I don't get it

>the idea of manifest destiny -- selling your soul to a rapacious ideal of success and wealth (the juddge is Milton's satan) that in the end takes everything from you (the judge rapes and kills the kid at the end) and how violence is inescapable and innate to the human experience and ho violence evil and chaos will persevere when entropy devours us

>how** violence

not ho violence, dammit

Ho violence sounds more fun.

Stop this nonsense, my man.

Firstly, the Judge is not simply an analogue to Milton's Satan, and McCarthy is clear to tell us this.

"Whatever his antecedents, he [The Judge] was something wholly other than their sum, nor was there system by which to divide him back into his origins for he would not go."

McCarthy is invoking one of the important concepts of the novel, his attempt to recirculate his story using allusion to create a deeper understanding of the form behind. The Judge is not only Milton's Satan, but Melville's Moby Dick, the Gnostic Archon, the Jungian Shadow, Manifest Destiny incarnate, and yet wholly none of these. It's vital to understand this in the greater context of what the novel is attempting to do.

Secondly, I disagree strongly with the theory that the Man is raped and murdered at the end of the story. When I hear this, I wonder if it is a parroting of an opinion, a meme, or a lack of reading comprehension skills. This is to mean no offense to you, but the Man is actually shown to us outside the jakes after the 'Judge's' speculated murder.

"In the mudded dogyards behind the jakes two men went down the boards towards the jakes. A third man was standing there urinating into the mud. Is someone in there? the first man said. The man who was relieving himself did not look up. I wouldnt go in there if I was you, he said."

It strikes me that this third man, the man urinating into the mud, is highly unlikely to be the Judge, and far more likely to be the Man. To begin, the two men approaching the jakes would have taken note if this was the form of the great Judge-- Tall, body as smooth as a child, these are not details that go unnoticed, and the novel is clear to tell us this. Likewise, I do not think the man urinating is a random third party, for this conversation becomes needless and confusing if it were neither the Man or the Judge. Why had this unknown third man looked into the jakes? Why was he so nonchalant when the other two are clearly not by what they see? This does not add to the narrative, and makes little sense. Instead I would suggest that this man urinating is likely the Kid-- Now the Man-- and now any other man, for he has succumbed to the Judge. How?

The entire chapter carries with it pedophilic undertones relating to the Kid. First, he beds specifically a dwarf prostitute, a woman who is the closest to childlike amongst the prostitutes there, and it is implied that the Man cannot maintain arousal with her. "He sat up and swung his legs over the edge of the little iron cot and stood and pulled his trousers up and buttoned them and buckled his belt. His hat was on the floor and he picked it up and slapped it against the side of his leg and put it on. You need to get down there and get you a drink, she said. [Her?] You'll be all right. [Him?] I'm all right now." Two paragraphs later there is a mention of the girl with the now dead bear, and how she has gone missing. (1/2)

Two paragraphs later than this, and the Judge is upon him. I posit to you that this being assumed by the Judge, this being eveloped and overwhelmed by his flesh, is a metaphor for succumbing to have this lost little girl sexually. The Man is spurning the Ex-Priest and is embracing the Judge, this figure that we have established as at least somewhat metaphysical, a figure of representation other than purely a strange and malicious character with no deeper roots. This in mind, the Judge's final words are wholly justified in their truth- He can never die because he can get the Kid to commit such an evil act. The Judge has become a part of the Man in the way he never could with the Kid, through an adult's violence against children. (2/2)

>I wonder if it is parroting of an opinion, a meme
Says the guy who posts the biggest meme theory ever (the Man is a pedophile, raped his sister Phoebe, etc.).
>he can never die
He says he'll never die. Says. He kills the Man because he failed to convert him to his side. This was a tacit recognition of defeat, of something outside his system which he could neither control not extinguish -- the human spirit. His ending dance is a simple act of childish hubris.

Take a look at this draft page. The Judge can't "whip" the Kid, ie make him obedient / control his will/spirit. He can only destroy his physical body in frustration.

The entire message is literally "be yourself"

You're a good reader, kid. [Spits]

You've got a good point there, I reckon... [spits]

Neither do I.

