This article makes me want to cry. I'm an unbelievably big Cormac McCarthy fan and the findings in his library shed so much light on many inscrutable and poetic passages from his books.
I think for example about the following quote from the judge, an insatiably curious (and evil) character from Blood Meridian:
> Whatever exists, he said. Whatever in creation exists without my knowledge exists without my consent.
Cormac's personal library contained "upwards of 20,000 volumes." Turns out, that wasn't the judge speaking but McCarthy himself.
Or maybe he was searching for "structure", the way Grothendieck was - in pure math, in systems biology, in complex networks (e.g. civilizations, culture, occult) and in individual behaviors
TL;DR: An old testament reference to the "malevolent god". E.g. "god in the old testament wasn't so nice or forgiving.."
> In Gnosticism, the Demiurge is the lesser creator god who fashioned the material world and is often seen as the God of the Old Testament, Yahweh. Unlike the supreme, unknowable God, the Demiurge is ignorant, imperfect, and sometimes malevolent, responsible for the flaws of the physical world and the imprisonment of the divine spark within humans. Gnostic beliefs see a spiritual journey not as submitting to the Demiurge, but as a process of escaping his creation to return to the true, good God.
If you read his last two novels he was clearly well-informed about mathematics.
However I have to assume that McCarthy didn't actually master all the material in the math books mentioned here, I think the reporter may be a little too credulous about that. I suspect he had the very common experience of buying a yellow book and being defeated in the first couple chapters.
That might be an understatement of his capabilities, though obviously he wasn't a professional mathematician. It's a joy to read some of the eulogies professors at the Santa Fe Institute gave to him:
> He had an encyclopedic knowledge of the world and a memory to match. Topics ranged from salvage diving — something we discussed a few days ago — to far more academic fare often focused on mathematics and physics.
> Cormac and I engaged on a wide range of topics. Some recurring themes included social mobility, machine intelligence, the intersection of genius and madness, and cars and trucks.
> Cormac also often remarked that a lively conversation with friends is about as good as sex. He’d talk for hours about physics, math, novels, philosophy, human nature, bawdy humor, corny humor, architecture (including detailed advice on my own house), gambling, history, and any question that lacked a quick and obvious answer.
Slight tangent brought up by the article, but usually the greats aren't good at just one thing but have a combination of eccentricities that form the person. I find it heartening that Cormac had these in spades.
If you think "Blood Meridian" is dark, try "Child of God." I'm a huge McCarthy fan, but "Blood Meridian" is tough to appreciate. "The Road," "No Country for Old Men," and "All the Pretty Horses" are his most readable works; try them, then decide how much farther you want to go.
The Road did really have that effect, of making me want to keep going. Blood Meridian, on the other hand, had writing I greatly admired, but never pulled me into the story in the same way… though Judge Holden is a fantastic character, basically a Y Combinator partner before there ever was such a thing as YC.
"McCarthy’s detractors, meanwhile, found his writing overly mannered, his characters overly masculine, and accused him of relishing the violence he wrote about so vividly."
Yeah, maybe his detractors were on to something.
I haven't even started "The Road" because of its reputation. I have only read "Child of God" and wondered why someone might write about the worst among us. But then I'm not a fan of Quentin Tarantino as a filmmaker for the same reason.
I hope, at least, you managed to watch the films before you had an opinion on them. Tarantino's, I mean.
The Road is not a violent or pessimistic book, tho there is violence and pessimism in it. Don't confuse the set and the setting.
Why write about, 'the worst among us'? Some art (and Cormac tottered over the line between wrought and overwrought plenty) is about finding meaning in the margins, in the edge cases. The statistical noise at the outerbands of anything might make it an impossible endeavor for meaning-making, but that's why art. You try anyway. Some writers are skilled enough to make the mundane sing and that's great, but McCarthy obviously didn't seem to care for that approach.
I think I can see why Child of God put you off enough for the thoughts of others to prevent any further effort, but I'd suggest you give him another go.
I'd save blood meridian for later tho; If you don't get too distracted by the setting of the road, it's a perfectly optimistic book.
