Blood Meridian

“It makes no difference what men think of war, said the judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner.”

Blood and death and violence. The peak of human evil, perhaps. Blood Meridian is, for most people, the most violent and horrific book they have ever read. There is nothing here of love or affection. Tenderness is a thing that little survives an axe to the brain. Babies are murdered and hung on trees like Christmas decorations. Men, women, and children are slaughtered for less than a sideways glance. Yet worse than this is the knowledge that most of this book is a true thing, that John Joel Glanton’s gang was not a fiction but a living pandemonium that truly walked upon the earth in the middle of the 19th century. Cormac McCarthy retraced its marauding steps time after time in writing this book.

Blood Meridian is sustained by its own brutality. Each chapter is a litany of bloodshed through which we stumble, confused and in awe, lost in the power of an almighty language being wielded only to describe that which in our conscious moments we have no wish to see described.

What it is, is a novel about man’s descent (for there are no women, except as bodies to be broken) into barbarism. We may think we know the type. Heart of Darkness and its ilk have prepared us, we think. But Heart of Darkness is less about Kurtz’s descent as it is about Marlow’s coming to terms with it. Marlow has his ideas of right and wrong, just as Kurtz has his own – soon distorted – ideas of the same. It is a moral book, however much it seems to rise from the jungle’s murk.

Blood Meridian is neither a moral book, nor an immoral book. What makes it so frightening is that it is merely an amoral book. “Decisions of life and death, of what shall be and what shall not, beggar all question of right. In elections of these magnitudes are all lesser ones subsumed, moral, spiritual, natural.” It is the story of a gang who begins by killing violent Indians in exchange for bounty and loot, then move on to killing peaceful ones, then they kill the Mexicans who hired them to protect themselves from the Indians, and eventually, they kill Americans. That is the simple story which we witness when we read the book.


Some Theory: John Williams on What A Western Should Be

John Williams, author of Augustus and Stoner and most relevantly the Western Butcher’s Crossing, also wrote a programmatic piece, “The “Western”: Definition of the Myth”, which might help us to appreciate Blood Meridian. Williams was writing at a time before McCarthy had switched his stories’ backdrops from the Appalachians to the southwest United States, before the Western genre was made serious with such books as Warlock, and films in our own day like The Power of the Dog. His main complaint of the genre was that its practitioners misunderstood it, and adopted literary modes that were not appropriate.

Williams argues that the traditional Western is purely a thing of “an element conflict between the personified forces of Good and Evil”, which is not inherent in the material but rather a transference of “the New England Calvinist habit of mind” that sees the world, at times without being fully aware of it, as broken up into the damned and the saved. This moral rigidity, whatever complexities might be added to the stock characters of the western, such as the cowboy and sheriff, mean that “beneath the gunplay, the pounding hooves and the crashing stagecoaches, there is a curious, slow, ritualistic movement that is essentially religious.” It is about arranging a world where the right judgement can be acted out.

For Williams, the west is not tragic, nor comic, nor epic, but mythic in nature, and this is what he thinks previous writers have failed to recognise. Tragedy is primarily about powerful figures, often historical, suffering, that we might see as “the cost of disorder in an ordered universe.” Epic, meanwhile, is about cultural unification – it is about telling a story that collects together ideas for the building of a nation. It requires this element of nation-building or nationalism, because “the heroism, the bloodletting, the superhuman bravery, the terrible mutilations – these are given point and intensity only by the nationalistic impulse that lies behind them. Without that impulse, the adventure (handled epically) is empty, is bombast, is violence without rage.” This is an idea we will come back to, because under this definition Blood Meridian is easily readable as an anti-epic, as nation-destruction rather than building.

Myth, however, and not anything else is what Williams sees as appropriate for Westerns. He defines it as an approach where “the mythic subject rises from the enveloping action of history, but the events that detail that subject are invented.” The myth is thus a combination of history and fiction, but it is not historical fiction, even though we are aware of as many historical forces – economic, social, cultural, and religious – as the author may wish to include. “The events and characters… are intensely symbolic and they compel belief on a level different from that of historical reality.” The mythic work is symbolic, its characters are often archetypes, stretching beyond themselves in their significance.