This doesn't fit with the kid's actual character.
He commits the depraved acts yet he feels a semblance of remorse.
Remember when he helped the man with the arrow in his leg? Remember when he went into a delirious fit near the end of the novel before he was jailed? His conscience overcome him at that time. The judge saw something in him that he didn't see in anyone else in the glanton gang. He saw a semblance of good will within him. The kid even had the opportunity to kill the judge, and he let it go.
The judge fed off the lives and depravory of the glanton gang. He wanted to consume them entirely. The kid was elusive until the very end.
Your theory also makes no sense considering the kid steps into the pisser at the end and the judge is waiting there to pull him to his naked body.

Isn't that the whole point? The Judge revels in turning the only one of them with some purity.
If I recall it says he "embraces" him; it doesn't necessarily imply he kills him. The Judge is waiting and the Man knows he's waiting. He goes willingly.

homosexuality is scarier than all the violence in the book

thats the message

God is real, but He ain't here. This is the devil's domain bitch, and you better dance to his tune lest you get crushed under his step.

Prepare to be mindblown.

The judge is the devil. That is obvious. The Kid avoids him and cant kill him at close range in the creek after showing he can hit indians much farther with a pistol.

The Kid is the sexual predator, the one responsible for the girls disappearing. Hear me out and especially read the last paragraph. He has been running from himself the whole time. The judge calls him out as the only one not being truthful in his depravity and violence, like he fashions himself better than the rest.

At the end I imagine he finds the young girl in the outhouse hiding and crying because of the bear, and "the judge" overtakes him, ie, the judge's presence is possibly figurative in this scene. The devil takes hold over the Kid one more time and the Kid kills her.

It is the Kid that is the unnamed man who tells the onlookers not to go inside. They open and see what has been done, that is the horror. The Judge is vindicated and dances at the stage, saying that he will never die, as no matter how men try to outrun him, they cannot, and he lives within them forever.

The crown jewel in this theory around which all this turns is this: It's implied in the scene before the ending that the Kid attempted to engage a dwarf prostitute in her services, but that he couldnt 'perform'. This seems to very clearly be implying she was a poor substitute. A poor substitute for his usual fare. This scene, coming immediately after the Kid's talk with the judge is a direct result of that talk: he wants to prove he is a better man than the judge by changing his ways. In the end, he cannot and he slingshots back to his evil deeds. Why would this scene and the others with missing children (especially the last at the end) be there if they didnt have any significance?

>The Kid is the sexual predator, the one responsible for the girls disappearing.

This is an incredibly flimsy theory and some people subscribe to it just because it's "mindblowing" etc. As a thesis it's basically a Game Theory episode that got out of hand and is running on the fumes in the absolute margins.

Evidence that the Judge is the pedophile actually makes sense: He is directly shown/implied to participate in sexual violence and in the corruption/disappointment of kids. He is literally shown to be naked in a room with a naked 12 year old girl. Hmmm...I wonder if he's some kind of predator? Additionally, consider his thematic purpose in the novel. He's the embodiment of evil. Others may make more specific arguments that he's the devil or something but at the bare minimum he's the locus of evil behavior in the novel. It makes thematic and textual sense for him to be the child predator.

The kid, by contrast, is never shown participating in sexual activity, no less sexual violence. He is also thematically the one hold-out against the Judge's evil. He is not really shown partipating in all that much killing and appears to have some remorse for being a part of the gang. He resist's the judge's control (aka evil's influence) and tells the judge he "aint nothin." Your evidence with the dwarf prostitute is just conjecture stacked on top of conjecture.

kek

What do you supposed the meaning of the dwarf prostitute is? It seems you've just dismissed the point about the dwarf prostitute entirely. I mean it is pretty peculiar that a detail like that would occur in the book at the place where it does. I'm just curious as to what you make of it.

Also, does anyone have any insight into the epilogue? To me that seems even more puzzling than the final chapter.

