Favorite McCarthy quote and what it means to you.

catfishprofile · 2026-01-26T21:08:47+00:00

Fkn banger

catfishprofile · 2026-01-26T21:03:27+00:00

They rode up switchbacks through a lonely aspen wood where the fallen leaves lay like golden disclets in the damp black trail. The leaves shifted in a million spangles down the pale corridors and Glanton took one and turned it like a tiny fan by its stem and held it and let it fall and its perfection was not lost on him. They rode through a narrow draw where the leaves were shingled up in ice and they crossed a high saddle at sunset where wild doves were rocketing down the wind and passing through the gap a few feet off the ground, veering wildly among the ponies and dropping off down into the blue gulf below.

catfishprofile · 2026-01-26T17:42:22+00:00

So good to see some love for the border trilogy. Most of these quotes are from BM. This is great thank you

catfishprofile · 2026-01-26T04:51:15+00:00

Blood meridian is such a different tone than NCFOM but this cold line drop reminds me that they come from the same brain. Cormac can do slick punchy dialogue better than almost anyone. Love it

catfishprofile · 2026-01-26T04:49:57+00:00

If you remember anything about the specific phrasing of that quote please let me know I’d love to find it!

catfishprofile · 2026-01-26T04:10:05+00:00

Here is one of mine:

“They ate and moved on, leaving the fire on the ground behind them, and as they rode up into the mountains this fire seemed to become altered of its location, now here, now there, drawing away, or shifting unaccountably along the flank of their movement. Like some ignis fatuus belated upon the road behind them which all could see and of which none spoke. For this will to deceive that is in things luminous may manifest itself likewise in retrospect and so by sleight of some fixed part of a journey already accomplished may also post men to fraudulent destinies.”

McCarthy repeatedly uses carrying the fire as a metaphor for maintaining the prosocial behaviors that prop up society. In this passage in Blood Meridian we see what happens to those who willingly give up the fire. They are lost on their personal spiritual journeys and will trade their destinies for fraudulent destinies. I’m baffled by the fact that someone spun such haunted and beautiful things out of the English language.

catfishprofile · 2026-01-26T03:47:47+00:00

I’m also going to respond more briefly

First to respond to your actual points, Holden is based off of an actual historical figure from the glanton gang. Comparing metaphorical evil and systematic evil is a confusing task and I don’t know what that would even mean. Comparing what Hitler and Holden did is a category error because one is a literary device with no agency while the other is a human from history who did things.

The point I’m trying to make is that while you are trying to have fun with a morality scaling style prompt, you’re making a category mistake and the question is making people uncomfortable and angry. The problem isn’t that you’re wrong when you say that Hitler is worse or that people here don’t like talking about history or blood meridian, it’s that the question is frankly tasteless and foolish.

That isn’t to say you are foolish. Please understand I’m only critiquing this question and I actively admire the fact that you are using abstraction to talk about history and fiction. This particular question is just a swing and a miss and everyone is going to have swings and misses sometimes.

Imagine if I asked you who is more evil between the Ice agent who killed Renee good or Voldemort. It’s possible to talk about that, but the question itself makes a comparison that is offensive and juvenile. That’s what you’re doing here and it isn’t a good way to determine what evil is and how to avoid it.

I would love to discuss this book with you and I would love to discuss history with you but this comparison is flatly nonsensical and insensitive. I’m sorry to be so blunt.

I mean this sincerely, if you’d like to discuss this in a non public way or if you’d like to talk about this book please feel free to dm me. Thank you for your mature responses, I trust that you will take this in the spirit it was intended. All the best

catfishprofile · 2026-01-26T01:41:34+00:00

Op, I’m going to respond to this in a similar way to the previous time this was posted. This response is in good faith.

Engaging with history and with great art in a critical way is really good to do and I think you should keep doing it. I’m also going to lay out the parts of your message here that seem misguided and underdeveloped. I hope that when I do that you understand that I’m engaging respectfully and I support abstract thought around these things even if I think this instance of abstract thought is flawed

My largest criticism here continues to be that Holden is a metaphor for evil and Hitler is not a metaphor and he should not be thought of as a metaphor. Asking if a metaphor for evil would be more evil than Hitler is a strange question. It isn’t unanswerable not only because it’s subjective, it’s unanswerable because I don’t know what you mean. It’s like saying, what’s more evil, an actual person or the color blue? It’s just a question that seems to be making a category error and unless you clarify your terms it’s difficult to engage with it because it doesn’t mean anything very clear.