The heart of the mythic is the inner quest. This is what distinguishes it from tragedy, where quests and conflicts are generally public and on the level of the state, and from comedy, where conflicts are generally domestic and lie between characters. The mythic, for Williams, is about the acquisition of inner knowledge that can only be bittersweet – “the exaction of the human spirit by the terror of truth.” “The outcome of myth is always mixed; its quest is for an order of the self that is gained at the expense of knowing, at last, the essential chaos of the universe.” If tragedy is about breaking order, myth is about creating a pocket of order whose diminutive size makes us only more aware of the world’s general disorder.

For a mythic tale to work well, history must play a role. In the case of the Western myth, the history is one of exploitation – of people but, primarily for Williams, of land. The period of the frontiersman is one of the lone being attempting to survive in a new land, rather than of the state trying to grow itself through the organised murder of prior inhabitants. People entering that world, coming from the East, brought with them their simplified ideas of good and evil, which crashed and were broken against the reality of a cruel and indifferent sun. This is the central theme of Butcher’s Crossing. Here, a “voyage not the wilderness was most meaningfully a voyage into the self, experimental, private and sometimes obscure.”

To summarise, for Williams, the Western is most appropriately a mythic tale. It is deeply lodged in its own time, like Moby Dick, but it is peopled with symbolic characters who reach beyond themselves in their meanings, and whose essential journeys are internal and with results which are not entirely welcome.


Blood Meridian is both an epic and mythic work, according to the ideas Williams describes, but in both cases, the novel is something quite different to the “straight” interpretation of either approach. Let’s begin with the case of the epic. Western novels, as he acknowledges, have often relied upon epic themes and motifs, but with the exception of the Indian Wars, nationalism and nation-building have been less important than the individual’s struggle for survival and success in a new land. In Blood Meridian we have part of the American wars of conquest, with our character, “the kid”, at first joining a group of soldiers under Captain White to go and murder Mexicans in spite of the recently signed peace treaty that ended the Mexican-American War of 1846-48.

This figure, White, is an unpleasant one, but his views are somewhat unique in the novel. “A race of degenerates… There is no government in Mexico. Hell, there’s no God in Mexico. Never will be. We are dealing with a people manifestly incapable of governing themselves. And do you know what happens with people who cannot govern themselves? That’s right. Others come in to govern for them.” White, practically alone among the misfits of Blood Meridian, sees the matter in terms of governance and the growth of the United States. If his views are unpleasant and Hobbesian, then they are also the only views in the novel which are concerned with administration. It is he, whom we might say, belongs in an epic work – though not one we may necessarily be proud of.

Still, they are fallen upon by Indians and White and most of the “army” are slaughtered. The scene is epic, and here McCarthy’s language reaches a pitch that anywhere else would be ridiculous, yet here is Biblical, Homeric:

“A legion of horribles, hundreds in number, half naked or clad in costumes attic or biblical or wardrobed out of a fevered dream with the skins of animals and silk finery and pieces of uniform still tracked with the blood of prior owners, coats of slain dragoons, frogged and braided cavalry jackets, one in a stovepipe hat and one with an umbrella and one in white stockings and a bloodstained wedding veil and some in headgear or cranefeathers or rawhide helmets that bore the horns of bull or buffalo and one in a pigeontailed coat worn backwards and otherwise naked and one in the armor of a Spanish conquistador, the breastplate and pauldrons deeply dented with old blows of mace or sabre done in another country by men whose very bones were dust and many with their braids spliced up with the hair of other beasts until they trailed upon the ground and their horses’ ears and tails worked with bits of brightly colored cloth and one whose horse’s whole head was painted crimson red and all the horsemen’s faces gaudy and grotesque with daubings like a company of mounted clowns, death hilarious, all howling in a barbarous tongue and riding down upon them like a horde from a hell more horrible yet than the brimstone land of Christian reckoning, screeching and yammering and clothed in smoke like those vaporous beings in regions beyond right knowing where the eye wanders and the lip jerks and drools.”