As the poet said, something in us does not erode (free pun!)
I would argue that the ending of the book is optimistic despite the event that precedes it. An imperfect father wants the best for his child, and does the best he can with the hand he's dealt. In a dying world of cannibals and worse, there are people who are good, and whose surroundings don't poison their view on what it means to be good. "Do you carry the fire?" is, to my mind, an incredibly optimistic sentiment.
I've always gotten the sense from McCarthy that he was keenly aware that civilization is not just something to take for granted and that there is always something dangerous at the edges that needs to be carefully guarded against.
His worldview seemed to be that humans as a species are extremely violent and capable of the most inhumane acts and we’re hanging on by a thread. Some of his writing often covered what just a slight altering of our societal moral compass might look like.
Probably my favorite author of all time, him or maybe Delilo.
You don't have to love them, but dismissing two of the 20th century's great artists in their respective mediums while having a blog named "engineersneedart" is certainly ironic.
I have a theory that everyone has a different level of detachment vs self-insertion when consuming a fictional narrative. Those more self-insertive probably shouldn't read his books.
I’ve only read The Road and found it extremely difficult because of the nihilism. I put it down in the middle of it and stewed for 6 months before I picked it up again. I am so glad I did. I think his detractors are right, it is violent, nihilistic, masculine and whatever else. Through that the other side of the contrast becomes so vivid. Maybe there are better ways to get there. For me it hit.
My daughter and I talk about the message in the book regularly. Though she has yet to read it. I see more clearly my purpose as a dad and as a member in my community. Totally worth the read.
Haven’t read “The Road” yet, but I was able to take the time to read “Blood Meridian” this year— I don’t think I would describe the violence depicted as “relished.” It came across as vivid in an arduous, can’t-look-away-from-the-wreckage-so-bear-witness way, and I was really intrigued by how the Kid’s POV dissolves during the worst of it. And about “why someone might write about the worst among us”—the glory-seeking and hypocrisy of the Glanton gang also felt timely, to be frank. So, to me, it felt more like a clinical exposure of ugly rot rather than a luridly violent power fantasy like Inglorious Basterds.
Though I do kinda feel the “masculine” note in that quote haha, if only because the women that appeared in the story were steadfastly hospitable (or victims.) Disregarding any incident where the Judge was involved, it actually felt quaint, especially in contrast to everything else going on.
I’ll be interested as I check out the rest of his catalogue as to if the stomach-churning detail involved still feels necessary, or if my tolerance starts to change.
Oh I have read almost all of McCarthy’s novels including this one. That’s beside the point though, what’s wrong about something being overtly masculine?
I’m not certain it’s the case for McCarthy’s works, but I think inept attempts at manly men could certainly veer into accidental parody. An “overly masculine” character might just bring Johnny Bravo to mind. To offer an example, I tried watching “Untamed” recently and the highly concentrated gruff machismo coming off of that main character mostly had me wondering if he would ever do or say anything that wasn’t so cliche as to be scripted by predictive text. (Maybe it gets better, but the first few episodes did not hold me.)
"Child of God?" You started at just about the darkest, least approachable place. Try "No Country for Old Men" or "All the Pretty Horses," both of which are far easier to read and contemplate.
This article makes me want to cry. I'm an unbelievably big Cormac McCarthy fan and the findings in his library shed so much light on many inscrutable and poetic passages from his books.
I think for example about the following quote from the judge, an insatiably curious (and evil) character from Blood Meridian:
> Whatever exists, he said. Whatever in creation exists without my knowledge exists without my consent.
Cormac's personal library contained "upwards of 20,000 volumes." Turns out, that wasn't the judge speaking but McCarthy himself.
I think that’s an allusion to the Gnostic demiurge.
Or maybe he was searching for "structure", the way Grothendieck was - in pure math, in systems biology, in complex networks (e.g. civilizations, culture, occult) and in individual behaviors
For the uninitiated (like me!):
TL;DR: An old testament reference to the "malevolent god". E.g. "god in the old testament wasn't so nice or forgiving.."
