The Pale King Begins

Over at The Millions they've got an exclusive look at the opening sentence of Wallace's forthcoming posthumous novel The Pale King.

At first glance, it seems to me to have echoes of the beginnings of Joyce's Finnegans Wake and, especially, Cormac McCarthy's Suttree, of which we know DFW was a fan.

Authentic Frontier Gibberish

I disagree with most of what this essay says about Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian, but I found this passage pretty funny nonetheless:

It’s not difficult to see why Blood Meridian is such a hit with high falutin’ critics like Bloom. Consider enigmatic passages like this: “For this will to deceive that is in things luminous may manifest itself likewise in retrospect and so by slight of some fixed part of a journey already accomplished may also post men to fraudulent destinies.”

Looks as if somebody’s been readin’ The Portable Nietzsche by the camp fire. As the character says in Blazing Saddles, “This is authentic frontier gibberish.”

Blood Meridian & The Border Trilogy

From Joyce Carol Oates's essay on the work of Cormac McCarthy, in her collection In Rough Country:

Blood Meridian and the Border Trilogy are counterpoised: the one a furious debunking of the legendary West, the other a subdued, humane, and subtle exploration of the tangled roots of such legends of the West as they abide in the human heart. Where Blood Meridian scorns any idealism except the jeremiad—"War is god"—the interlinked novels of the Border Trilogy testify to the quixotic idealism that celebrates friendship, brotherhood, loyalty, the integrity of the cowboy-worker as one whose life is bound up with animals in a harsh, exhausting, and dangerous environment: "I love this life," says Billy Parham of Cities of the Plain. After the phantasmagoria of Blood Meridian, the domestic realism of much of the Border Trilogy comes as a natural corrective.

A System Not Scaled to Ourselves

***SPOILER ALERT*** Don't read this post if you don't want to know crucial plot points of The Road, The Border Trilogy, or Beloved.

Looking back through this 2006 NY Times piece about the best works of fiction of the past 25 years, I came across this paragraph in Madison Smartt Bell's review of Cormac McCarthy's All the Pretty Horses. It's dead-on, I think, and also suggestive of why McCarthy may be even more closely akin to Melville than to Faulkner:

What order there may be in the world is not, Mr. McCarthy suggests, of our devising and is very likely beyond our comprehension. His project is unlike that of any other writer: to make artifacts composed of human language but detached from a human reference point. That sense of evil that seems to suffuse his novels is illusory; it comes from our discomfort in the presence of a system that is not scaled to ourselves, within which our civilizations may be as ephemeral as flowers. The deity that presides over Mr. McCarthy's world has not modeled itself on humanity; its voice most resembles the one that addressed Job out of the whirlwind.

John Grady Cole, in the Border Trilogy (of which All the Pretty Horses is the first volume), is a tragic hero because he dies rather than accept that he lives in a world that is not scaled to himself, a world in which his notions of justice and rightness do not apply.

Andrew Delbanco, writing about Billy Budd in his biography of Melville, sets some context for understanding Melville:

He was writing at just the time when, in William James's phrase, the last vestiges of "tender-minded" faith in "the great universe of God" were fading away, and the metaphor of the rainbow amounts to Melville's corollary of James's remark that "we carve out groups of stars in the heavens, and call them constellations, and the stars patiently suffer us to do so,—though, if they knew what we were doing, some of them might feel much surprised at the partners we had given them." The stars know nothing. All knowing is the work of man. And so, for Melville... our fate as human beings is to live by norms that have no basis in divine truth, but that have functional truth for the conduct of life.

In McCarthy's late novel The Road, a father journeys with his son through a dying world, facing massive and incontrovertible evidence of his civilization's ephemerality, to use Madison Smartt Bell's phrase.

The man seems to be the last one in the world who still lives by the norms that Delbanco refers to—duty, honor, hope, decency, love. As for the rest of humanity, they’re either cannibals or cannibal food. Still, he questions himself constantly and wants to give up and die. He asks himself, "Do you think that your fathers are watching? That they weigh you in their ledgerbook? Against what? There is no book and your fathers are dead in the ground.”

Yet later, he thinks otherwise: “I think maybe they are watching, he said. They are watching for a thing that even death cannot undo.” For him, that thing is his love for his son. He endures, though, and teaches his son to do so as well, telling him "We're carrying the fire."