Here the language is distinctly non-specific, with the enemies of the Americans containing so many hints of other identities that they become clearly mythic and symbolic in character. White’s group, building a nation, fight against the forces of disorder, and those forces annihilate him.

“The kid” survives. And here the novel begins its anti-epic shift. If White was trying to pacify and crush people for the good of some absurd American nation, Glanton’s gang fight Indians, Mexicans and finally Americans only ever ostensibly for such goals, and time after time we are reminded that their goals are instead more simple, crude, and barbaric. They go to towns to debauch themselves, eating so much food that the townsfolk starve afterwards, they amass great riches and commit crimes so terrible that murder must have seemed a solace to those gifted it, and there is no nation to be built.

It is in this regard that people, including those on my copy’s blurb, have called the novel an anti-Western. It is an unheroic novel, a barbaric novel, where the Indians are not made victims but rather where every specimen of humanity seems determined to drag itself down into the depths of human cruelty. And all of this is related in prose that is entirely unjudging, that never questions or looks into people’s heads except when they have been splattered across a saloon’s wall, so that we feel silly for wanting there to be a point to it all.


If we want to find meaning, we must look at the novel as a mythic work. Such an interpretation is natural when our characters have names like “the kid”, “the judge”, “the expriest”, which eclipse any real names, Holden and Tobin for the latter two, that characters actually have, and when we journey through volcanoes and larger-than-life landscapes and see tarot cards and meet fools in cages. But here, too, there is something unusual that sets the novel outside of the mythic categorisation Williams gives – the sheer lack of interiority.

“The kid” is the character we follow, more or less, throughout the work. But he rarely speaks, and rarely does he act. He is more than anything else a witness to the novel. He is, in other words, like us. And so, it is most fitting to say that the journey to some kind of personal order within a disordered universe is primarily not in him, but in us, the readers, who are forced to confront this most awful tale in the hopes of extracting meaning. The narrator, who merely describes, has no epiphany. So that just leaves us.

But what order, what myth, lies within the bloodshed? The truth is that the novel is about power. It is a mythic representation of power, especially in Western history, and “the judge”, who is one of the most memorable characters I have ever encountered in fiction, anywhere, is power itself.

We meet him, seven foot tall, without a hair on his body, “serene and strangely childlike”, as a reverend is preaching to a gathered room. He steps forward unexpectedly, and declares that the reverend is a fraud. After a short speech he declares, “in truth, the gentleman standing here before you posing as a minister of the Lord is not only totally illiterate but is also wanted by the law in the states of Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Arkansas.” A man in the audience immediately shoots the reverend and chaos breaks out. Back at the bar, the judge gets himself a drink. Someone asks him how he knew the reverend was a fraud. “I never laid eyes on the man before today. Never even heard of him.”

The incident is the perfect introduction to the world of Blood Meridian and how little human life is worth there. It is also the perfect introduction to Judge Holden. Gigantic, multilingual, an amateur botanist, geologist and artist, the judge seems to embody knowledge itself. With his ability to speak eloquently, he has the ability to kill without moving a muscle, because none of the men in the West and in Mexico have the knowledge he does, and so they listen and defer to him, trusting whatever he says. There are several signs suggesting he is probably the devil.

“Whatever in creation exists without my knowledge exists without my consent.” In those words is his philosophy entire. He learns about the world to gain mastery over it. Unlike White, who at least in name acts for the United States, Holden acts for himself and the growth of his own suzerainty over the world. At one point he says he would have every bird in the world contained within a zoo, that not one of them might have freedom. Blood Meridian was published in 1985. By that point, we had the apotheosis of human power, the atomic bomb. We had also put men and women into camps and slaughtered them on a scale that the murderers of Blood Meridian could only dream of. Human history is many things, but one of them is the increased power of technology over nature, and the use of that power to cause harm to other people.

The judge is that power. He sits and takes notes on plants and flowers, drawing them in his notebook. He saves the gang from certain doom by creating new ammunition for them using gathered guano and sulphur at a volcano. Through force of will and force of knowledge, he gains strength over others, the environment, and himself: “The man who believes that the secrets of the world are forever hidden lives in mystery and fear. Superstition will drag him down. The rain will erode the deeds of his life. But that man who sets himself the task of singling out the thread of order from the tapestry will by the decision alone have taken charge of the world and it is only by such taking charge that he will effect a way to dictate the terms of his own fate.”