McCarthy has one trick. re-strange-ification. It's getting over cooked.

the whole point of the novel (the incessant violence and description of scenery) doesn't imply anything -- there's no meaning to most of it. there doesn't have to be meaning with the dwarf girl -- maybe the kid was feeling freaky that night? the judge irked in in the jailhouse so he was probably feeling on edge and strange

you dont have to overthink everything, man
you dont have to know everything

He says he will never die.

hey man pls look at this draft page
when evil can't recruit it falls back on its oldest trick -- violence

violence is the point of the novel
violence will prevail
entropy and chaos will prevail
man is on a never-ending cycle of killing and rapacious ambition
remember the kids picking up bones in texas? remember how the kid (now the man) shoots one of them in the desert? it's implied that these are the children of the traveler that was killed in the judge's story earlier in the book. the youngest of the children inherits the dead boy's gun -- it's a cycle of violence. fatherless children are lost and will always will be.

this father could be a metaphor for god, of course

Just because you can't find the meaning doesn't mean there is no meaning.

>the whole point of the novel (the incessant violence and description of scenery) doesn't imply anything -- there's no meaning to most of it.

This is just retarded. Just because the violence seems senseless doesn't mean that in the context of the book there is no meaning to it. And the violence and description of the scenery are in no way "the whole point of the novel".

it's not retarded, idiot
it's the point
Mccarthy employs a biblical sense of syntax and language but never once does he delve into a deeper spiritual discussion with the reader
there doesn't have to be meaning behind it

Tell me then, what do you think the gratuitous violence means?

i mean if you really want to delve into a BS theory about the dwarf then let's go

the judge is in the vicinity of the man at the end of the novel. whenever the judge is near the people around him behave depraved, they adhere to this power structure that blinds their souls. the man, though, can't maintain an erection with the dwarf -- his conscience eats at him. this is the final way the kid strives above the judge's evil influence, yet, his soul was his the moment he joined up with the glanton gang

you dont do much thinking for yourself, do you?

but it is the whole point of the novel

the cyclic scenes of violence and nature are one in it of themselves -- this reflects McCarthy's attempt to cast humans as lost, adrift, always susceptible to forgo morality for a quick buck because of self-interest.

again, look at the kids picking bones in the desert -- the youngest inherits the older boy's gun after he's shot.

McCarthy wants us to look within ourselves here.

>HURRR THERE HAS TO BE MEANING TO EVERYTHING HURRR

Never read Pynchon pls

Oh god you're one of those "who cares what color the curtains were?" retards aren't you?

oh god you're one of those "I care what colour the curtains were" retards, aren't you?

anyone in academia will tell you that there over-milking of symbolism defeats the purpose of it in the first place...

>I share boards with these fucking idiots who read to cure their inferiority complex

LET ME EXPLAIN IT AGAIN FOR THE FUCKING INFANTS ON THIS BOARD

THE CYCLIC SCENES OF VIOLENCE AND NATURE MAKE THE POINT OF MIRRORING MAN'S INCESSANT CYCLE OF VIOLENCE AND DESIRE TO CONTROL -- AND MCCARTHY IS TRYING TO CONVEY THE MEANINGLESS OF VIOLENCE IN GENERAL WITH ALL THE SCENES OF GORE THAT FLASH BY WITHIN SECONDS

VIOLENCE HAS NO MEANING
VIOLENCE IS A GAME
GAMES HAVE NO MEANING

HOLY FUCKING SHIT YOU GUYS ARE IDIOTS

I agree about that, but are you really saying McCarthy made the prostitute a dwarf just for fun?

the judge is in that place
his presence alone corrupts people (the guy shooting the bear)
notice how resilient and full of sheer human will the kid is when he's alone in the wilderness after being left behind by the gang...
the kid overcame this influence of evil by not fucking the dwarf and going down for a drink

the dwarf represents perverted desire, if you want me to explain it to you like a child...

this thread is so fucking Veeky Forums

>one guy who actually knows what he's talking about
>a slew of idiots who hide their lack of understanding behind big fancy paragraphs with cited quotes and ask stupid fucking questions while trying to uncover meaning behind things that are redundant while spewing nonsense and theories that are stupid just because they're the theories that are contrarian and less-believed in therefore the most intelligent

just nuke this board

I'm not denying that the scene is weird and out of place but it is simply unreasonable to stack all of these assumptions on it and say McCarthy's intention was for us to make all those assumptions. My personal interpretation of that scene is to show a semi-grotesque temptation of the man to show the influence of the judge.

