Mike Cahoon
What makes a piece of art a classic? What makes a book important? Is the impact it had at the time of release enough, or does it need to continue to resonate with modern audiences across the ages for it to retain its status? That's the question I found myself asking as I plodded my way through my first and likely last Cormac McCarthy novel, Blood Meridian. As someone who loves both westerns and classics, I thought this novel was going to be right up my alley, but found myself sorely disappointed.
My biggest gripe with Blood Meridian is also likely one of its biggest selling points among its fans; the lack of structure. McCarthy seems far more concerned with presenting a meditation on human nature and the inherent darkness within ourselves than telling anything resembling a traditionally structured story. For much of the book, events seem to just happen, with little connective tissue to tie them together. And while this sort of gonzo, vibe driven narrative can and does work in other cases, I found myself yearning for more structure, more of a sense of the characters beyond the barely constructed cutouts that McCarthy presents us with.
Much has been made of the violence of this story, of the near constant and visceral descriptions of graphic, senseless violence. While I don't deny that these scenes were strongly written, they again did little to advance the plot. Rather, they went on so long and occurred so often that they lost much of their impact. Perhaps it is a sign of the times that I as a reader found myself bored with reading about our central characters pillaging innocent villages and scalping people, but the fact remains the same. Violence in a story is only useful in what it accomplishes for the narrative, and in this case, it felt like it accomplished very little beyond the shock value.
For my full review, please visit;
https://mikecahoon.com/book-review-blood-meridian/
Originally posted at mikecahoon.com.
What makes a piece of art a classic? What makes a book important? Is the impact it had at the time of release enough, or does it need to continue to resonate with modern audiences across the ages for it to retain its status? That's the question I found myself asking as I plodded my way through my first and likely last Cormac McCarthy novel, Blood Meridian. As someone who loves both westerns and classics, I thought this novel was going to be right up my alley, but found myself sorely disappointed.
My biggest gripe with Blood Meridian is also likely one of its biggest selling points among its fans; the lack of structure. McCarthy seems far more concerned with presenting a meditation on human nature and the inherent darkness within ourselves than telling anything resembling a traditionally structured story. For much of the book, events seem to just happen, with little connective tissue to tie them together. And while this sort of gonzo, vibe driven narrative can and does work in other cases, I found myself yearning for more structure, more of a sense of the characters beyond the barely constructed cutouts that McCarthy presents us with.
Much has been made of the violence of this story, of the near constant and visceral descriptions of graphic, senseless violence. While I don't deny that these scenes were strongly written, they again did little to advance the plot. Rather, they went on so long and occurred so often that they lost much of their impact. Perhaps it is a sign of the times that I as a reader found myself bored with reading about our central characters pillaging innocent villages and scalping people, but the fact remains the same. Violence in a story is only useful in what it accomplishes for the narrative, and in this case, it felt like it accomplished very little beyond the shock value.
For my full review, please visit;
https://mikecahoon.com/book-review-blood-meridian/
Originally posted at mikecahoon.com.