Talk:Blood Meridian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Novels
Literature Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments


Why is this still a stub?

I don't know if this is nit-picking, but I'm concerned about the line that says the Kid is "brutally murdered" by the judge. Actually, it's never explicitly stated that he's killed. All we know is that the judge is waiting for him in the latrine, and that later some bar patrons are horrified by something they see. Sure, it's probably murder, but for the sake of pure objectivity could we change this line to something less specific...came to a bad end, or something like that?

Shouldn't this redirect to "Blood Meridian, Or the Evening Redness in the West"?

I think that the standard naming practice in the case of a novel with two names is to use the primary name as the name of the article. See Doctor Fischer of Geneva, the full title of which is Doctor Fischer of Geneva or the Bomb Party. | Klaw Talk 04:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

No real need for discussion, just go ahead and merge.Plowboylifestyle 21:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] The Kid was murdered?

[edit] Murdered?

Actually, due to some earlier references to the judge's possible homosexuality (the naked dead boy in the fort, the saving-then-killing-and-scalping of the indian boy, the naked fool in the judge's room) and the fact that the judge is naked when the kid enters the latrine, along with the reaction of the men outside the latrine, I thought that there was somthing far different from murder going on at the end of that novel.

Um source? Naked != sex. LilDice 20:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Kid was murdered?

I agree with the other comments....I just reread the ending. Both times I've read it I did not get the impression that the judge kills the Kid, though I suppose that is consistant with the text. [not signed]

[edit] The Murder

I finished the novel last night and thought it was obvious that the judge murdered the kid at the end. Most horribly, as Bloom noted. The kid enters the jakes, goes in and the judge, naked, rises behind him puts his giant arms around him, pulling him close to his "terrible flesh." Then the judge locks the door. Later the two men are horrified at the scene. Who knows what the judge did to him, but it didn't end well for the kid. I think the judge was naked becuase he just raped and murdered the missing girl. Perhaps he violated the kid as well, but I don't think so right now. Certainly with the judge, anything is possible. He killed him though, as the judge is the one true dancer. Bears that dance, bears that don't.

Yea I agree with you, the people who read rape into it can if they want, but regardldess the kid got what was coming to him. LilDice 01:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another One on the Murder

Just want to follow-up with this discussion to say that I'm a bit surprised by the statement that the Kid was "brutally murdered" by the judge too -- I'd remembered it being much more ambiguous then that. [not signed]

[edit] It's Obvious

It's perfectly fair to say that the kid was murdered by the judge. Whether he was also buggered by the judge is a less clear. But it doesn't matter. It's enough that he obviously could have been. Those who would insist on being more cautious about saying whether the kid was killed by the judge are the same who would hold out for the possibility that Hemmingway's "Hills Like White Elephants" might be about something other than abortion. Additionally, you've got heavy-weight, professional judgement about the matter with Bloom. This is not something to toil over. --Docblueson 10:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely; and not only does Bloom believe the Kid to be dead but as does the majority of critical thought on the novel. In fact, I honestly can't recall a single statement theorizing the kid to have survived the ending. The only debate is to whether he was raped prior to his murder by the Judge. Qjuad 16:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gnosticism ?

Could more information be provided regarding the parallels to gnostic beliefs ? I saw many allusions and references to all forms of Christian mythology. Why limit it to gnosticism ?


Vatic Reverie 16:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree. The gnostic reading is based on a single article by someone who is not a Gnostic expert. In addition, the article is fairly short and the connections seem tenuous or trivial at times. The gnostic reading is valid, are there does seem to be some connections, but they are not overwhelming and it is far from a "gnostic" novel. Meanwhile, the Christian symbolism, images, and myth seem to be throughout the entire novel (the ruined churches for example). I think this section should be removed and combined with comments on other religious readings.

[edit] Black John Jackson - stated to be an escaped slave?

I've looked through the text, and while it is possible or even likely that the sullen John Jackson character was an 'escaped slave', there is no actual reference or even hint of this that I can find. If no-one else can point something out, then I'll remove this reference.

References or links would be good for the statement 'Scholars have written pages about single paragraphs in the novel'.