The man dies in the end of the novel, yet his son survives, lending a faint glimmer of hope to this incredibly bleak story. That glimmer reminds me of a powerful scene I just read in Toni Morrison's Beloved (chosen as the best work by this same NY Times piece), in which the slave Sixo, captured in the midst of running to freedom, set ablaze by his master and soon to be shot and killed, begins to laugh and sing out, "Seven-o!"—a reference to his as-yet-unborn child in the womb of his lover, who has eluded capture.

The slaves in Beloved, of course, also find themselves in a system that is not scaled to their humanity, one as horrifying, in its own way, as the apocalyptic world McCarthy imagines.

In response, Baby Suggs, holy, an old woman bought out of a lifetime of slavery and unimaginable grief, preaches to her Negro community a gospel reminiscent of the Melvillean one Delbanco describes:

She did not tell them to clean up their lives or to go and sin no more. She did not tell them they were the blessed of the earth, its inheriting meek or its glorybound pure.

She told them that the only grace they could have was the grace they could imagine. That if they could not see it, they would not have it.

DFW in the Margins

Here you can look through David Foster Wallace's comments on a student paper about Cormac McCarthy's Suttree.

One highlight: Wallace underlines the word problematize and notes, "This is a bullshit academic word. Shun it. Fly it. Trust me," a comment that wittily alludes to the final line of Suttree. In his later comments, Wallace at least twice uses the word problematize himself (though he puts scare quotes around it) to critique the student's own assertions.

Overall, I like the image of Wallace that comes through his comments. He seems like a decent human being with a good sense of humor, and I'm impressed that he gave such time and attention to this guy's paper—balancing criticism with lots of encouragement. He also balances grammatical corrections with commentary on the content of the paper.

In the end, Wallace pronounces the essay "Magnificent" and gives it an A+++. He then assigns a penalty for "syntax, grandiloquence" and knocks the grade down to an A+.

DFW's Copy of Suttree

The Harry Ransom Center at the University of Texas at Austin has acquired David Foster Wallace's papers. Here you can look at some books from Wallace's library, along with the notes he's scribbled into the first page.

Check out Wallace's copy of Suttree (he's drawn fangs, mustache, and glasses on Cormac McCarthy's face) at the bottom of the list.

I would consider driving down to Texas if I could flip through the rest of Wallace's copy of this book. Anybody wanna go with me?

A Year in Reading

It's December again, time for another look back at my year in reading.

In my own memory, this year in reading will go down as the year of Cormac McCarthy. Having read The Road and the Border Trilogy last year, I made a resolution to tackle Blood Meridian, widely considered McCarthy’s greatest work. I was expecting something brutal and difficult but was surprised by the humor of the novel as well as the pace at which I found myself reading, borne along swiftly by the joys of McCarthy’s language. There was plenty of brutality, to be sure, but overall the book was such a great experience that I couldn’t stop reading McCarthy. I picked up Suttree, another masterpiece, McCarthy’s vast episodic wonder of invention and verbal music. From there I went on to more minor parts of his oeuvre: Child of God, No Country for Old Men, The Orchard Keeper, The Stonemason, and The Sunset Limited. In the midst of all this, it was a treat to come across Scott Esposito’s essay about McCarthy’s novels.

I also read a fair amount of nonfiction this year, much of it having to do with the African American experience (fortuitous, perhaps, since I’ve recently been tapped to teach a course next year called African American Voices). I read David Remnick’s great book on Muhammad Ali, King of the World; Harper Barnes’s gripping account of the 1917 East St. Louis riot, Never Been a Time; and Douglas A. Blackmon’s eye-opening book Slavery By Another Name. Jeffrey Toobin’s A Vast Conspiracy was not about African Americans (unless you take seriously the claim that Bill Clinton was our first black president), but it was a gripping account of the sex scandal that nearly brought Clinton down. Rose George’s The Big Necessity was an interesting set of journalistic pieces about sanitation—what humans around the world do with human waste.

For my big summer book, I read Anna Karenina and loved it. I’m going to try to read War and Peace this year, as well as The Brothers Karamazov—though preparing for the African American Voices class may put a damper on some of this Russian reading. This past year, though, I also read Ward No. 6 and Other Stories, by Chekhov, who had long been a major gap in my short story reading. Speaking of short stories, I read a couple recently published collections, both of which were excellent: Olive Kitteridge, by Elizabeth Strout; and Everything Ravaged, Everything Burned, by Wells Tower. (The penultimate story in Tower’s book, incidentally, features a major allusion to Judge Holden in Blood Meridian.) I also read Ian Frazier’s Lamentations of the Father, a delightful collection of short humor pieces, one of which is among the funniest things I’ve ever read.

