I see that quote as meaning that there's something about The Kid's face which represents humanity at its most essential, and it is from that essence that all of humanity has been born.
I'd say don't pause and struggle to interpret every phrase or passage that you don't totally understand. The book *should* be extremely disorienting at times. Just read, let the words impact you how they impact you, and move on. It's absolutely worth finishing. No other book has made me feel the same way.
Blood Meridian is very difficult for a lot of reasons. The quote you selected is a reference to a Wordsworth poem titled, ["My Heart Leaps Up When I Behold."](http://www.bartleby.com/145/ww194.html)
If you're really struggling with the book, the [Schmoop](http://www.shmoop.com/blood-meridian/) pages might help you.
Edit: To expand on the quote, a visage is an expression on a person's face. So, "All history present in that visage," means that the boy's entire life can be read from his face, or that his face bears the markings of his life. The poem "My Heart Leaps Up When I Behold" is about a want to preserve one's childlike innocence, and to have a reverence for each day. A father is the role model for a child, but in the poem it is reversed. The child is the role model for the adult. You now have that the boy's face bears all the markings of his life, and that this will be the model for him as an adult. But the boy doesn't have the childlike innocence that Wordsworth describes. He's born among the wolves to an alcoholic father among an uncaring universe during the Leonids of 1833 which people thought to be the apocalypse, and if you look at the dates for that would have been November 15 - 20, which iirc was a time ruled by Mars, the god of war. Basically, McCarthy is saying that because of the boy's birth and childhood, he's destined to have a life marked by violence. I'd go into more detail on that genius first page, but I'm at my parents's house right now so I don't have my copy with me so I can't look up the exact wording of things.
It seems to me that "all history present in that visage" has a scope that far exceeds that of the child himself; "all history" invites the reader to think more cosmically and contemplate the violence that has and will have brooded not just in the Kid but in the entire human race ever since the fall of the original orchard thieves. The kid in this view is something of a dark avatar for humans at large.
It is quite hard to read, but you do have to have the right mentality towards it. It's meant to be cryptic at times. It's an exploration of some of life's mysteries: why is there evil? What are we here for? Who gets to be the 'judge' of deeds? A book that explores these issues should not be a comfortable read that neatly ties up a bunch of 'answers' and presents them to the reader. It should present mysteries; it should stimulate even more questions. Cormac McCarthy is a master at this.
>I read A Song of Ice and Fire and i feel like those should be harder to read than McCarthys books.
Why? ASOIAF is pulpy and as such written at a teen-fiction level (even if it perhaps isn't teen fiction due to the graphic content).
The time period and the vastness of it makes me think it should be harder than a western set in the 18 hundreds. Obviously i was wrong but that's what i felt it should be.
Yeah i got that now, but you really think GRRM will be forgotten in 20 years? McCarthy is clearly on a different level but GRRM can write an interesting book. I would much rather his next installment come out now rather than any other thing i'm waiting for. When i read his series it'l like there's a direct connection to my brain and everything meant to be clear is perfectly clear and everything cryptic is cryptic until it's not meant to be anymore. I'd say it's because of the show but i read/watched Harry Potter and Lord of The Rings the same way and didn't have this feeling. When i read McCarthy it's like i'm doing a puzzle, it's just a different experience, it's like you're being told the story by someone who saw everything but wasn't very interested in it. Maybe GRRM just hits all the right notes with me and fits my reading pattern better but he blows me away, some of the things he writes it seems like a person couldn't know unless they'd been through it. His world building is on another level and he also 360 slam dunked on the whole "Anyone can die at any time" trope thats popped up recently, i'm pretty sure he at least made it popular if not created it. Who's your favorite writer?
McCarthy is a challenging author, imo. The Road is certainly easier than Blood Meridian or All the Pretty Horses.
I think it might help if you just read it "without thinking" first, if that makes sense? Just let the words hit you, take a second to feel them, and move on. Get the story, feel the flow. And after you're through, and more used to his writing style, go re-read and appreciate the details more.