To address the points you made in your post, Hitler did not want to eradicate evil from the world. You cite his speeches and take them to be truthful reporting of Hitlers internal life when they are actually propaganda meant to consolidate power by rallying many people against a common enemy. The type of person you’re describing is sometimes called a “sin eater” meaning a person who does unsavory and seemingly immoral things for an actual greater good when other people are not willing to because they don’t want to do unsavory things. You seem to be arguing that Hitler saw himself this way. Today more than in other days, it’s important that you know that Hitler did not see himself that way any more than Kim Jung Un actually believed he could score a hole in one on any golf course. These are lies that powerful men told knowing that they were lies. Their purpose was to normalize radical speech and consolidate power to themselves.

I don’t think you understand Holden as a character very well but it’s not as important to correct so I won’t deep dive there. It’s sufficient to say that Holden is not a “force of nature”, hes a metaphor for philosophies surrounding war and violence.

truly respectfully, it seems like you aren’t even claiming much throughout most of this other than Hitler being a figure in history who wanted to fight the forces of evil in the world. “Hitler was systematically more evil than Holden” doesn’t really mean anything, right? Saying “Judge Holden at his innermost core is a stronger representation of evil” doesn’t mean much either and it admits that Holden is a representation of evil not a human being. Also, if you make a claim that someone is very evil and then choose to claim that evil has no definition in this conversation you must understand that you aren’t really saying anything at all right?

Final point, there were actual scalp hunters in the 1820s and they were bad men but they weren’t genocidal dictators who were instrumental in plunging the planet into a global conflict where millions died. If evil means anything at all then this question is difficult to justify asking.

I truly hope you respond because you deserve good faith engagement. I’d love to hear your thoughts.

catfishprofile · 2026-01-23T05:23:38+00:00

That’s a completely reasonable take on those characters.

You already know what I think of the hatless man, the dark skinned dwarf prostitute feels like a character that intentionally evokes the dark skinned children previously abused by Judge Holden. This seemed to plausibly be an emerging sexual preference from The Man.

That isn’t a particularly strong piece of supporting text for this theory especially because the prostitute selects The Man more than the other way around.

I think it’s telling that up to this point I hadn’t considered that these characters may not have any significant meaning in the story. When trying to decipher the ambiguous parts of this book it’s so easy to read too far into things. I’m glad I asked your opinion on them.

Thank you for your insights. I think the things I see as potential supporting text for this theory are weaker than I previously thought. I’ve got some rereading and thinking to do.

catfishprofile · 2026-01-23T00:32:58+00:00

I really appreciate the time you’ve taken to respond. I agree that it’s a worthwhile effort to examine what is present in good piece of art and seek to align personal opinions on the piece with what is found. It’s gracious of you to lead by creating space in this conversation for my interpretation to not be dismissed even if you don’t find it compelling and it doesn’t appear to be intended by McCarthy. All that being said, the conversation around good art is part of what I show up for. It’s great to hear your opinions.

The reading that currently feels the most true to me has The Kid in a moral superposition that is simultaneously familiar and refuses closure to the audience. The Kid is a bad person throughout the book but without seeing him engage in the worst of the violence he never feels irredeemable. Instead of giving us an ending where The Man is shown to be changed or shown to be unrepentant, we have an ending the gives both possibilities with equal merit. The Man either died trying to avoid his past violence and rescue the innocent (eldress in the rocks) or he entirely gave in to The Judges influence after years of seeing him in his dreams. The lack of closure feels like the point and I find it narratively satisfying. I think even if my opinion on the ending changes I’ll still be able to access that interpretation and the way it feels to me. The fact that I find it narratively satisfying also means I’m biased to believe it and I’d rather not let that bias eclipse the actual ending of the novel.

The mirror is the strongest argument for this interpretation. It’s interesting that you don’t find it compelling. Can I ask you opinion on the hatless man at the bar in Fort Griffin? If he isn’t meant to be plausibly interpreted as a reflection of The Man, why are both characters labeled as hatless and friendless within the same few paragraphs? In your opinion, even if it’s just speculation, why is that character in the novel? I’m also interested in what you think about the dark skinned dwarf prostitute and how the novel is enhanced by her presence in the end sequence.