The ultimate place where power is tested is in war. It is here, as some of the quotes above have indicated, that might determine right, and all other considerations, moral and spiritual and jurisprudential, fall away. In the judge’s reckoning, war is “the ultimate trade” because every other aspect of human existence feeds into one’s success or failure within it: “all other trades are contained in that of war.”

Depending on how cynical we are being, we may agree with the judge. War’s horrible wonder lies partly in the way that it is a complete and total experience, that takes all of our existence and demands everything from our bodies and souls for victory’s attainment. It takes everything from our minds, as we use knowledge to create new weapons and strategies. And from our souls as we destroy ourselves as decent human beings to destroy more capably the enemy standing or sitting opposite us. As the judge remarks, “war is god.” It is also evil.

The judge is evil by other measurements too. But that Calvinistic good-and-evil approach that Williams criticises bears little fruit here. The judge is a mythic creature. His physical attributes are superhuman. He tells us that he shall never die. He spends much of the story naked or wrapped in robes, wandering at night. Glanton’s gang fears him and sits in awe of him, turn by turn. He does no good, but the truth that he carries within himself is not strictly speaking evil. It is an acknowledgement of the state of things: “Your heart’s desire is to be told some mystery. The mystery is that there is no mystery.” The disorder that Blood Meridian reveals is that there is no order here, except what we have placed here, and it is inadequate to the task of mastering creation. “Even in this world more things exist without our knowledge than with it and the order in creation which you see is that which you have put there, like a string in a maze, so that you shall not lose your way.”

The story as a whole is one of a gang who, themselves disordered and led by an agent of chaos, become forces for the destruction of order within others. They are symbolic of untethered natures and the consequences of a world without any unifying principles. In such a world, only power can unify. And the judge has the most power because instead of simply gaining pistols and rifles he has determined to populate his mind with knowledge that can be used for violence too.

What do we, readers, get from this myth? Because knowledge comes to us. We understand the disorder, and because we understand it without experiencing it first-hand, we may yet be able to build a better order – personally, or on a larger scale. Blood Meridian is a mirror of human cruelty and brutality, an artefact of evils passed. It is a lesson and an unignorable initiation for those who might be tempted to ignore this side of human nature. If we want power, we must have knowledge. And knowledge without moral feeling is just chaos and destruction. With epic scale and epic scope, mythic prose and Judge Holden one of the most memorable characters I’ve ever encountered in any media, Blood Meridian is a book to read and read again.


Cormac McCarthy died last month, June 2023. He has written some of the most brilliant, awe-inspiring fiction I have ever read. Until such time as I can write about him in a way that does him justice, you can read scattered thoughts on The Crossing and All the Pretty Horses here.

Ottessa Moshfegh – My Year of Rest and Relaxation

A few days ago, I finished the second term of my master’s and immediately went to the airport for a flight to Madrid, where I have an international elective on project finance coming up. I had a few books in my bag already, but at the airport I decided to pick up Ottessa Moshfegh’s My Year of Rest and Relaxation because I thought it was appropriate given the state I was in – especially after several exams on topics I barely understood and came to realise I did not in any way like. The elective starts tomorrow, so I have had a slightly extended weekend to attempt a bit of rest and relaxation myself. Part of that was the Prado, part of that was Moshfegh’s book.

Moshfegh’s book has an interesting premise. It’s about a young woman who decides she wants to sleep for a year – “hibernate” – so that at the end of it she might emerge fresh and ready to face the world. With the help of a psychiatrist who is more than happy to prescribe a vast array of pills, she is set up to have a serious attempt at achieving her goal. Some of the drugs, I was a little disappointed to learn, were made up. In particular, there is no such thing as infermiterol, the drug that lets the narrator lose consciousness in three-day bursts.