Lastly, as a matter of interest only, it is notable that New York Times critic Caryn James, who reviewed 'Blood Meridian' on its publication in 1985, clearly didn't understand the book, and her review could be seen as contributing to it's initial muted reception: [1] 'Centrepull 08:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The "Scholars have written pages about single paragraphs in the novel" comment seems trivial. It is a common practice among literary scholars to write pages on a single paragraph.

[edit] Accuracy corrections made

The kid should be noted as a formidable and vicious fighter after his encounter with the bartender (important given the later activities of the Glanton crew). White's crew were irregulars. The kid and Sproule were not the only survivors of White's filibustering expedition. He meets three others at Chihuahua, and the Mexican guide Candelario mysteriously disappeared before the slaughter. Centrepull 10:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV Weirdness, etc

There are moments in the page when I feel like I'm being sold Blood Meridian. For example, "Scholars have written pages about single paragraphs in the novel." You could probably say the same thing for almost any popular text in the 20th century, so it feels like someone is just trying to tout the novel.

And then there's this weirder passage: "John Emil Sepich's Notes on Blood Meridian was the first and remains, arguably, the most thorough examination of the novel's sources, their context and significance. Sepich's 1993 version of this book is out of print, and has become a collector's item, often commanding high prices. However, as of December 2006, contracts have been signed for a revised and expanded edition of Notes by John Emil Sepich to be published by University of Texas Press as part of the Southwestern Writers Collection. The book is expected to be available in Fall 2007. Additional books and articles have also examined McCarthy's sources for the novel."

The fact that it's "arguable" that it's the most thorough, well, makes it POV. Is there something special about "Notes on Blood Meridian" - an out of print scholarly book - that it deserves a full paragraph rather than a little note on the works cited \ further reading page? And then there's the final sentence, "additional books and articles have also examined," etc, as if this is somehow different from any other novel.

I also think that the article feels a little bloated. Wikipedia isn't Spark Notes; there's no reason to list all the characters & "themes" and give such a long plot synopsis. Jordansc 22:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right on the the first couple counts -- feel free to fix it. However the article is certainly not bloated, there is not enough information if anything. It's an important novel and has had plenty written on it so there's no reason not to include themes, and a thorough snyposis. LilDice 00:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it's an important novel, but is it a function of wikipedia to provide detailed synopses and themes? I think we should include a synopsis, but there's no reason to describe the entire plot. What use would that have for the wiki reader? And detailing themes is a form of literary criticism; that seems like original research to me. It's one thing to summarize what important literary critics have said about the novel under reception but it's another to announce that Blood Meridian is "about" violence, etc, as if an encyclopedic entry can have the final word on the novel's interpretation. Jordansc 23:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Per the synopsis every major novel/film on wikipedia has a plot synopsis, it's useful to provide context to the rest of the article. Detailing themes is not original research if it's sourced. Take a look at Moby Dick they do the same thing there. LilDice 23:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I think there should be a synopsis but I don't know how useful it is to describe everything that happens in the novel. I guess that's just me.
But as far as themes go, I still feel like any description of a novel's themes - however sourced - is going to be a very selective and therefore POV'ed one. And, again, what use is it to tell the wiki reader that Blood Meridian is "about" violence? Jordansc 23:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
No, if there is undue weight to any particular sourced item then you start to get into POV territory, however merely selecting a published work to include in the article is not POV, think about it you could say the same for any article, we're simply reporting the facts on what themes critics write about. As for the 'about' violence bit, i'm not sure what part in the article you're talking about. LilDice 00:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
You're right. I think my objections have more to do with Wikipedia's treatment of literature in general rather than this particular wiki article. Since I spend my time reading \ trying to write about literature, anything that looks like it's trying to fully describe a book in X words seems too reductive to me.
Anyway, on a more modest note, the first two paragraphs of the violence section need to be sourced. The final paragraph of the section has sources, but based on the quotes it's difficult to see how they support the idea of a "warlike nature of man." Jordansc 03:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Hop on it, just add {{fact}} tags. LilDice 03:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title

Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books), we shouldn't use the subtitle in article names. If no one objects, I'll move the page over to Blood Meridian, and merge the page histories of the two versions.--Cúchullain t/c 19:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess I should note that I went ahead and did this the other day.--Cúchullain t/c 22:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two questions about the plot

There are two points about the plot that I would like to be clarified. Is there any point in the novel in which the kid actually shows any compassion for the victims, as the judge accuses him of doing? I seem to remember that at one point somebody said some such words, but I thought it was Toadvine. I can't find the passage now. The second question is why was the kid released from jail after the judge accused him? One explanation is that, since the judge has accused him of murdering Toadvine and Brown, and we find out later that they are still alive and have been arrested, the authorities discovered that the judge was lying. Eubulide (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything scene that shows the Kid demonstrating compassion for their victims, but he doesn't operate with a total lack of concern for others like most of the group does. Toadvine expresses discontent with what they're doing a few times. I think the point is we see almost nothing about what the characters think internally, all we can judge them by are their actions.--Cúchullain t/c 19:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Length of the plot

This is about the disagreement between me and Cuchullain about whether some details of the plot should be removed from the article. I tried to find a Wikipedia policy about the length of a plot summary but there is none. The only guideline is the generic one about length of an article, and according to that this article is well between bounds. I object to deleting any accurate information from a Wikipedia article because it is "too much". As for any other kind of content, if you delete something you have to give a reason: it is incorrect, non-encyclopedic, point of view, original work, or other motivation. None of this applies to the plot details that you deleted. I don't see how my edits where wrongly formatted, but if they were, just format them correctly, don't delete them. (By the way, you also deleted some content that were already there before my edits.) Eubulide (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The plot summary is becoming too long to be useful to the reader. Plot summaries should be limited to the essential details, per WP:PLOT. This article is not as bad as some in that it isn't just plot summary, but contains receptions and analysis sections as well, but the plot summary does need to be trimmed down. There's no rule saying you must cite a policy or guideline when removing material in order to improve the encyclopedia, and that's what I was doing. I did explain myself - we don't need every plot point and detail listed off here. Parts of your edits were formatted incorrectly (you put sentences on their own lines, I assume hitting return instead of space), I would have just fixed it rather than reverting except I didn't think the edits added to the article. Finally, according to the page history I didn't remove anything besides your additions.--Cúchullain t/c 21:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:PLOT doesn't state that plot summary should be limited to the essential. It only requires that an article does not consist exclusively of summary. On the other hand, WP:WAF and WP:LENGTH give suggestions on what to do when a section or an article becomes too long: a section should be divided into subsections, an article split into subarticles. If you feel that the summary in this article is too long to be useful, you may split it into subsections about groups of chapters. Nowhere in Wikipedia's guidelines can I found the suggestion that information can be removed only because there is too much of it. In any case, you should give reasons for every deletion, not just erase part of an article indiscriminately. Eubulide (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I did give reasons for reverting you both times you did it - that there's no need for all that detail. It's nothing personal. The goal is to transmit an understanding of the book, not to collect every plot point without regard for their importance. WP:PLOT calls for a brief plot summary in terms of a larger article also dissecting themes and meaning - this plot summary takes up far too much space to be useful. There's no way this would ever pass for a Featured Article with a plot summary this long. Splitting the plot section into its article would not be a good idea.--Cúchullain t/c 20:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:PLOT states that "A brief plot summary may sometimes be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic". Notice the "sometimes" and "may be". That this is a strict rule barring longer summaries is just your interpretation. Also your evaluation of when a summary is too long is subjective. On the other hand WP:SIZE clearly states that "Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage; certainly, size is no reason to remove valid and useful information." When information becomes too big to be useful, you should restructure it so that it becomes more accessible, not delete it. Size of the summary will not prevent the article from been featured (can you cite a case in which an article has been denied FA status only on the grounds of length of the summary, and such that the summary was of the same size as Blood Meridian?) Check the many featured articles about video games: they all have lengthy plot descriptions. You will not convince me that a the plot of a video game has more cultural relevance than a literary masterpiece. Eubulide (talk) 09:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
It looks like this has been resolved at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Length_of_a_plot_summary at by the current wording at WP:PLOT and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Plot summaries.--Cúchullain t/c 18:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)