Cormac McCarthy: Blood Meridian as a reactionary horror novel

In the previous post, VMP discussed Alden Bell’s novel The Reapers are the Angels and its unique, and indeed beautifully written and imagined, engagement with the zombie genre.  Those who are already familiar with that novel will be aware that critics have been comparing it to Southern Gothic literature in style and tone, quite often to the contemporary Southern Gothic novelist, Cormac McCarthy.

Although there are definitely similarities between Bell and McCarthy – the polished and oft-times poetic prose style, for example, where dialogue lacks quotation and thus merges with the overall narration – Alden Bell’s novel tends to reveal, due to its genre proximity, the reactionary nature of McCarthy’s novels.  Whereas Bell uses the same subject matter (violence, civilization in chaos, a threatening American landscape) to reveal a world where humans, stripped of the confines of American civilization, are ultimately humane, McCarthy begins from a Hobbesian position: inter-human violence is innate, human beings are individualized appetites that are generally incapable of anything but viciousness, civilization is the result of this ur-violence which is only worse once the confines of modern civilization vanish – “man is a wolf to man.”

One only need to make the most obvious comparison between Cormac McCarthy and Alden Bell to understand the difference: The Road to The Reapers are the Angels.  Both deal with post-apocalyptic landscapes (desperate cannibals in McCarthy’s novel versus mindless zombies in Bell’s), both involve protagonists on a journey in an attempt to survive (a father and his son in The Road, a teenaged girl and a mentally challenged adult in The Reapers), and both imagine what violent America would look like when American capitalism collapses.  But whereas Bell imagines that humans, no longer influenced by the exchange economy and capitalist expansion, would eventually begin to renew the semblance of disalienated relationships (and that the only living people who are monstrous are those who remember the days before the apocalypse and cannot abandon what is clearly an irrational way of seeing the world), McCarthy’s world is a Hobbesian state of nature.

Comparing Reapers and Road is probably too easy because of the convention of apocalypse.  Really, the McCarthy book that is most comparable to Bell’s novel is the revisionist western Blood Meridian.  There is a post apocalyptic tone to Blood Meridian, the old west as armageddon; the protagonist is a teenager who is trying to make sense of the world; the sinister antagonist, “the Judge”, is like  supernatural and motivationless version of Bell’s antagonist, Moses.

Probably McCarthy’s greatest novel, and beloved by so many American lit fans, Blood Meridian also demonstrates McCarthy’s commitment to a reactionary politics.  In a review I wrote of Pascal Laugier’s Martyrs on my other blog, I argued that “that which annexes the horrific from reality” is a reactionary trope:

“Here the horrific happens outside of law and the normative structures/institutions of society […] The solution is always a return to the status quo.  Serial killers stalking the fringes of society are more horrific than the soldiers mandated by this same society to bomb children and torture insurgents.”

Of course, McCarthy is a little more nihilistic in his examination of the horrific undertones of American society.  He often seems to be saying that both civilization and the lack of civilization are equally horrific (so no solving the problem with “more law”), but that this is always and eternally how it must be because we are just violent creatures who would be quite happy slaughtering one another.  At the same time, however, the world of Blood Meridian, which takes place at those points in nineteenth century America where the state is week and filibusters are scalping and slaughtering people into submission, is clearly more horrific than the more “civilized” violence of the cities.

(I am of the opinion that Blood Meridian is a horror novel, rather than a western, because it seems more concerned with “horrific possibility”.  After having reread the novel about a year ago, I was pretty much convinced that I was reading a surreal horror novel, and feel that if it is to be genre-ized in any way, at least to make sense of its concerns, it should be compared to genre of horror rather than, as is most common, the genre of the western.  There are points in the novel that read like a slasher story, sometimes even a ghost story, and the supernatural characterization of the malevolent “Judge” definitely forces the novel outside of the “old west” conventions.  )

Blood Meridian begins with an epigram about how “scalping” was discovered in cro-magnon society, thus initiating the novel with the argument that humans, since the dawn of time (a typical first year university student ploy), have been murderous little creatures.  And the Judge, who often feels like a symbolic stand-in of human nature, tends to wax eloquent about the eternally violent nature of humanity.  Even worse is the equalizing of violence between the colonizer and the colonized: yes, it is true that the settler protagonists are depicted as serial killers, but so are the natives – in fact, though the violent acts of colonizers and colonized are treated as equally abhorrent (itself a problem because it disappears the first act of colonial violence) – at least the settlers have the narrative voice to explain and think through their murderousness.  The native characters, arriving like forces of nature like Alden Bell’s zombies, are generally apparitions on the horizon, gibbering ghost-like creatures.  No wonder numerous critics liked Blood Meridian‘s take on the western and celebrated the fact that both “cowboys and indians” were depicted as “equally bad”… we should know by now that equalizing the violent acts between the oppressor and the oppressed is a hallmark of liberal colonial racism.