Some assorted novels: I read Kazuo Ishiguro’s Never Let Me Go and am planning to teach it this coming semester in my Alienated Hero class. I read Far From the Madding Crowd, by Thomas Hardy, whom I’ve found to be a pleasant summer author in the past. It didn’t work out that way with this one, though. I finished up the year with two recent classics, Michael Chabon’s The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay and Jonathan Lethem’s The Fortress of Solitude—both epics, of sorts, both set largely in Brooklyn, both featuring comic books and superheroes, and both great reads, deserving of their reputations.

A Sort of Talismanic Quality

Cormac McCarthy's old typewriter, on which he composed all of his novels, recently sold for $245,500 at auction. The rare-book dealer who handled the auction had this to say.

When I grasped that some of the most complex, almost otherworldly fiction of the postwar era was composed on such a simple, functional, frail-looking machine, it conferred a sort of talismanic quality to Cormac’s typewriter. It’s as if Mount Rushmore was carved with a Swiss Army knife.

I like this comment, although it's actually kind of ridiculous if you think about it: the idea that fiction composed on a computer would necessarily be any more innovative or unusual than fiction composed on a typewriter—or by hand, for that matter. It's actually not at all as if Mount Rushmore were carved with a Swiss Army knife. All those sentences still had to be formed by McCarthy's mind, regardless of how they were transmitted to the page; the invention, composition, arrangement, and revision evident in works like Blood Meridian and Suttree would no less stunning if the manuscripts had been produced on computer, and no more so if they'd been written with a No. 2 pencil.

***UPDATE*** Over at the Book Bench, Thessaly La Force writes about the same comment, taking issue with the aspersions it seems to cast on the typewriter itself.

McCarthy, Interviewed

Stephen Schenkenberg notes that this otherwise interesting interview with Cormac McCarthy doesn't touch on McCarthy's 1979 novel Suttree. But perhaps we can see an indirect reference to that meandering, eddying work of nearly 500 pages in this somewhat embittered comment:

People apparently only read mystery stories of any length. With mysteries, the longer the better and people will read any damn thing. But the indulgent, 800-page books that were written a hundred years ago are just not going to be written anymore and people need to get used to that. If you think you're going to write something like "The Brothers Karamazov" or "Moby-Dick," go ahead. Nobody will read it. I don't care how good it is, or how smart the readers are. Their intentions, their brains are different.

Like Stephen, I do prefer the luxurious density of high Cormac McCarthy, on display in this stunning consecutive trio: Suttree, Blood Meridian, and All the Pretty Horses. Yet in the next novel, The Crossing, I think McCarthy luxuriates a bit too much; the novel's density becomes leaden.

Perhaps he realized that himself. McCarthy's work has surely gotten tauter in recent years—from the screenplays turned novels Cities of the Plain and No Country for Old Men, to the "novel in dramatic form" The Sunset Limited, to the boiled-down prose of The Road.

The greatest of these, clearly, is The Road. The tautness of that novel is entirely appropriate to the novel's subject, in which nearly all human comforts and tendernesses have been burned away. The father searching for food among the ashes becomes a parallel to McCarthy the writer, inventing a plot in this barren landscape.

Ettlinger's Photos

I enjoyed this Millions piece about Marion Ettlinger's photographs of writers. Edan Lepucki gets the general feel of these photos right:

Her photos are black and white, with an antiquated vibe, as if we’d only recently progressed beyond Daguerreotypes. Her subjects look distinguished, serious, old fashioned.

It's a look that works well for Cormac McCarthy, Raymond Carver, or Alice Munro. But it's all wrong for George Saunders, Sherman Alexie, and Jhumpa Lahiri. It doesn't at all match the feel of their writing.

I guess my problem with Ettlinger, then, is that her style is her style. She remakes the writer in her image, instead of using photography to bring out the essence of the writer and the writer's work.

DIY

I love this detail from this article about the upcoming auction of the typewriter Cormac McCarthy bought in the mid- to late-'50s and wrote all of his novels with:

McCarthy never had the machine repaired. The only problem he ever had occurred when a poorly designed lever wore out. McCarthy got a replacement part and installed it himself.

The Unforgettable Fire

This fascinating review of Richard Wrangham's Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human makes me think of The Road (in which father and son, seemingly the last truly humans on earth, describe themselves as "carrying the fire"), Lord of the Flies (in which fire is the boys' only hope of rescue but also part of the violent and carnivorous impulses that distract them from keeping their signal burning), and Greg Brown's great song "Telling Stories" ("Everyone is scared, everyone’s alone/unless hand reach for hand when the trouble comes/all around the world when the dark night falls/we should be sitting around the fire telling stories").