> In Gnosticism, the Demiurge is the lesser creator god who fashioned the material world and is often seen as the God of the Old Testament, Yahweh. Unlike the supreme, unknowable God, the Demiurge is ignorant, imperfect, and sometimes malevolent, responsible for the flaws of the physical world and the imprisonment of the divine spark within humans. Gnostic beliefs see a spiritual journey not as submitting to the Demiurge, but as a process of escaping his creation to return to the true, good God.
See also: https://gnosticismexplained.org/the-gnostic-demiurge/
If you read his last two novels he was clearly well-informed about mathematics.
However I have to assume that McCarthy didn't actually master all the material in the math books mentioned here, I think the reporter may be a little too credulous about that. I suspect he had the very common experience of buying a yellow book and being defeated in the first couple chapters.
That might be an understatement of his capabilities, though obviously he wasn't a professional mathematician. It's a joy to read some of the eulogies professors at the Santa Fe Institute gave to him:
https://www.santafe.edu/news-center/news/memoriam-cormac-mcc...
> He had an encyclopedic knowledge of the world and a memory to match. Topics ranged from salvage diving — something we discussed a few days ago — to far more academic fare often focused on mathematics and physics.
> Cormac and I engaged on a wide range of topics. Some recurring themes included social mobility, machine intelligence, the intersection of genius and madness, and cars and trucks.
> Cormac also often remarked that a lively conversation with friends is about as good as sex. He’d talk for hours about physics, math, novels, philosophy, human nature, bawdy humor, corny humor, architecture (including detailed advice on my own house), gambling, history, and any question that lacked a quick and obvious answer.
Etc.
Slight tangent brought up by the article, but usually the greats aren't good at just one thing but have a combination of eccentricities that form the person. I find it heartening that Cormac had these in spades.
Previously posted: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45383439
Great article. Reading it, I was expecting the author to come across a little sled labeled "Rosebud" every next sentence.
Incredible article. Thanks for sharing.
The Road is one of the most powerful books I have ever read.
I could not stop reading it, but at the same time I hated how it made me feel. I stoped reading novels for years after finishing it.
The Road is my favorite fathering book ever. I have recommended it to all my dad friends. Audiobook is excellent too.
I gifted it to a couple of new Dad friends. They never did get back to me about it. Fair.
The only book I've ever read in a single sitting.
After reading the Road, I started on Blood Meridian and could not continue, swearing never to read McCarthy again. The man's soul was just too dark.
If you think "Blood Meridian" is dark, try "Child of God." I'm a huge McCarthy fan, but "Blood Meridian" is tough to appreciate. "The Road," "No Country for Old Men," and "All the Pretty Horses" are his most readable works; try them, then decide how much farther you want to go.
The Road did really have that effect, of making me want to keep going. Blood Meridian, on the other hand, had writing I greatly admired, but never pulled me into the story in the same way… though Judge Holden is a fantastic character, basically a Y Combinator partner before there ever was such a thing as YC.
It’s the only book I’ve read where I came upon a passage that literally caused my jaw to drop.
>hated how it made me feel
I sometimes don't like feeling either.
Eek, accumulating, curating, memorializing misses the point he made.
"McCarthy’s detractors, meanwhile, found his writing overly mannered, his characters overly masculine, and accused him of relishing the violence he wrote about so vividly."
Yeah, maybe his detractors were on to something.
I haven't even started "The Road" because of its reputation. I have only read "Child of God" and wondered why someone might write about the worst among us. But then I'm not a fan of Quentin Tarantino as a filmmaker for the same reason.
I hope, at least, you managed to watch the films before you had an opinion on them. Tarantino's, I mean.
The Road is not a violent or pessimistic book, tho there is violence and pessimism in it. Don't confuse the set and the setting.
Why write about, 'the worst among us'? Some art (and Cormac tottered over the line between wrought and overwrought plenty) is about finding meaning in the margins, in the edge cases. The statistical noise at the outerbands of anything might make it an impossible endeavor for meaning-making, but that's why art. You try anyway. Some writers are skilled enough to make the mundane sing and that's great, but McCarthy obviously didn't seem to care for that approach.