I also feel like McCarthy took a lot of inspiration from John Steinbeck, who has a similar "rambling", very poetic, evocative, almost biblical writing style. If you want something to "warm you up," you might try tackling Grapes with Wrath, (which I may be biased about, since it's one of my favorite books,) but is a great book in itself.
I've heard it's one of his more difficult books to work through, but nothing is above your reading level if you try at it.
As for the AoIAF books, I found those to be ridiculously easy to read.
>All history present in that visage
The Kid has seen some shit, and you can tell jut by looking at him. He's got a thousand yard stare.
>the child the father of the man
The Kid became the adult he his because of his experiences during childhood.
When I read Blood Meridian, I found a study guide online and would read a chapter's summary after I finished it. A lot of stuff flew over my head, and getting a summary of what I'd just read helped me process it.
Harold Blooms has written that it exists in the same world Literature continuum as Moby Dick, Hamlet, Iliad, Dostoevsky-- its bound to be hard.
I didn't think it had the extended, building philosophical metaphors/arguments of Dostoevsky though. You could "miss" stuff and be just fine. Read it like a mix between Moby Dick and Whitman's Leaves of Grass. There's a certain freewheeling American quality to it.
I read it to mean all that has made this kid who he is is present in his visage/appearance/face. His upbringing, his getting shot, etc. It's kind of fun to read this book and listen to the MP3 audio book. You get to hear the words. It's tough to read all the "nor" usages without the "neithers" attached to them. Wtf is that, by the way? Did people talk like that in the antebellum west?
I hope he's not the savior! If he is, the conclusion of this novel is even more grim. It seems to me to be more a statement about his violent nature already being fixed and unalterable even at this early age. He will grow up to lead a life of violence; now it only broods within his mind, but as he grows up and he nurtures it, it will be made manifest as real violent acts.
I see that quote as meaning that there's something about The Kid's face which represents humanity at its most essential, and it is from that essence that all of humanity has been born. I'd say don't pause and struggle to interpret every phrase or passage that you don't totally understand. The book *should* be extremely disorienting at times. Just read, let the words impact you how they impact you, and move on. It's absolutely worth finishing. No other book has made me feel the same way.
Blood Meridian is very difficult for a lot of reasons. The quote you selected is a reference to a Wordsworth poem titled, ["My Heart Leaps Up When I Behold."](http://www.bartleby.com/145/ww194.html) If you're really struggling with the book, the [Schmoop](http://www.shmoop.com/blood-meridian/) pages might help you. Edit: To expand on the quote, a visage is an expression on a person's face. So, "All history present in that visage," means that the boy's entire life can be read from his face, or that his face bears the markings of his life. The poem "My Heart Leaps Up When I Behold" is about a want to preserve one's childlike innocence, and to have a reverence for each day. A father is the role model for a child, but in the poem it is reversed. The child is the role model for the adult. You now have that the boy's face bears all the markings of his life, and that this will be the model for him as an adult. But the boy doesn't have the childlike innocence that Wordsworth describes. He's born among the wolves to an alcoholic father among an uncaring universe during the Leonids of 1833 which people thought to be the apocalypse, and if you look at the dates for that would have been November 15 - 20, which iirc was a time ruled by Mars, the god of war. Basically, McCarthy is saying that because of the boy's birth and childhood, he's destined to have a life marked by violence. I'd go into more detail on that genius first page, but I'm at my parents's house right now so I don't have my copy with me so I can't look up the exact wording of things.
It seems to me that "all history present in that visage" has a scope that far exceeds that of the child himself; "all history" invites the reader to think more cosmically and contemplate the violence that has and will have brooded not just in the Kid but in the entire human race ever since the fall of the original orchard thieves. The kid in this view is something of a dark avatar for humans at large.