Here the reviewer outlines Wrangham's thesis:

Apes began to morph into humans, and the species Homo erectus emerged some two million years ago, Mr. Wrangham argues, for one fundamental reason: We learned to tame fire and heat our food.

“Cooked food does many familiar things,” he observes. “It makes our food safer, creates rich and delicious tastes and reduces spoilage. Heating can allow us to open, cut or mash tough foods. But none of these advantages is as important as a little-appreciated aspect: cooking increases the amount of energy our bodies obtain from food.”

He continues: "The extra energy gave the first cooks biological advantages. They survived and reproduced better than before. Their genes spread. Their bodies responded by biologically adapting to cooked food, shaped by natural selection to take maximum advantage of the new diet. There were changes in anatomy, physiology, ecology, life history, psychology and society.” Put simply, Mr. Wrangham writes that eating cooked food — whether meat or plants or both —made digestion easier, and thus our guts could grow smaller. The energy that we formerly spent on digestion (and digestion requires far more energy than you might imagine) was freed up, enabling our brains, which also consume enormous amounts of energy, to grow larger. The warmth provided by fire enabled us to shed our body hair, so we could run farther and hunt more without overheating. Because we stopped eating on the spot as we foraged and instead gathered around a fire, we had to learn to socialize, and our temperaments grew calmer.

Revisiting McCarthy's Debut

Back in 1994, my freshman year of college at SLU, The Orchard Keeper was the only Cormac McCarthy novel in Pius XII library. Having read McCarthy’s All the Pretty Horses about a year before, I checked it out but read only the first few pages, finding it a little dull and impenetrable. I was curious to give it another try after all these years and considerably more experience with Cormac McCarthy. Looking back, I'm glad I put it down. I wouldn't have been able to make much sense of it back then.

Not that I’ve got it all figured out now. The book doesn't hang together very well, though it has some fine passages. In this 1965 novel, you can see a lot of elements that McCarthy will return to later. There's the boy coming of age (with echoes of Telemachus)—here it's John Wesley Rattner; later it's John Grady Cole in All the Pretty Horses. Even their names echo each other. There's Kenneth Rattner, the shiftless and incorrigible sonofabitch—an early, more malign version of Suttree’s Gene Harrogate. There's the wandering old man, displaced from any world that makes sense; here it's Arthur (Ather) Ownby, later it's Billy Parham in the Epilogue of Cities of the Plain. In this novel, John Wesley sets animal traps, an activity that connects him to a lost tradition, much like the wolf traps Billy learns to set in The Crossing. There's inept small-town law enforcement like that in Child of God; of course, McCarthy takes a more sympathetic and nuanced look at a small-town sheriff in No Country for Old Men. McAnally Flats, the down-and-out section of Knoxville where Suttree is set, makes an appearance here, as does the detail of money being offered by local government in return for hawk carcasses. John Wesley makes a dollar in this way and later tries to give it back; Harrogate comes up with a harebrained scheme to turn the government policy into a major source of revenue.

Cats are all over Suttree, a mysterious motif that appears in this novel as well. Near the end of the novel, Uncle Ather gives his thoughts on cats, in a passage that may shed light on what McCarthy’s doing with the motif: “Cats is smart…. Smarter’n a dog or a mule. Folks think they ain’t on account of you cain’t learn em nothin, but what it is is that they won’t learn nothin. They too smart.” How many characters in Suttree does that description describe, including Sut himself?

There’s a moment here when Marion Sylder and John Wesley Rattner "moved on across the field, through vapors of fog and wisps of light, to the east, looking like the last survivors of Armaggedon," an image which inevitably calls to mind The Road. Sylder and John Wesley are an odd father-son pairing, since Sylder is a criminal who actually killed John Wesley's father (sort of in self-defense), and yet he does seem to teach the boy something about being a man: he gives him his first dog, teaches him to hunt, and warns him against seeking revenge on the sheriff who put Sylder himself in jail. He initiates him into the adult world, into disillusionment: “You want to be some kind of a goddamned hero. Well, I’ll tell ye, they ain’t no more heroes.” It’s a lesson that John Grady Cole will go to his grave rather than accept.

The Orchard Keeper is not a great book—too much goes unexplained, too many threads remain untied, even for a McCarthy novel. But it's interesting to read for these precursors to the later work, and there are certainly hints of the greatness to come.

