>murder and rape lol
>never ending war lmao
>I hate the creatures of the earth rofl
This is the dumbest ideology I've ever heard.
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Why does everyone think the Judge is a great villain?
Great villains are ones that are likeable that you can sympathize with
no
it's entirely rooted in self-interest, i think that's what's appealing about it. at the core of the belief is the idea that every individual can attain meaning in life by dominating others.
>I hate the creatures of the earth
Did you even read the book?
>"The freedom of birds is an insult to me. I'd have them all in zoos."
He is against birds. He is against them being free. Holden is a Scientist equivalent, he would like to have everything, knowledge also, within his dominion. It's not because he hates everything.
*he isn't against birds
maybe in the loose sense that without knowing, he can't exploit or corrupt such things, he wants as much knowing as god, as if he had access to the tree of knowledge itself
Birds are not that important.
thats doesnt mean he hates bird you moron. He wants to know everything. Read Moby Dick.
>Read Moby Dick
Huh?
McCarthy ripped the "if it exists without my knowledge, it exists without my permission" stuff in BM from the cetology chapters in MD
Quote?
The Judge says it.
No, from Moby dick
I don't mean a specific quote, I mean the chapters in general. It's the same concept. A categorization of nature, trying to shine light in the dark.
That's as old as time. That ain't a rip off. It's basically a short argument on man's obsession with knowledge and knowing. You could argue Lovecraft was also getting at something with his "fear of the unknown". Also, I doubt Melville had such a fatalistic conception of knowledge as Holden. He was a student of Transcendentalism.
Seeker's projection. Pick up a basic book on epistemology (or Waldo Emerson; Melville rips him off quite a lot in Moby Dick specially). Neither are explicating a totally new view.
Melville is actually ripping off of Carlyle (who Emerson ripped off of)
He is not a villain nor is he a hero, he just is.
>UM WHATS THE JUDGES TAX POLICY
Frick off back to r*eddit
The judge isn't a person, he is an idea.
>The judge isn't a person, he is an idea.
He is not a person, on that you are correct, but he is not an idea, he is the demiurge
WHOAH
Yeah, a bad idea
he's a supernatural force of nature. at least that's how i saw him
>ANTIFA ISN'T AN ORGANIZATION IT'S AN IDEA
lmao shut up homosexual
He's fat and fat people are inherently evil.
>peace and justice lol
>end of history
>I love all beings #vegan
i love that lil homie toadvine like you wouldnt believe
Because he's a villian that's actually enjoys all things that are evil. Which is pretty refreshing since nowadays alot of villains are portrayed as sympathetic or misunderstood or Hitler.
The scene where he buys a bunch of puppies and drowns them in the river is hilarious. I don't know why more people don't talk about it.
probably because it's not memorable
Memorable is subjective. Those who don't understand the implications don't find anything memorable.
WHOAH
Lol no it's not. "Uh actually whether or not this book is good is subjective so uh you're wrong it's good" shut the frick up
You can write your moronation in one post you know. You come across as a clown.
Sure. So what are these implications that I missed? Or is it gnostic turpitude to ask?
Amazing !! Only one McCarthy thread
>Read Blood Meridian to see what all the fuss is about
>The Judge's first interaction is literally a troll face comic skit
>N-bomb dropped not even 10 pages in
>Some poor sod is given the spicy doorknob
I can see why people like this book
If you thought that was good, try Thomas Dixon's The Clansman next
The hermit has one of most IQfy quotes of all time.
people that use memes to describe the past are so fricking cringe
Because Redditors.
>"War. War never changes."
OMG it's just like Fallout!!!!!!!!!! So deep
https://youtube.com/shorts/VzCardyabbE?feature=share
The Judge is the only memorable character in the book, and everyone told you the book was good, so you cope that the Judge is a good villain. None of the other characters are interesting. Toadvine and Tobin barely appear in the book at all. Bathcat doesn't even get a death scene; he's mentioned a couple of times, then disappears. Even The Kid, who's supposed to be the main character, goes totally unmentioned for the vast middle of the book, like Cormac forgot about him. Why wouldn't he? These aren't interesting characters. The only vaguely interesting character is the Judge; he stands out because he's bizarre looking, and because he's the only character who doesn't talk in a hokey old timey wild west dialect, but talks in his own, strange idiosyncratic megalomaniac dialect, which makes him stand-out. Worse, the Judge Holden described in My Confession, the memoir on which Blood Meridien is based/stolen, is a much more interesting character than Cormac's. And I say all this as someone who liked and admired much about the book.