There are various reasons why someone may want to sleep for a year. Here, the narrator has had an unfulfilling, largely abusive relationship with an older fund manager. She also has an unsatisfying relationship with her only friend, Reva, a girl who is determined to rise in the world of New York and does not seem to realise the falseness and baseness of the life she leads to try to manage it. The narrator’s parents are both recently dead, one to suicide. She works in a contemporary art gallery, surrounded by people who offer very little to art and whose individuality is all copy pasted. These are all reasons to want to sleep for a while, though we may assess how compelling they are differently. She has had a privileged upbringing at a nice private school, owns a nice flat in Manhattan thanks to her inheritance, and is very pretty. So perhaps she feels guilty about that too.

My Year of Rest and Relaxation, we may surmise, is a book about depression. It’s a fairly funny book, but a very negative, very critical one. Readers of this blog will have noticed that I am not a big reader of contemporary fiction, but I cannot help but find My Year of R&R sufficiently repetitive if not all the same. Being critical of the world that surrounds us is very easy. I think it comes naturally to most of us who keep our eyes open, though our criticisms will vary according to our temperaments. At least for young people like the narrator and Moshfegh (who both went to Columbia University) who have been to half-decent universities, the critical theory just floats in the air like smog as you walk around, regardless of what you think of it.

Sally Rooney’s novels, or even something older like White Noise or anything by Jonathan Franzen or what have you, all tell us the same things. After a point, the criticisms are uninteresting and just pass us by, numbing us to any social mission the author may have had. Look at how dependent the average American (youth) is on antidepressants and drugs. Look at how ridiculous and empty and misleading the media is. All of this irony just makes me think of David Foster Wallace’s essay on Dostoevsky, which, whatever faults he had as a writer and a person (and he’s namedropped in the novel critically), is a far more earnest and truer piece of work than My Year of Rest and Relaxation is. I don’t want to say that the novel isn’t funny. It’s just that funniness isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

Or certainly not when you’re depressed. The narrator is not a particularly good person. I certainly didn’t care about her. She was amusing enough to follow through the book, but that’s about it. Depression is, as readers will no doubt know, a pretty awful thing to go through. I generally spend about a quarter of each month experiencing the vortex that drags me down from the world into emptiness, loneliness, and despair. I wouldn’t say that I wouldn’t mind, from time to time, the ability to avoid existing for a while – not for a year, but maybe for a couple of days. Thankfully, I am not one for drugs or alcohol abuse, but I numb myself with videogames during my worst moments and they too make me eventually wake up and return to myself like out of a drug-induced swoon, unable to believe that so much time has passed, just drifted away, and all I have for it is a bad temper and a headache.

David Foster Wallace in that essay of his described our culture as one of “congenial scepticism”, where writers hold “an ironic distance from deep convictions or desperate questions,” forcing them “either [to] make jokes of profound issues or else try somehow to work them in under cover of some formal trick like intertextual quotation or incongruous juxtaposition.” That is certainly true of much of the modern fiction that I have read. And yet depression is serious stuff. At its worst, it is a constant teetering between life and death. Every criticism that the narrator makes of the world is rich in her irony, but it is also an avoidance of the kind of engagement with the problems that may offer a solution. The book needs our narrator to hibernate, but given it attempts to offer us a vision of renewal at the end it’s worth questioning the validity of that vision.

The problem is that My Year of Rest and Relaxation is just another one of those books about privilege. It knows that it is about that. It uses that word. And perhaps because of that, it does not allow itself to say anything serious. If there are people out there with more real problems than a woman in her mid-twenties living off an inheritance, then I get the feeling Moshfegh would feel uncomfortable letting her narrator’s problems seem properly urgent or desperate, a real matter of life and death. They have to be ironized because irony is sanitary. It’s perhaps the only way we can talk about anything at all.

On the flight out to Madrid, I also finished Hermann Hesse’s Siddhartha, which was another book that didn’t do very much for me. There we have a young man who goes off to seek enlightenment and eventually finds it, according to Hesse’s understanding of Buddhism. Both Hesse’s novel, from the early 20th century, and Moshfegh’s, from a few years ago in our own, are in some sense about taking control over our lives and getting some kind of enlightenment and renewal. The only difference is that one attempts to reach this through wandering and spiritual (and other) experiences, and the other attempts to use drugs and sleep to achieve a similar goal. Both works are products of a godless, empty world, but Moshfegh’s is definitely a product of a world still more empty than Hesse’s. What separates them is that I can at least admire Hesse’s go at finding solutions – it was authentic, just a little silly. Moshfegh’s book felt hollow instead.