No Country for Old Men

Michael Chabon calls the novel "halfhearted" and says that even lovers of McCarthy must set it aside. Anthony Lane compares it to Elmore Leonard's crime novels, but (wittily, I'll admit) writes that "if I want Leonard, I’ll take him neat, rather than slow-filtered, drop by drop, through a layer of Faulkner, then laced with the Book of Jeremiah." James Wood calls it "an unimportant, stripped-down thriller."

They're right, mostly, though Wood is wrong when, in praising the novel’s dialogue, he writes that it is “so good that we can confidently expect the Hollywood version to excise it.” The Coen brothers didn’t excise it, of course (then again, I guess they aren’t Hollywood, properly speaking).

Maybe that's the thing to admire about this book, which is one of McCarthy's lesser efforts: it is rendered so clearly that the Coen brothers could make a great movie out of it. Everything that’s in the movie is in the book: the dread, the landscape, the dialogue, the weirdness. The film is a testament to the Coens’ attention to detail and skill in realizing a cinematic vision. It must be said too that the parts they cut from the novel—a female hitchhiker that Llewelyn has some heart-to-hearts with before he is killed; the greater part of the half-baked epilogue that tries to develop Sheriff Bell’s character further and lend the story greater signficance—are not great losses. But it’s also a testament to McCarthy’s abilities to create these indelible images, characters, and events.

Child of God

McCarthy’s early novels are not merely violent; they are almost gaudily so. They trade in necrophilia, perversion, and baby murder, and reading them one is struck repeatedly by the way he displays the bloody-minded glee of the horror writer, the gross-out artist.

—Michael Chabon, Maps and Legends

In an earlier post, I tried to understand Cormac McCarthy’s Blood Meridian by comparing it to other works of literature—Huck Finn, On the Road, Waiting for Godot, etc.

McCarthy’s novel Child of God is like The Andy Griffith Show mixed with Patrick Suskind’s Perfume, with dashes of The Stranger and Lars and the Real Girl (if the sex doll were, instead, a murdered corpse).

This short novel, less ambitious than Suttree or Blood Meridian, is a fast and gorgeous read nonetheless. There’s a great scene at a county fair shooting gallery when Ballard, a crack shot, wins some stuffed animals, which he pathetically carries with him throughout much of the novel. In another great scene, a smith tries to teach Ballard how to beat an axehead sharp. He shows him how to heat the metal properly, the different colors of flame to use at various stages, where to hammer and how to temper it when finished. This arcane yet fascinating tutorial goes on for several pages, at the end of which the smith asks Lester, “Reckon you could do it now from watchin?”

“Do what,” Ballard asks flatly. 

As a teacher, I found this painfully funny moment all too familiar.

“Some people you can’t do nothin with,” the high sheriff of Sevier County says late in the novel, speaking of those who have been looting during a flood of Biblical proportions. It’s a tempting philosophy, probably even more so for a sheriff than for a teacher. In telling the story of Lester Ballard, the alienated young man who becomes a murderous cave-dwelling necrophile, the novel implicitly asks us if we agree. There’s not much to like about Ballard, yet he is “a child of God much like yourself perhaps.” His troubled life puts the novel’s title to the test. Is it bitter irony, pure and simple? Or is it a challenge to find something divine even in the most reprehensible example of humanity? Or, conversely, to see Ballard’s meanness as merely one end of a spectrum of behavior that, unfortunately, is all too human? 

And to what extent has the meanness of Ballard’s community helped produce his own? There's no Aunt Bea here, no Andy Taylor to dispense small-town wisdom and compassion. Back in 1899, says one old-timer, there was a sheriff named Tom Davis, who stood up to the White Caps, a group of vigilantes gone wild. But in the present time of the novel, the most dignified character we see is probably the smith, who takes the time to do his job right and to show Ballard how it's done. In a sense, his pride in his craft (he tells Ballard, "It's like a lot of things....Do the least part of it wrong and ye'd just as well to do it all wrong.") seems a kind of metaphor for McCarthy's own writerly ethic. As for everybody else in the community, they're a rough bunch that has never liked Ballard or any of his ancestors. "I never knew such a place for meanness," says one townsperson.

Spare a Square

So far, the most horrifying moment in Child of God, Cormac McCarthy's 1973 tale of alienation and necrophilia, is this:

All that remained of the outhouse were a few soft shards of planking grown with a virid moss and lying collapsed in a shallow hole where weeds sprouted in outsized mutations. Ballard passed by and went behind the barn where he trod a clearing in the clumps of jimson and nightshade and squatted and shat. A bird sang among the hot and dusty bracken. Bird flew. He wiped himself with a stick and rose and pulled his trousers up from the ground.