Judge Holden from my confessions literally exists only for one page and he comes across as the same verbose, degenerate yet cowardly person as any other academic, except he is also a mercenary. You might find him interesting if you enjoy things like true crime or crminal psychology. Art he is not.
Pretty sure that's not true brother. I recall seeing him mentioned more than once. And the character in Chamberlain is just more interesting. No attempt to "improve" him is necessary. You can feel Cormac trying to do so, but it just feels like he's trying too hard. The fact that he is cowardly in Chamberlain makes him interesting. A bad guy who's just the devil but a cowboy isn't that interesting. It feels juvenile and dumb. There's much I like and admire about the book, but his attempts to "improve" on Chamberlain failed.
I honestly find the real-life Judge Holden a fascinating character.
>The second in command, now left in charge of the camp, was a man of gigantic size called "Judge" Holden of Texas. Who or what he was no one knew but a cooler blooded villain never went unhung; he stood six feet six in his moccasins, had a large fleshy frame, a dull tallow colored face destitute of hair and all expression. His desires was blood and women, and terrible stories were circulated in camp of horrid crimes committed by him when bearing another name, in the Cherokee nation and Texas; and before we left Fronteras a little girl of ten years was found in the chapperal, foully violated and murdered. The mark of a huge hand on her little throat pointed him out as the ravisher as no other man had such a hand, but though all suspected, no one charged him with the crime.
>Holden was by far the best educated man in northern Mexico; he conversed with all in their own language, spoke in several Indian lingos, at a fandango would take the Harp or the Guitar from the hands of the musicians and charm all with his wonderful performance and out-waltz any poblana of the ball. He was “plum center” with a rifle or revolver, a daring horseman, acquainted with the nature of all the strange plants and their botanical names, great in geology and mineralogy, in short another Admirable Crichton, and with all an arrant coward.
>Not but that he possessed enough courage to fight Indians and Mexicans or anyone else where he had the advantage in strength, skill, and weapons. But where the combat would be equal, he would avoid it if possible. I hated him at first sight and he knew it, yet nothing could be more gentle and kind than his deportment towards me: He would often seek conversation with me and speak of Massachusetts and to my astonishment I found he knew more about Boston than I did. [sic] (My Confession 271-72)
so basically he was a giant, albino turboautist sociopath
Cormac took loads of stuff direct from the real accounts, but he changed a few little details to suit himself. e.g. Your extract makes particular mention of Holden's large hands but BM gives the Kid the "big wrists, big hands", and with the Judge goes the other way:
The reverend had stopped his sermon altogether. There was no sound in the tent. All watched the man. He adjusted the hat and then pushed his way forward as far as the crateboard pulpit where the reverend stood and there he turned to address the reverend's congregation. His face was serene and strangely childlike. His hands were small. He held them out.
Ladies and gentlemen I feel it my duty to inform you that the man holding this revival is an imposter...
As I said, he is more interesting if you are more interested in crminal psychology and all. Blood Meridian's Holden isn't meant to be the same sort. His appeal lies in his mysteriousness, and his apparent ""evil"". McCarthy isn't trying to improve upon Chamberlain's Holden, Chamberlain's Holden literally exists for what like 4 paragraphs. There isn't enough to either improve or ruin.
>A bad guy who's just the devil but a cowboy isn't that interesting. It feels juvenile and dumb.
I mean this is about as reductive as you can possibly get, and possibly wrong as well. You can easily say that Chamberlain's Holden is a typical run of the mill coward pedophile you would find in 100s of crime fiction, except that he seems to be well read. That isn't interesting in the slightest. It is cliched and dumb. All I get from that is the reader has a liking for crime fiction.
Each man here gave of himself except you who held back.
>His appeal lies in his mysteriousness, and his apparent ""evil"".
But he's not mysterious. He gets more attention than any other character in the book, and talks more. He's the least mysterious character.
>You can easily say that Chamberlain's Holden is a typical run of the mill coward pedophile you would find in 100s of crime fiction, except that he seems to be well read. That isn't interesting in the slightest. It is cliched and dumb.
How can the original, believable version of the character, written by an actual Civil War veteran, be "cliched and dumb", but the over-the-top ridiculous rip-off version, written by a chair-force veteran, not be? Judge Holden in Blood Meridien feels like a 12-year-old's conception of the edgiest, darkest villain ever, and the same goes for the book's lame fixation on "war".
>All I get from that is the reader has a liking for crime fiction.
I do, though probably much less than you seem to think, though I have no problem with people who really like crime fiction. I understand that you probably really enjoy Reddit and Fallout games.