At the end of My Year of Rest and Relaxation, Reva dies in the events of 9/11, and the narrator finishes her sleep and sells her parents’ house. She has cleansed herself of the world, and I suppose can start living again. The whole thing just feels pointless. The narrator hasn’t changed. She has just had a year off. If I were capable of resting, I’d probably feel the same after a week of lounging about. But we’ve wasted a lot of pages to get a faux epiphany.

Perhaps I am reading the wrong fiction. Perhaps I am a bad reader. I understood the cleverness of the book, I just didn’t care. Which probably says that I am depressed, not that the book is bad. But there just wasn’t anything there. I could give you examples of how the narrator mistreats her friend (she gives her her own drugs) or of the social commentary but, like, whatever, man. The truth is that I am alive, I have to deal with this stupid depressing horrible world every day and try to find things worth believing in and holding on to, and I expect my contemporary fiction to be about that struggle, not about the giving up, that is,  if it wishes to deal with this stuff at all. I don’t need success, I just need striving, something to make me put the book down with a little bit more motivation than I had when I picked it up.

If I wanted to feel numb or cold, I could just read about project finance.

Cormac McCarthy – The Crossing

The world that Cormac McCarthy creates in The Crossing is one that we can conceive but are grateful not to inhabit. Its keynotes are death, violence, and injustice. The story of Billy Parham and his journey through Mexico, first with a wounded wolf and then with his brother, is one of such desperate bleakness that even reading it is a challenge. There is such failure that we are left asking what the point of all the suffering Billy experiences is. But McCarthy’s language lifts us and his work’s world into something mythic and timeless so that against the darkness there is also a corresponding array of powerful sources of ways to make sense of the world. The fundamental tension of the work lies between these meaning making methods and the world that they attempt to make meaning for. For this is a terrible place, and it does not let itself be redeemed lightly.

The first part of the Crossing is really a novella in itself. Billy Parham and his father attempt to track down a pregnant wolf which has crossed into their land in New Mexico. When Billy catches the wolf, though, he decides to take her back to her home in the mountains across the border rather than kill her. And so, he abandons his family and goes with the limping wolf down to the south, where she is confiscated by the local authorities as “contraband” and then put into a fair.

Billy’s reasons for saving the wolf are murky at best. He is not a talkative person. At one point he says “I’m goin to take her down there and turn her loose”; at several others the narrator reports him saying “that the wolf had been entrusted to his care but that it was not his wolf and he could not sell it”. A strange and even rather modern sense of environmental stewardship animates him, of returning some order to nature which we are responsible for damaging.

This is Billy’s meaning, in this first part of the book – to save the wolf, to set things right. But it does not work. The truth and justice he feels in his soul remain there only. He finds at the fair a stand reflecting little the reality he knows: “they’d rigged a makeshift tent of sheeting over the little tumbril of a cart and they’d put up a sign at the front that gave her history and the number of people she was known to have eaten”. Later on, she is taken to an estate and there she is set upon by dogs for the pleasure of a great mass of onlookers.

It is at this point that Billy steps into the ring to protect her, but the young man in control of the estate stops him and tells him a different story of the wolf to Billy’s own because he is powerful and Billy is not. Billy’s truth is obliterated and with it his power to save the wolf from death: “he looked like a man standing on a scaffold seeking in the crowd some likeness to his own heart.”

Billy manages to bury the wolf’s bones. But as for his mission, it is a failure. When he returns home after his doomed enterprise, he finds an empty house covered in bloodstains. His parents have been murdered, the horses stolen, perhaps in an act of revenge for Billy’s transgression south of the border, perhaps for a moment of kindness earlier in the book. In any case, he reunites with his younger brother, Boyd, who had hidden, and together they go south once more, in an attempt to set things right and recover the horses. The Crossing then follows their journey, with its failures and disappointments, to its inevitably grim conclusion.