Dude wiped himself with a stick!

Thersites

There's a character in Suttree who lives in an old home near the river and watches from an upper window so that he can call down "a dull mutter of invective and sullen oaths" on Suttree and whoever else walks from the river to Knoxville proper via a garden shortcut. He's crippled, reportedly a former reverend, and has been castrated by his own hand—"Trimmed himself. With a razor. Just sliced em off," according to one character.

After a long absence from his shantyboat during which he takes up with a prostitute named Joyce, Suttree returns to his former digs, and he hears the old man as he passes by his house:

Ah he's back, God spare his blackened soul, another hero home from the whores. Come to cool his heels in the river with the rest of the sewage. Sunday means nothing to him. Infidel. Back for the fishing are ye? God himself dont look too close at what lies on that river bottom. Fit enough for the likes of you. Ay. He knows it's Sunday for he's drunker than normal. It'll take more than helping old blind men cross the street to save you from the hell you'll soon inhabit.

Near the end of the novel, McCarthy refers to this man as "old broken Thersites." I didn't know what that meant, so I looked it up. Thersites, it turns out, is a minor character in the Iliad who criticizes Agamemnon and Achilles. I came across this interesting passage from literary critic Kenneth Burke, who sees in Thersites a literary strategy that McCarthy is clearly employing through this "crazy reverend":

If an audience is likely to feel that it is being crowded into a position, if there is any likelihood that the requirements of dramatic "efficiency" would lead to the blunt ignoring of a possible protest from at least some significant portion of the onlookers, the author must get this objection stated in the work itself. But the objection should be voiced in a way that in the same breath disposes of it. 

A perfect example of this stratagem is the role of Thersites in The Iliad. For any Greeks who were likely to resent the stupidity of the Trojan War, the text itself provided a spokesman who voiced their resistance. And he was none other than the abominable Thersites, for whom no "right-minded" member of the Greek audience was likely to feel sympathy.

McCarthy has the "eunuch" inveigh against Suttree and criticize him in the most moralistically religious terms, but in putting this vicious critique in the mouth of such a despicable and pathetic character, he undercuts that criticism and suggests that it misses the point.

Anyway, I thought the idea of Thersites was interesting—the idea of an author bringing in a voice or a perspective that needs to be acknowledged but that the author also wants to undercut. (I suppose this idea is also related to Bakhtin's idea of heteroglossia—the novel as a site for a variety of competing voices.) 

Can you think of any other examples of Thersitism?

Suttree

After reading The Road, The Border Trilogy, and Blood Meridian (and seeing the Coen brothers’ No Country for Old Men) in the past twelve months, I found myself hungry for even more Cormac McCarthy. This book offered up a bountiful feast, 470 leisurely pages of McCarthy’s richest language.

The detailed (and often slyly comical) chapter headings from Blood Meridian are absent here, replaced by unnumbered and untitled chapter breaks. The story seems to move without form, episodically, like the improvised lives it chronicles. I read somewhere that McCarthy worked on this book for twenty years, and that feels right. He abandons storylines, characters, conflicts—but in the same fashion as Melville does in Moby-Dick: you don’t mind, because it’s all so damn good.

The novel opens with a difficult but brief italicized passage, but after that there’s lots of dialogue, one of McCarthy’s great strengths, and these sections read quickly. This is a novel full of the talk of men: wry, filthy, often hilarious. Here’s two men talking about a curious melonpatch intruder:

You ain’t goin to believe this.
Knowin you for a born liar I most probably wont.
Somebody has been fuckin my watermelons.
What?
I said somebody has been…
No. No. Hell no. Damn you if you aint got a warped mind.
I’m tellin you…
Looky here.
And here.

He shows him a few of the victims.

It does look like it, dont it?
I’m tellin you I seen him. I didnt know what the hell was goin on when he dropped his drawers. Then when I seen what he was up to I still didnt believe it. But yonder they lay.
What do you aim to do?
Hell, I dont know. It’s about too late to do anything. He’s damn near screwed the whole patch. I dont see why he couldnt of stuck to just one. Or a few.
Well, I guess he takes himself for a lover. Sort of like a sailor in a whorehouse.
I reckon what it was he didnt take to the idea of gettin bit on the head of his pecker by one of them waspers. I suppose he showed good judgment there.
What was he, just a young feller?
I dont know how young he was but he was as active a feller as I’ve seen in a good while.