>He gets more attention than any other character in the book, and talks more. He's the least mysterious character.
What an absolutely moronic statement. Have you even read the book?
>How can the original, believable version of the character, written by an actual Civil War veteran, be "cliched and dumb", but the over-the-top ridiculous rip-off version, written by a chair-force veteran, not be? Judge Holden in Blood Meridien feels like a 12-year-old's conception of the edgiest, darkest villain ever, and the same goes for the book's lame fixation on "war".
It's believable because it is cliched you moron. It's believable because it is realistic and you are familiar with these type of people existing. Besides, this is a novel. A chair force veteran is far more accustomed to writing the character than a mercenary. Chamberlain's Holden is probably fabrication as per other historical sources. And Chamberlain was a failed artist unlike McCarthy. Only soap opera watching brainlets think that more believable character == better writing. That's a video game tier opinion. Even moreso for a book like Blood Meridian.
Nothing to say about your other "opinions". When an ape looks into a mirror, an apostle is very unlikely to look back. Maybe if you hadn't consumed that much edgecore media as a 10 year old then maybe you would be able to see more into the character. Rather than mistake the book's insistence on historical accuracy with edginess like a 12 year old vide game manchild, which you seem to be. But your moronic argument above makes me even doubt you had a good handle on the book you supposedly read.
> I have no problem with people who really like crime fiction. I understand that you probably really enjoy Reddit and Fallout games
Typical redditor's reply with the passive aggression. Hard projection too. Fallout is in your ball park more than this book is. It was obvious the moment you brought up "but but muh ebul" like all the morons here who have no idea what they are talking about.
>But he's not mysterious. He gets more attention than any other character in the book, and talks more. He's the least mysterious character.
NTA but that's a really fricking dumb take. I honestly stopped reading there because holy shit.
Did the big words upset the widdle baby
>he thinks he used big words
moron confirmed.
>big words
Lol. Stick to scooby doo crime stories, kid.
>Bathcat doesn't even get a death scene
You absolute moron. Bathcat's death scene is right in his introduction.
Honestly I have no recollection of him dying in the book, but if that's the case I apologize.
He gets killed as part of a scouting party. They find his headless torso hanging from a tree. It's mentioned in his introduction and comes to pass toward the end of the book. I love this line.
>Only on the inside of his lower arm was there tattooed a number which Toadvine would see in a Chihuahua bathhouse and again when he would cut down the man's torso where it hung skewered by its heels from a treelimb in the wastes of Pimeria Alta in the fall of that year.
I mean it's literally God's ideology according to The Judge himself.
>"As I neared the scene I recognized the gigantic form of Judge Holden, who had been brought to bay by about a dozzen yelling Yumas, who appeared to be armed only with their short clubs. Holden was resting, leaning on his heavy rifle, which he had been using as a war club, with effect, for one savage lay brained at his feet [sic]" (My Confession 291-93).
>great book
>it being relatively widely read leads to decent discussion and insightful criticism
>gets mega popular because of eceleb
>reddit morons who can't really offer insight bandwagon
>contrarian pseuds rush in to say it's shit with even less insight
How many more times is this going to happen? What book is next?
is evil supposed to be logical?
Why does everyone think the Judge is a villain? The Kid is the villain of the novel. The Judge is the hero. The Judge as consciousness transcends Glanton's phenomenological approach.
>When the lambs is lost in the mountain, he said. They is cry. Sometime come the mother. Sometime the wolf.
Judge Holden calls into question the price of survival, and under what conditions they're inimical to unalloyed liberty, the degrees and variations of slavery. If War is the Father of All, world peace would be a deicidal proposition. Perhaps we're better off nuking it all and resetting the game clock than unlock Nicola Tesla's "manmade horrors beyond human comprehension." with automation, AI and whatever other bug eating pod living human hive generating historical drain humanity would circle indefinitely in bondage to his own tools.
I had the thought of the Kid/Man being the one to honestly resist or triumph over the Judge. Throughout the book the judge is constantly around, even surrounded by killers that are unnerved by him. Not the kid though, the Kid at multiple points expressed a quick readiness to be done with the Judge once and for all. At the end, when the Man has the choice to dance or leave, I think that was his chance to really truly change or realize his place in the world, instead of being on autopilot with half measures of reconciliation for his past. If you think the judge was something supernatural or hellish, then I think he corrupted the kid early, ensuring that this potential would never bloom. The Man chose to leave, having a defeatist attitude and is disillusioned with the world.