Furthermore, McCarthy’s books are marked by an absence of female agency.  While it is true that the world of Blood Meridian is one where men controlled women like chattel – and while it is true that patriarchy does produce male agency – he tends to simply naturalize this reality.  If female agency is absent, and a critical novelist wants to comment progressively on this absent, then you don’t simply transform women into props for a male-based plot.  In McCarthy’s world women are generally objects, although sometimes speaking objects, and there is no sense that he is even aware of why he is excluding them in the first place.  (Look at No Country For Old Men, an obvious candidate for a Coen Brothers film, where the female voice is relegated to the end: a complaint, a question mark, a dewey-eyed addition to an obsession with the world of men.)

“War is god,” the Judge proclaims in Blood Meridian: “Moral law is an invention of mankind for the disenfranchisement of the powerful in favor of the weak.”  These are reactionary pronouncements, the first Hobbesian and the second Nietzschean, that are more than simply the ravings of the novel’s central antagonist.  For the Judge is marked by the card of the Fool in an earlier Tarot reading – the card that is often meant to symbolize humanity – and he speaks within the context of an overall depiction of violence and horrific possibility, where from McCarthy’s chosen epigram about human violence to McCarthy’s later novels, his musings on human nature are given credence.  If McCarthy chose to make the Judge “evil” it is only because McCarthy, though accepting the reactionary view of reality, doesn’t like it: the author is, most probably, a nihilist.

It is interesting to compare the Judge’s philosophy about the meaning of life, about the role in nature for the children of god (“men are born for games” and “war is the ultimate game… [that forces] the unity of existence”), to the central antagonist of Bell’s novel, Moses Todd.  When he confronts the protagonist, Temple, at the end of the novel he argues that they are children of god who, despite living in a fearsome place, are called to vengeance and must follow this path of violence because it is their destiny.  And yet, unlike the Judge, Todd doesn’t entirely believe in his philosophy – in fact, he is trying to get Temple, who he has been trying to murder for most of the novel, to understand his motivations, his essential violence: “his eyes are filled with a kind of pleading, as though he needs her to understand him – as though the gun at her head were instead a hand held out in brotherhood. […] A fellowship of life that talks in a  language of death.”  And whereas the Judge is akin to a force of nature (one McCarthy despises but recognizes as universal), Moses Todd is simply a human being who, at the end, realizes the foolishness of his ethical creed.

While Blood Meridian‘s subject matter is interesting – the violence beneath nineteenth century settlerism, the fact that reality is horrific – it also fails to truly interrogate the nature of violence.  In the end, like most of McCarthy’s novels, it lapses into nihilistic reflections on reactionary platitudes.  Yes it is necessary to examine the violence beneath civilization, yes the violence and horror of exclusion can be progressive, but Blood Meridian (unlike, say, Roberto Bolaño’s 2666 which deals with the same subject matter of violence in a far more thorough and insightful matter) skirts the surface of these questions.


3 responses to “Cormac McCarthy: Blood Meridian as a reactionary horror novel

  1. Really intriguing and thought-provoking post–but why do you conflate the Judge with McCarthy? Put another way, why do you assume that the pronouncements of the Judge capture or define the primary meaning of the novel? This assumption reflects what I see as the flaw of your reading–Blood Meridian is doing something more than simply uttering nihilistic pronouncements about human nature. Certainly, its basic setting is a world of total lawlessness and bellum omnium contra omnes. Yet it seems to me that such a setting is in service of a critique of lawfulness (or civilization) that conceives of lawfulness as the ultimate expression of lawlessness. In other words, it is not that civilization conceals a barbaric core, it is that civilization as such barbarically violates the very terms by which it defines itself. The Judge is the metonymic expression of this civilization and the violence that is the condition of its existence–he is not “a symbolic stand-in of human nature”, because at the very least he is most certainly not “marked by the card of the Fool in an earlier Tarot reading – the card that is often meant to symbolize humanity.” It is Jackson who draws the Fool. To me, then, McCarthy is not making perverse annexations of the horrific from reality, he is pointing out that such annexations are the bread and butter of the history of Western civilization.

  2. Been a while since I read the novel, so I clearly made the mistake about the Fool card. I’m not conflating the Judge with McCarthy, however, and I even explain this in the third last paragraph. The argument is that McCarthy sees the Judge’s position as abhorrent but realistic, and I make this argument because McCarthy begins Blood Meridian with an epigram about human nature being violent since the dawn of time. Furthermore, McCarthy’s entire worldview in *all* of his books demonstrates this Hobbesian view of human nature and history. Yes, I agree he is saying that the horrific is part of western civilization (or maybe all civilization for that matter) which is why I set Blood Meridian aside from the point I made about Martyrs… At the end of the day, though, reality and humanity, whether “civilized” or “uncivilized” seems to be nothing more than horrific for McCarthy.

    It is difficult for me to see Blood Meridian as anything more than an act of lamenting the violence beneath American society, but then reading this violence as eternal… And while it does this, it reproduces very pernicious racist notions of the colonized while pretending to be critical. Of course, I’ll admit that the book is far more complex and nuanced (which in my mind reflects McCarthy’s confusion about violence and the horrific), but on this blog I’m interested in the political questions about literature and McCarthy is not providing us with any progressive reading of North American society.

  3. Really appreciated this review, which I came across by chance. Sums up where I’m at with the book right now perfectly. I manage a literary journal called Newfound that publishes reviews. If you’d ever like to publish your literary criticism s with us, email us at info [at] newfoundjournal [dot] org. Cheers!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s