By the way, the so-called “moonlight melon-mounter” ends up becoming one of the main characters in the novel, and one of the most sympathetic, a kind of precursor to All the Pretty Horses' Jimmy Blevins: a lovable sonofabitch, innocently corrupt.

The novel is like a 470-page Tom Waits song—blood and whiskey and men with names like J-Bone and Cabbage and Daddy Watson and Ab Jones and Hoghead and Boneyard. Living under bridges when it’s ten below and falling, watching lazy old tomcats on a midnight spree, nobody up except the moon and thee. There are echoes of Bob Dylan, too—one of Suttree’s destitute friends is a ragman, like the one who draws circles up and down the block in “Stuck Inside of Mobile With the Memphis Blues Again.”

Suttree and his fellows are stuck inside of Knoxville, though, in a decaying or ruined world that is nevertheless densely inhabited. From the italicized introduction, here’s a terrific description of the novel’s milieu:

We are come to a world within a world. In these alien reaches, these maugre sinks and interstitial wastes that the righteous see from carriage and car another life dreams. Illshapen or black or deranged, fugitive of all order, strangers in everyland.

I thought of Suttree’s world the other day as I drove across the Poplar Street bridge and looked down at the industrial wastes along the riverfront.

The Tennessee River and its shores are, in McCarthy’s wonderfully obscure parlance (the novel is full of words that you’ve got to look up, and when look some of them up on Google, Google takes you only to sites about Cormac McCarthy; does anyone know what anthroparians are? What androleptic means? How about grimoire?), a cloaca maxima. A cloaca, in case you didn’t know, is the common chamber into which the intestinal, urinary, and generative canals discharge in birds, reptiles, fish, etc. Suttree’s people live in the bowels of Knoxville. Indeed, one character ends up covered in the city’s shit while exploring the caves under the town and accidentally breaching a sewer main.

One of the pleasures of the novel is that it takes us into this world, a world the novel’s readers would indeed probably see only from car or carriage. McCarthy even takes us to the border between this world and “the world beyond the world” while narrating Suttree’s brush with death, ten pages of typhoid-fevered hallucinations.

And McCarthy introduces us to the type of people we’d probably never get to know. In his fever dream, a shrewish nun accuses Suttree, a college-educated son of a wealthy man, of keeping bad, bad company:

Mr. Suttree it is our understanding that at curfew rightly decreed by law and in that hour wherein night draws to its proper close and the new day commences and contrary to conduct befitting a person of your station you betook yourself to various low places within the shire of McAnally and there did squander several ensuing years in the company of thieves, derelicts, miscreants, pariahs, poltroons, spalpeens, curmudgeons, clotpolls, murderers, gamblers, bawds, whores, trulls, brigands, topers, tosspots, sots and archsots, lobcocks, smellsmocks, runagates, rakes, and other assorted and felonious debauchees.
I was drunk, cried Suttree.

The subtitle for this book might be The Seven(ty) Habits of Highly Unsuccessful People. And yet the novel values compassion, understanding, and respect, and shows over and over again these values reflected in the lives of these people. Suttree, “sharing his pain with those who lay in their blood by the highwayside or in the floors of glass strewn taverns or manacled in jail,” reflects that “even the damned in hell have the community of their suffering.”

Above all, the novel values life, even in the midst of pain and pollution. In this novel, flowers are forever poking their way out of glass shards and cinders, and in the midst of filth “life pulses obscenely fecund.” The novel begins with a suicide but ends with an urgent command: to fly from the huntsman “whose hounds tire not…. slaverous and wild and their eyes crazed with ravening for souls in this world.”

Suttree is a Hamlet figure, a nimble mind searching, grappling with the biggest questions; angry with his father, his mother, and his uncle; accused of ruining his woman’s life; breaking down in a grave in front of some fatalistic gravediggers. Near the end of the novel’s introduction, the narrator (who may be Suttree himself) alludes to Hamlet: “The rest indeed is silence.” And yet, for Suttree, it’s not. In the end of the novel, like Huck, he lights out for the territory, leaving a Knoxville where his friends have died, their neighborhood razed for an interstate. Looking back at the ending now, I’m reminded of the final lines of another Bob Dylan song:

Leave your stepping stones behind, something calls for you.

Forget the dead you've left, they will not follow you.

The vagabond who's rapping at your door

Is standing in the clothes that you once wore.

Strike another match, go start anew

And it's all over now, Baby Blue.

Having waded through 470 more pages of McCarthy, I feel compelled to strike another match and go start anew myself, with another of his books.