In Summary:

Evidence that the kid is the pedophile: One isolated scene with a ton of other possible explantions

Evidence that the judge is the pedophile: Multiple scenes of direct implication
Makes sense thematically

Which of these two pools of evidence do you find more convincing?

Actually games are art

Yeah fair enough. In my post I was just saying that I think those details should be accounted with in some way. I don't agree with the theory of the kid being the pedophile.

>My personal interpretation of that scene is to show a semi-grotesque temptation of the man to show the influence of the judge.

I agree with this.

games offer no deeper connection to the universe

they're ephemeral distractions for children

Perhaps its vague symbolism and it's more about the feelings invoked than concrete logical metaphors...
Hrrmmmm

But the joke here is that obviously McCarthy had a specific systematic intention but we can never know that and so we just gotta work with the feelings in our heads.

get over it. You're all kinda right (except the guy who thinks the characters aren't just tools for a deliberate, albeit vague, message)

this guy.
this guy is really dumb.
You will never be an interesting or valuable person if you think like this.
its willful ignorance that the liberal hippie vapor-wave zeitgeist has inflicted on academia created through shallow interpretations of philosophy

how am I dumb? literally 60% of the posts here are mine... I go in depth to explain this
you're the idiot who thinks novelists have to cover EVERY SINGLE FUCKING THING in their works. Pynchon would laugh right in your face, you clueless twat.
what do you make of the novel?

Read the rest of my posts, jackass

McCarthy (and every living writer, including Pynchon) would laugh right in your dumb face.

>the judge says himself that violence and war are a mere game to humans
>games in their essence offer no further understanding to our existence and place in the universe
>they are mere ephemeral distractions for children
>ergo meaningless
>ergo violence is meaningless
>humans are doomed to repeat this cycle
>there's no meaning when you saddle up with evil
>the dwarf bitch lives a meaningless life as piece of meat
>she's a symbol for perverted desire (and desire at its core is meaningless -- a game)

Do I have to walk you through it? It's cute that you pulled the "MUH ACADEMIA" card like it ever actually meant anything.

You're hopeless and uninteresting, you fucking halfwit.

furthermore you fucking piece of shit

>McCarthy's syntax is very reminiscent of Hebrew in the old testament, with its lack of subordinate clauses (so many ands in the novel)
>it flows phonetically like scripture
>but McCarthy never once delves deeper into a spiritual discussion with reader
>it's all very superficial and scratches at only material possession
>in a part of American history where manifest destiny and macho tough guy ego shit was at its peak (still the same today, really)
>the kid saddles up with evil and ambition and it leads him nowhere
>meaninglessness

McCarthy wants us to look within ourselves here. I doubt you even picked that up in your reading.

I really can't believe you picked all those buzzwords out of your ass to make yourself believe you're smarter than me. You're a fucking joke, kid
back to /pol/, you fucking 18 year old

Seriously, I've had discussions face to face with shitheads like you who pick at the lowest common denominator of people (what the fuck does vapour wave have to do with anything?) who use this superficial elitism to make pretend you're intelligent, but as soon as I actually start a discussion, and make points, people like you turn pale and stutter and fail to actually make any valuable points.

This book is lost on people like you. It really is. McCarthy is warning against probably everything you stand for.

>implying that youre not proving my point
meaningless is a pointless buzzword.
Your interpretations of Pynchon are very shallow and show very little respect to the crafting of "the game".
It means something regardless of whether everything is subjective.
Do serious reading on deconstruction my man.

(I'm smarter than you bubba)

also youre arguing for my point, that it is not in fact meaningless. It's a reflection. Art is made with deliberation and intent. We're dealing with shadows.

>hey he called my words buzzwords
>hey in a novel with an extremely nihilist set of characters meaningless must be a buzzword
>hey i haven't read pynchon and i dont understand what he tries to say about confusion in life
>hey i just admitted i never read pynchon
>read something my man
>my man

it's like you can't speak without using memes

not only did your first response feature a glaring fallacy, but your little egotistical showmanship is waning too when all you can muster is "read more my man"

This is what happens when the /pol/ idealist bullshit seeps into the other boards... fucking hell, you're lost.