I think I can see why Child of God put you off enough for the thoughts of others to prevent any further effort, but I'd suggest you give him another go.
I'd save blood meridian for later tho; If you don't get too distracted by the setting of the road, it's a perfectly optimistic book.
As the poet said, something in us does not erode (free pun!)
I think it's a stretch to call The Road optimistic.
I would argue that the ending of the book is optimistic despite the event that precedes it. An imperfect father wants the best for his child, and does the best he can with the hand he's dealt. In a dying world of cannibals and worse, there are people who are good, and whose surroundings don't poison their view on what it means to be good. "Do you carry the fire?" is, to my mind, an incredibly optimistic sentiment.
It’s quite a stretch.
I've always gotten the sense from McCarthy that he was keenly aware that civilization is not just something to take for granted and that there is always something dangerous at the edges that needs to be carefully guarded against.
100%
His worldview seemed to be that humans as a species are extremely violent and capable of the most inhumane acts and we’re hanging on by a thread. Some of his writing often covered what just a slight altering of our societal moral compass might look like.
Probably my favorite author of all time, him or maybe Delilo.
You don't have to love them, but dismissing two of the 20th century's great artists in their respective mediums while having a blog named "engineersneedart" is certainly ironic.
I have a theory that everyone has a different level of detachment vs self-insertion when consuming a fictional narrative. Those more self-insertive probably shouldn't read his books.
I’ve only read The Road and found it extremely difficult because of the nihilism. I put it down in the middle of it and stewed for 6 months before I picked it up again. I am so glad I did. I think his detractors are right, it is violent, nihilistic, masculine and whatever else. Through that the other side of the contrast becomes so vivid. Maybe there are better ways to get there. For me it hit.
My daughter and I talk about the message in the book regularly. Though she has yet to read it. I see more clearly my purpose as a dad and as a member in my community. Totally worth the read.
My impression is that Tarantino and McCarthy author with different motives in mind.
Haven’t read “The Road” yet, but I was able to take the time to read “Blood Meridian” this year— I don’t think I would describe the violence depicted as “relished.” It came across as vivid in an arduous, can’t-look-away-from-the-wreckage-so-bear-witness way, and I was really intrigued by how the Kid’s POV dissolves during the worst of it. And about “why someone might write about the worst among us”—the glory-seeking and hypocrisy of the Glanton gang also felt timely, to be frank. So, to me, it felt more like a clinical exposure of ugly rot rather than a luridly violent power fantasy like Inglorious Basterds.
Though I do kinda feel the “masculine” note in that quote haha, if only because the women that appeared in the story were steadfastly hospitable (or victims.) Disregarding any incident where the Judge was involved, it actually felt quaint, especially in contrast to everything else going on.
I’ll be interested as I check out the rest of his catalogue as to if the stomach-churning detail involved still feels necessary, or if my tolerance starts to change.
Depiction isn’t endorsement
How is overly masculine a bad thing? Makes me want to read it even more.
Just read it and you will find out. Is a really short book.
Oh I have read almost all of McCarthy’s novels including this one. That’s beside the point though, what’s wrong about something being overtly masculine?
I’m not certain it’s the case for McCarthy’s works, but I think inept attempts at manly men could certainly veer into accidental parody. An “overly masculine” character might just bring Johnny Bravo to mind. To offer an example, I tried watching “Untamed” recently and the highly concentrated gruff machismo coming off of that main character mostly had me wondering if he would ever do or say anything that wasn’t so cliche as to be scripted by predictive text. (Maybe it gets better, but the first few episodes did not hold me.)
[flagged]
[flagged]
Please don't cross into personal attack. We had to warn you about this just a little while ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45419871.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"Child of God?" You started at just about the darkest, least approachable place. Try "No Country for Old Men" or "All the Pretty Horses," both of which are far easier to read and contemplate.
[dead]