Amy Hungerford on Blood Meridian

Here are both parts of a two-part lecture on Blood Meridian from Yale Professor Amy Hungerford. (These are the transcripts, but the video is available as well.) She focuses her lectures on the topic of allusion, and actually begins with the same McCarthy interview quotation that I used in my post on Blood Meridian. She draws some very nice parallels with Moby-Dick and Paradise Lost and makes interesting comments about the historical source of the novel as well.

As I read through these lectures, though, I'm struck by some of the differences between college and high school teaching:

1) This lecture is basically an essay, albeit a rather loose one. Having prepared this two-day take on Blood Meridian, Hungerford (if she's lazy, or busy working on her own research and writing) can now teach it year after year without even re-reading the novel. If she doesn't want to, she has no need to test and refine her interpretation by re-reading and having to account for the many parts of the novel that she more or less ignores. (This is what Nabokov did before embarking on his teaching career in America—wrote a series of lectures on literature, later collected as a book, that he delivered verbatim for the rest of his time as an instructor.)

2) She also won't have her reading tested by students' questions. The class discussion here is quite shallow. She asks her students if they liked the book; then she asks why. That's it. After that, it's all pre-packaged lecture. I suppose students, if they have more specific questions, can go talk to her during her office hours, but that probably won't happen much, and it's also much easier to handle (or deflect) a tough question one-on-one in private than it is to do so on the spot in front of a whole class of students. 

3) It's only in the day-to-day reading and discussion—the type that tends to go on in high school classrooms—that the teacher is really forced to make sense of an entire book, and to be prepared for the type of close questioning that makes for a satisfying close reading. As a student, having worked my way through Blood Meridian for this class, I think I would feel pretty dissatisfied by these two class sessions. A high school teacher would probably spend twenty classes on a book like this.

4) I'm also willing to bet that a healthy percentage of the students in this class didn't even read Blood Meridian. There were no quizzes to hold them accountable for doing so, no class discussion to prepare for. And they can probably write their papers on one of the other books assigned for the class if they want to.

5) The lecture doesn't seem to have a lot to do with what Blood Meridian might tell us about being human, about living life. Hungerford's topic is pretty rarified: what this book has to do with other literary works. Hungerford's ultimate point seems to be that the book is about itself and about how novels are just as important and valid a source of truth as history. Okay, but that's a kind of self-enclosed meaning that leaves aside most of the interesting implications and questions raised by this novel. In the end, listening to Hungerford's lecture, I start to wonder, why is literature a field of study? Why does it deserve to be an academic department if it's just a bunch of people tracking down allusions in a bunch of texts that just refer to themselves?

6) I suppose I sound like a bitter high school teacher here, resentful of the college professor with her cushy job. But that's only half of it. The other half is why I decided not to pursue my Ph.D. and become a college teacher myself. The fact is, I like going in day after day and really working up close with a text. I like re-reading a book year after year and refining my interpretation. I like spending four weeks on Huck Finn, or six weeks on Invisible Man, or a semester on The Odyssey. I like designing classes that engage discussion as a key part of the interpretive process. I like holding students accountable for the reading, giving them a reason to do the work. I like talking with students about the implications books and poems and stories and plays have for our lives. 

Even when it's exhausting, high school teaching feels honest and important to me in a way that college teaching does not.

Blood Meridian

Just finished Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian. I expect to be mulling it over for some time. While I was reading it, though, I found this interesting article/interview with McCarthy, in which he makes the following comment:

The ugly fact is books are made out of books... The novel depends for its life on the novels that have been written.

What books is Blood Meridian made out of? Well, to get a feel for this novel, imagine:

... if the boys from Lord of the Flies, after killing Simon and Piggy, killed Ralph, too, found a ship, and sailed to the American southwest and continued their rampage there.

... if Huck Finn fled his abusive father and found not a compassionate and resourceful runaway slave but a felon with a brand on his forehead and missing ears, and after beating the shit out of each other, they teamed up to burn down a hotel.

... if Vladimir and Estragon finally stopped waiting and went to town and found Godot’s head floating in a jar of mescal.

... if the Iliad's recurrent slaughter and the Odyssey's aimless wandering were combined in a single epic.

... if Dean Moriarty and Sal Paradise went on the road riding horses and carrying huge pistols and taking scalps as souvenirs.

... if Lear and his fool took not to the heath but to a bonestrewn desert wearing robes of meat and alternating between legalistic sweet-talk and murder.

The surprising thing is how funny this novel also manages to be.