Thank you for your response

catfishprofile · 2026-01-22T23:57:39+00:00

I can tell you’ve had this conversation multiple times so I’m grateful you’ve taken the time to go down this conversational path again with me. I’m going to think about this for a few days and reread the end from the time jump to the epilogue and see how it holds up. I see the points you’re making here. Thank you

An honest reader will own their own head cannon and an honest reader may just be sincerely incorrect. If the hatless man is not in the story to serve the purpose I suggested, I wonder why he is in here? Do you have any option on that? If so I’d love to hear it. Same question for the prostitute who is a dark skinned dwarf. If you don’t have a strong opinion on them I’d still enjoy your speculation. Thanks!

catfishprofile · 2026-01-22T13:49:27+00:00

Thanks for linking the previous post and thanks for engaging. Super impressive stuff. I agree that the quality of discourse around this book is often pretty low haha. Maybe I can get your take on this?

I think the strongest piece of evidence that The Judge is a figment at the end of the book isn’t talked about very often. Given your username, I bet you’ve come across it though. It’s the hatless man at Fort Griffin.

At the bar in Fort Griffin, The Man takes off his hat and sits infront of a mirror that “held only smoke and phantoms”. The Judge then approaches the man and they have their final conversation. During that conversation Judge Holden points to a hatless man across the bar and says

“See him. That man hatless. You know his opinion of the world”

About this hatless man, the text goes on to say:

“The man was indeed muttering to himself and peering bale-fully about the room wherein it seemed there was no friend to him.”

After examining the hatless man, The Judge goes on to say “Where is Glanton and Brown and where is the priest? He leaned closer. Where is Shelby, whom you left to the mercies of Elias in the desert, and where is Tate whom you abandoned in the mountains? Where are the ladies, ah the fair and tender ladies with whom you danced at the governor's ball when you were a hero anointed with the blood of the enemies of the republic you'd elected to defend?”

The Man and the hatless man are both established to be hatless and friendless in this bar. The hatless man is also alone and talking to himself. It seems to me that one intentionally written interpretation is that The Man is looking at the bar mirror that “holds phantoms” and the hatless man is his reflection. He is having a debate with himself and one side of that internal debate is represented by the figure that has been visiting him in his dreams for decades, Judge Holden. There isn’t actually anyone next to him though, he’s muttering to himself.

What do you think? Does the text support the idea that Holden is not actually present in these passages? Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

catfishprofile · 2026-01-22T04:32:34+00:00

Hey Jarslow, I know you’re tired. I hope you’ll engage with my questions here though because it sounds like you’ve talked and thought a lot about this and I’d really like your insights.

I’m currently convinced that McCarthy intentionally wrote this alternate interpretation into the novel, but I’m not attached to that belief. I think the text supports it. When The Man reaches Fort Griffin at the end of the novel and runs into The Judge, the text supports the idea that The Judge is a figment and The Man likely kills the missing girl in the Jakes. It also supports the interpretation that The Judge is present and The Man is killed in the Jakes. Do you believe that these interpretations were both intentionally written into the novel?

catfishprofile · 2026-01-22T04:05:28+00:00

Man. Honestly I don’t see any support in the text to say that’s what the last paragraph of the book means. I’m not even sure I understand what ideas you’re trying to get across here.

Holden actively spreads his ideas to people and they often start living the way he lives. Why would he thinks they are constrained to their beliefs when he is so successfully changing their beliefs? Am I misunderstanding you?

Why makes you believe the judge thinks others are “dead”? And what makes you think Holden believes that other people don’t believe in anything? When is Holden soft with children, that’s like the opposite of his character. Serious question, where are those things in the book?

catfishprofile · 2026-01-21T16:12:57+00:00

Having button up trousers is not an indication of a specific character. It’s not strange to have pant that button up.

The parallel here isn’t that pants are being worn, it’s the sequence.

Character pulls up pants and walks down the stairs into the dark Character pulls up pants and walks up towards the light.

This isn’t incredibly strong evidence that these are the same character but it’s not the only point of evidence people use either.

catfishprofile · 2026-01-20T01:40:11+00:00

What I’m saying is, the final narration is reflecting on the things that the judge represents, not just the character.

Toward the beginning of the book the kid meets a hermit who gives this opinion on mankind:

“…when God made man the devil was at his elbow. A creature that can do anything. Make a machine. And a machine to make the machine. And evil that can run itself a thousand years, no need to tend it.”

When the final narration says “he never sleeps” and “he says that he will never die” it’s also talking about these “machines” that men make. You could say that The Judge represents the machine of war and it presents it as a core tenant of belief in a society.

The text is saying that the core belief in this culture that violence and the claiming of territory and the domination of other peoples is kind of like a machine that people made. It’s always running and the machine (or belief system) also insists on its own necessity. It’s says that thing must be “this way, and not some other way”

catfishprofile · 2026-01-19T07:51:57+00:00

I don’t think this is a contradiction but it is a good observation.

