is something that will destroy the book's reputation over time
the book isn't notably violent, you're parroting the scam artist named harold bloom (even if you don't know it (he wrote the introduction to the ml version))
>that encrustation was to obscure the fact that so much of it was lifted from chamberlain which is something that will destroy the book's reputation over time
Chamberlain's record isn't fiction. That's like saying War and Peace is hack work because Tolstoy stuck to historical accuracy and will be found out in time. And you clearly haven't read Chamberlain's book, you are just parroting. Chamberlain's record is neither comprehensive enough nor authentic to fuel the book's historical narrative. In fact the only thing Chamberlain will be remembered for is describing Holden for 4 paragraphs, itself not a verifiable fact. And the obstrucation isn't to obscure any fact but an aesthetic exegesis on how things are interpreted. You are just stupid.
paroting was my word lol
chamberlain talks about holden for a lot more than 4 paragraphs =^^^)
sorry the book you like will fade back into laughing stock
obfuscation not obstruction wew
i don't need comment on your intelligence
You are just mad about the book's reputation. Reading about its sources will make you seem less of a clown than you already are.
>chamberlain talks about holden for a lot more than 4 paragraphs =^^^)
As usual with butthurtgays you have not read a single page of the book in question.
>paroting was my word
It's good then that I used "parroting" instead. Did you learn English recently? Seems so. I don't think you invented the word, moron.
ARKK mommy
Goethe’s Faust is more famous and acclaimed that Marlowe. Chaucer and Boccaccio lifted many stories. Same with Shakespeare. It is the execution that is important.
He is just butthurt. The fact that he can't tell apart history from fiction already says so. Lifting the plot of the novel is the most brainlet criticism of the book because history belongs to no writer, and all writing is based on real experience.
>the book isn't notably violent
there is a bush with dead babies hanging on it by page 60
not even the Kid wanted to deal with that
>It is useless to ask if it is the loss of communication that produces this escalation in the simulacrum, or whether it is the simulacrum that is there first for dissuasive ends, to short-circuit in advance any possibility of communication (precession of the model that calls an end to the real). Useless to ask which is the first term, there is none, it is a circular process - that of simulation, that of the hyperreal. The hyperreality of communication and of meaning. More real than the real, that is how the real is abolished.
then can hyper-reality even exist? if you can just diffuse it by going "it's just a book, it's just a movie, it's just a game" even though it does resonate with you and make valid criticisms, can it be considered still? Or can it just be framed as mere satire, cartoonish, etc. Is the key being that it's more complex than just criticism, like some semblances of sentmentality, praising, idk other shit?
The West and particularly Mexico are the "real," unfiltered world to McCarthy, totally absent of pretense. The setting itself seems like it was his version of a microcosmic hyper-reality.
>totally absent of pretense
Yeah, those rock paintings aren't pretentious at all. Learn to fricking read. The Old and New Mexicos (Including Tejas) form an area where water is not overwhelming. Cormac was overwhelmed by the water of life in Appalachia. He is freed from the suffusion of God by the desert, but water is constantly plentiful even if hard.
That's an incredibly strict interpretation and you seem to be taking it too seriously.
>Yeah, those rock paintings aren't pretentious at all.
Can you chill the frick out and explain what you meant by this?
McCarthy's fascination with the pretension of past man in making actions in the world which are now incomprehensible and their meanings inexplicable without a deliberate interpretive hunt to blood them and force them into comprehension and cognition. McCarthy's deserts are full of variety, floral expressiveness, and water. They are the places where pretensions can most be acted out, such as being a horse breaker, or a horse rescuer, or a man with two million dollars, or a sniper. The emptiness of the desert is that which allows for the pretention of character and being to be observed clearly for what it is in detail in the stark light of day or skylit from behind when you duck your head down to look for it back lit by the heavens.
Man is a pretence.
uhh my life is exactly like that actually
I know that I will never die
The Judges name is, Juan Reyes.
Abel killed the judge outside of a bar with a knife.
Diego, is the Judge's father ?
I would argue yes because of his push to fuse the medieval, biblical ambiance into the setting. That and many other western themes, and using natives he has something to tie into the primordial as well. It's exaggerated for spectacle but many of the root violences did occur.