>wahh liberal vaporwave liberal agenda wahh academia wahhh
>smarter than me

AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAAH AHAH AHA HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHA

You're a product of manipulation and petty tribalism seeping into the corporate apparatus of baiting idiots like you into the information mining honeypot that is /pol/

get fucked, loser

also the vaporwave zeitgeist is all about superficial narcissistic irony that allows shallow art to be accepted and expected because "notthing matters maaan"

McCarthy did it all on purpose.
It has meaning, you'll just never truly know what it is. But you can come close.
To think you can't or to not even try is all I'm warning against.
Don't try to speak for him you fucking pleb

> superficial narcissistic irony that allows shallow art to be accepted and expected because "notthing matters maaan"

>confusing real art with consumerist BS

Your view of the world is severely skewed if you pay attention and get angry over what's popular in the culture... Did Casey Neistat teach you the word zeitgeist?

Hey man sounds like youre mad.
I've read all of pynchon.
You must be a bad reader.
He writes in circles, tornados. Yoyodyne, the never ending hunger. the sexual drive, it's all similar to what goes down in blood meridian. like i said, good art is reflection
To call it meaningless is foolish.

I'm not calling the book meaningless, you dipshit. Again, you can't speak about anything without using memes.
I'm saying McCarthy is warning against rapacious amibition and casting violence as meaningless. The book serves a great purpose because it actively warns against nihilism (HEY MCCARTHY'S BIG INFLUENCE IS DOSTOEVSKY DING DING DING)

I'm sorry you're stupid...

>not understanding that zeitgeist creates the demand for consumers and allows for people to form ungrounded and entitled opinions like your own

ding ding ding you did it my man
all i wanted you was to admit it's not about meaninglessness, it's about how to live in face of it and for you to accept that part of knowing is "not knowing" but you gotta anticipate that the author knows that too.
Youre not that smart, assume theyre smarter than you.

>ungrounded and entitled
>says the idiot who believes he has a special place in the universe because he shits on people who he probably thinks are "normies"

"What's wrong with you, is wrong all the way through you." *spits*

A zeitgeist has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Nothing at all in the realm of canonical literature. Canonical literature could really give a fuck what's integrating in the culture.

I never said the book itself was about meaninglessness... The actions in the book are.

Why is it that people on a literature board have the reading comprehension of wet dish rags?

duuuuuuuuumb
what we're talkin about is you acting like a snot-nosed brat.

>says the idiot who believes he has a special place in the universe because he shits on people who he probably thinks are "normies"

but that's you man lol

no, they're meant to appear meaningless but the question you have to ask is what is meaning you fucking idiot.
the characters aren't real people, they're tools. obviously it doesnt mean anythign to them. yeesh.

this board is full to the brim of snot-nosed brats... Can't blame water for taking the form of its cup.

I'm not the one who brought "muh liberals" into the discussion for whatever reason

im a liberal but i can see the flaws in over-acceptance (i.e. beastiality).
just cuz im mad at that doesnt mean im a pol-cunt.
now whose the one whose assumin shit? lol

It's really cute how you explain things that are so fucking obvious that they shouldn't even be brought up.

>what is meaning

really, how the fuck do you think that someone opens a serious book without once facing that question. It's so innate to our humanity that it's laughable that you even bring it up.

you're the one talking down to people.
you're the one who opened this shit

fucking hell

no way man.
you just got really mad because i said there is a use to analyzing and structuring things.
Everything falls apart but we exist through comparison so you can kinda "feel" your way into meaning. to break meaning down into cold-stated facts the way you attempted was foolishing and arrogant

>hurrr liberals and vaporwave hurrr
>I'm a liberal
>I think that a small minority of powerful people reflect the entire spectrum of my side

I think this is what they call "damage control"

games offer children a simulation for real world social interactions.

games are part of mammal biology. physical games especially allow the individual to know the limits of his interactions with others,

i would not say it's meaningless

I never said there was no use analyzing and structuring things
I merely said that the desire the kid has for the dwarf is rooted in an empty rapacious ambition that's influenced by evil -- ergo, meaninglessness. The kid overcomes this desire though. It's why the judge thought him special... but his fate was sealed as soon as he joined the glanton gang

I'm not even mad. I just call it as it is.
academia, especially the arts, is getting really bad when it comes to artistic interpretation.
it encourages simplification and shallow philosphical perspectives that lack the context to make them actually valuable.