A journey itself is a thing that gives structure to a life. It’s a narrative, clear and simple. But the structure it gives is not a thing that stabilises a life – it merely lets us understand it at a glance by seeing its shape. That is one of the truths of the novel. Billy crosses over into Mexico several times throughout The Crossing, but are we to take these as separate journeys or instead as one thing? On the way back home after the death of the wolf, Billy meets some Indians. The elder of them tells him “he must cease his wanderings and make for himself some place in the world because to wander in this way would become for him a passion and by this passion he would become estranged from men and so ultimately from himself.” And what is The Crossing if not a story of just such an estrangement, built page by dreadful page?

In the novel’s third part the two brothers encounter a prima donna gypsy they had met earlier. Her words also speak to a truth of journeys, similar to the previous one – namely that journeys are not necessarily a thing that binds people but rather a thing that leaves the distances between them unbridged:

Long voyages often lose themselves.

Mam?

You will see. It is difficult even for brothers to travel together on such a voyage. The road has its own reasons and no two travellers will have the same understanding of those reasons. If indeed they come to an understanding of them at all… You will see. The shape of the road is the road. There is not some other road that wears that shape but only the one. And every voyage begun upon it will be completed. Whether horses are found or not.

McCarthy’s world is a world that is not godless so much as ruled over by the shadow of a cruel god, an Old Testament God perhaps. We have people who seem truly cursed, like Job, to suffer. But there is a God here, or the potential for Him: “God [does not] whisper through the trees. His voice is not to be mistaken. When men hear it they fall to their knees and their souls are riven and they cry out to Him and there is no fear in them but only that wildness of heart that springs from such longing and they cry out to stay his presence for they know at once that while godless men may live well enough in their exile those to whom He has spoken can contemplate no life without Him but only darkness and despair.” This is God, but no comforting spirit.

Near the end of the book, Billy meets a woman who is praying. He asks her whom she prays for and receives the following answer:

“She said that she only prayed. She said that she left it to God as to how the prayers should be apportioned. She prayed for all. She would pray for him.”

Having read hundreds of pages of The Crossing by this point we may find the woman slightly absurd. What use are prayers, when the world is so full of evil – proper evil, incomprehensible and earth-shattering? But the narrator turns this idea on its head. They ask instead how many tragedies the woman’s prayers might have averted. Perhaps, they suggest, we should instead be grateful to her, and others like her. Without them who knows how much worse the world would be.

This is what I like about McCarthy. He creates a distinctive image of the world, but he also leaves much about its inner nature up for debate. We cannot say whether God is absent here, or merely next-to-powerless. Justice, as with the wolf, is rare, but it does exist. Billy and Boyd have some success in retrieving their horses, no matter their subsequent failures, after all – and not just because they carry their father’s shotgun. Kindness does come, and beauty is all around us. The important thing is that in this world questions concerning its deeper nature do not seem an afterthought but are essential to our very survival.  

Perhaps the most extraordinary, unforgettable scene in The Crossing involves a doctor. He comes to deal with a bullet wound and for page, after page, we are treated to his work, detail by detail. We are there in the dark, watching the operation by the light of flickering candles, like guests in a painting by Rembrandt. And yet there is barely any dialogue, no philosophy. The plot would not suffer if the section were drastically cut. Yet taken as a whole it represents a world beyond violence, of healing and of care. It is a moment of redemption in a sea of pain.

We find ourselves in a world where things matter. Death and violence leave us unable to hide behind such structures as society and its rules when constructing our own meanings. Instead, we have to sort things out for ourselves. Every man and woman in The Crossing is a philosopher. Their religions and philosophies and narratives may be false, but nobody reading the book can doubt that they come from a passionate engagement with the reality of their world. That is why, indeed, McCarthy’s philosophising never gets dull – it is always pertinent because it is never a choice for his characters. Montaigne wrote that “to philosophise is to learn how to die.” Nobody knows this more truly than do the characters of McCarthy’s world, for whom evil and death lurk around every corner.