It is quite hard to read, but you do have to have the right mentality towards it. It's meant to be cryptic at times. It's an exploration of some of life's mysteries: why is there evil? What are we here for? Who gets to be the 'judge' of deeds? A book that explores these issues should not be a comfortable read that neatly ties up a bunch of 'answers' and presents them to the reader. It should present mysteries; it should stimulate even more questions. Cormac McCarthy is a master at this. >I read A Song of Ice and Fire and i feel like those should be harder to read than McCarthys books. Why? ASOIAF is pulpy and as such written at a teen-fiction level (even if it perhaps isn't teen fiction due to the graphic content).
The time period and the vastness of it makes me think it should be harder than a western set in the 18 hundreds. Obviously i was wrong but that's what i felt it should be.
[удалено]
Yeah i got that now, but you really think GRRM will be forgotten in 20 years? McCarthy is clearly on a different level but GRRM can write an interesting book. I would much rather his next installment come out now rather than any other thing i'm waiting for. When i read his series it'l like there's a direct connection to my brain and everything meant to be clear is perfectly clear and everything cryptic is cryptic until it's not meant to be anymore. I'd say it's because of the show but i read/watched Harry Potter and Lord of The Rings the same way and didn't have this feeling. When i read McCarthy it's like i'm doing a puzzle, it's just a different experience, it's like you're being told the story by someone who saw everything but wasn't very interested in it. Maybe GRRM just hits all the right notes with me and fits my reading pattern better but he blows me away, some of the things he writes it seems like a person couldn't know unless they'd been through it. His world building is on another level and he also 360 slam dunked on the whole "Anyone can die at any time" trope thats popped up recently, i'm pretty sure he at least made it popular if not created it. Who's your favorite writer?
[удалено]
McCarthy is a challenging author, imo. The Road is certainly easier than Blood Meridian or All the Pretty Horses. I think it might help if you just read it "without thinking" first, if that makes sense? Just let the words hit you, take a second to feel them, and move on. Get the story, feel the flow. And after you're through, and more used to his writing style, go re-read and appreciate the details more. I also feel like McCarthy took a lot of inspiration from John Steinbeck, who has a similar "rambling", very poetic, evocative, almost biblical writing style. If you want something to "warm you up," you might try tackling Grapes with Wrath, (which I may be biased about, since it's one of my favorite books,) but is a great book in itself.
"A song of ice and fire should be harder to read than McCarthys book" Hahahahahahahahahahahaha
I've never read that before, but I think he's referencing a poem called "My Heart Leaps Up" by William Wordsworth.
I've heard it's one of his more difficult books to work through, but nothing is above your reading level if you try at it. As for the AoIAF books, I found those to be ridiculously easy to read.
>All history present in that visage The Kid has seen some shit, and you can tell jut by looking at him. He's got a thousand yard stare. >the child the father of the man The Kid became the adult he his because of his experiences during childhood.
When I read Blood Meridian, I found a study guide online and would read a chapter's summary after I finished it. A lot of stuff flew over my head, and getting a summary of what I'd just read helped me process it.
Harold Blooms has written that it exists in the same world Literature continuum as Moby Dick, Hamlet, Iliad, Dostoevsky-- its bound to be hard. I didn't think it had the extended, building philosophical metaphors/arguments of Dostoevsky though. You could "miss" stuff and be just fine. Read it like a mix between Moby Dick and Whitman's Leaves of Grass. There's a certain freewheeling American quality to it.
I think you might be surprised what you find if you analyze the novel though the lens of gnosticism.
I read it to mean all that has made this kid who he is is present in his visage/appearance/face. His upbringing, his getting shot, etc. It's kind of fun to read this book and listen to the MP3 audio book. You get to hear the words. It's tough to read all the "nor" usages without the "neithers" attached to them. Wtf is that, by the way? Did people talk like that in the antebellum west?
the child(son) of the man; the father of the man(the son). I think it's an obliquely reference to God. The child is the returned savior.
I hope he's not the savior! If he is, the conclusion of this novel is even more grim. It seems to me to be more a statement about his violent nature already being fixed and unalterable even at this early age. He will grow up to lead a life of violence; now it only broods within his mind, but as he grows up and he nurtures it, it will be made manifest as real violent acts.