Fair points... but I'm going off the judge's perversion of what he thinks games are -- they're meant to be won. This ideal is far more common than you think. Humans have a healthy tenacity to pervert things that seem innocent.

there is a significance to the character being a dwarf and a female and that he wants to fuck her.

because these things exist in our world and represent things the same way words on the page do, that's what im saying.

to just call it meaningless humanity is really shallow and dumb when you consider these aren't real people in the slightest bit.

well i gues they are real in the extent that they're reflections but the point stands that it all exists in relation and can be made sense of to a certain extent which is what you appear to be trying to do now.
your original post was dumb though. that's all i'll say.

Academia has always been a joke.

I don't know why you bother wasting precious neurological pathways picking apart parts of the culture you don't like. Are you working on a scathing satire of modern academia fueled by "millennial ennui?"

I can tell youre young.
The internet has led you astray with how culture works.
you live in a bubble.

The judge is so powerful that even his mere presence influences people (think of all the war criminals who commit atrocities because they're under order from power structures)
This is evidenced by the Glanton Gang's ruthlessness. Notice how when the kid and that one fucker who was shot (cant remember his name) were left behind, and the kid goes on this mini survival quest with little to no food. The judge isn't anywhere to be seen, so the kid is filled now with a deep human will to survive, a connection with the earth and all its dangers. The dwarf represents the judge's influence -- the judge fucks kids -- on the man in his vicinity, yet the man (the kid) always possessed something that could battle this evil influence. Remember how the kid was the only one to get up and try to help the man with the arrow shaft in his leg? The others were under the judge's influence, even the expriest, a former man of light.

so yeah the dwarf represents the last grab of the judge's evil influence to pull the kid to his side... the kid refuses it.

I agree, except for the pervesion of seeing games as meant to be won.The average person wants to win the game. This I think is healthy, and not perverse.

For example, a game if fun if both teams want to win and try and do not cheat. We even pay to see this in the real world. At the opposite end, I doubt many people would want to watch two teams meandering about without wanting to win.

Explain to me how his views are wrong, please.

I really want to know why a man on Veeky Forums is calling out another man's view on the world and criticizing the internet...

Depends on the game.
A large portion of people view life as game meant to be won. In that process they forgo a lot of connections and things that actually cultivate happiness and stability. They end up alone, wandering, looking for the next game to win, for the next batch of opponents to be beaten and consumed -- sounds like the judge, really.

All I'm saying is that the internet has fucked with people's ability to see the inter-relatedness of all things through really personalized online worlds that blind them to the reality of who the real "normies" are

>people's ability to see the inter-relatedness of all things through really personalized online worlds that blind them to the reality of who the real "normies" are
>I don't know why you bother wasting precious neurological pathways picking apart parts of the culture you don't like.

I don't know how these two statements are conflicting. Was it that I insulted your precious academia? That's been on a decline since the late 50s?

Your premise that Academia is a joke is shallow in itself. You can't reduce an entire complex structure to one thing. Of course it can be a joke, but it can also produce great writers, considering McCarthy went to University of Tennesse.

Well I think that is fair enough.

The conversation started with the decline of academia in the first place. I'm sure if McCarthy wasn't an academic, he would've found immense success in another field. You can't really explain where high IQ individuals come from.

oh no not at all. youre right, academia has been fucked up for a long time but that doesnt mean you, and most people design most of your lives around it and what it's created.
I dont care one way or the other about it one way or the other but I see it's value in churning out little snotty fags like you and that is something i gotta stop
(the real normies are the people who don't know that they're a dumb stupid animal that just wants to cum and isnt worth anything to anyone unless they're beautiful or have money/influence)

i just want the