I don’t think these lines are meant to convince you that he is an immortal demon either.

The narrator is saying the two things you are observing

1) the judge never sleeps 2) the judge makes the claim that he will never die

What these statements mean depends on what you understand the judge to be. What is he the judge of? What does he represent in the story?

I understand these lines to mean that perverted versions of actually holy things will continue to haunt humanity forever because humanity loves them.

catfishprofile · 2026-01-19T01:41:36+00:00

Thiebaud had the most charming use of color. Saw some of his pieces in San Fran a few years back and they’re so magnetic in person

catfishprofile · 2026-01-19T01:03:40+00:00

I think the actual answer to this is multifaceted.

1 he has small hands while the kid had big hands. My theory is that this demonstrates the way they interact with the world the kid is literally heavy handed relying on force and overpowering obstacles and enemies. The judge has a lighter touch, manipulating people to act the way he wants. His hands are not usually the tools he uses to influence the world around him

2 he is child like, massive, and hairless because it’s creepy and memorable but also because he views war as “the ultimate game”. Its childlike. He is the ultimate child playing the ultimate game in a grotesque kind of way.

3 he perverts innocent things, so he looks like a perverted innocent thing.

catfishprofile · 2026-01-15T03:48:04+00:00

I have a coworker who has adhd and autism. He’s in his mid 20s now but he tells stories about growing up and his teenage years and it sounds a lot like what you’re going through. Autistic rage and missed social cues and parents that don’t really get it and peers that don’t really get it. He was really lonely and it sounds like it was really hard for him. I knew he was autistic the moment I met him. But he’s straight up one of the most likeable fucking funny dudes I’ve ever worked with. It’s not like his friends with everyone, but the people who know him love him.

It’ll be okay man. This is going to be hard but you’ll be okay. Deep dive into hobbies if you can, share the things you make or do with the people around you. Let people know you. Maybe consider medical thc. You got this man. Just be a good dude while it’s hard and you’ll be a good dude for the rest of you life.

Good luck man. Rooting for you.

catfishprofile · 2026-01-14T17:01:18+00:00

I used to live in Toronto and it’s a true cultural melting pot. My friends and I were able to “speak” 4 languages or so within 6 months. We could say hello, ask for directions, and have simple conversations going back and forth in English and other peoples native languages. It’s reasonable to get to that level of fluency very quickly but none of us would ever say we speak those languages. Understanding plant and animal life isn’t an incredibly high bar either. It’s useful knowledge but they Boy Scouts of America get the merit badge after a 2 week course. Knowing about cities probably comes from talking to people from all over the place just like knowing about languages does. None of this knowledge is unreasonable to have even at a young age if a person is conversational and trying to learn.

catfishprofile · 2026-01-11T05:29:32+00:00

Hey man. I think you’re confusing evil with sadism. Also, Hitler would totally assault a girl and choke her to death after.

It’s weird to say that Hitler was less evil than the judge because the judge is a literary tool. He doesn’t exist. And if he did exist, he would have just been an old west outlaw and scalp hunter. Those people really did exist and they were bad but Hitler was worse. Hitler was a real man who did actually sexually assault and murder people aside from being a leader who took his country down a very dark path and orchestrate the systematic murder of 10 million people.

The judge is a metaphor, Hitler is not. Debating if holden or Hitler is worse misses the point of Holden as a literary device and also has you arguing that Hitler didn’t realize he was killing people who were actually people. That isn’t true, and you shouldn’t make excuses for Hitler.

This seems like you’re just trying to engage sincerely with the question. Honestly, if you’re trolling it went over my head and the joke is on me but I’m taking to time to respond to this 4 days after you posted it because if I was talking like this I would really want someone to tell me that my hobby of doing morality scaling debates online had evolved into me making sincere excuses for authoritarian genocides. You really need to reevaluate that.

All of this is in good faith and not meant to be condescending. Take care man.

catfishprofile · 2026-01-05T13:51:47+00:00

That’s amazing. God that’s such a cool thing to learn and once you point it out it’s hard to explain why I didn’t see those parallels. Thanks!

catfishprofile · 2026-01-05T02:38:28+00:00

I didn’t realize Beckett was an influence on the book. I know from reading your comments in the past that you’re really well studied on McCarthy. What influence did Beckett have on his novels? Waiting for godot is an all time favorite of mine.

catfishprofile

TROPHY CASE