How are they gonna fuck this up?

Gimmie the source on those adaptions

I don't know how you would express Corncob "tortilla" McCarthys prose visually. Also I don't know how you would make the judge look scary and not just dumb.

>that’s all this book is though a bunch of neat words
We have reached a point where being contrarians might have finally reached its zenith

>has been proven false time and time again with adaptions often being better than the source
k, I'm interested in some of these

>Seth rogen as Holden
DUDE I MADE A BONG OUT OF THESE INDIAN SKULLS

>when i read books i dont visualize or use my imagination, i just see words
reading must suck with autism

Blood Meridian boils down to a lot of pithy portentous lines, purple prose and the Judge being scary and badass. There are parts that undeniably sound cool to read, but it doesn't add up to much.

Why exactly does it not add up to much? What about the work has rendered it impotent exactly?
>the prose are bad
>b-but some of them are g-good
Just admit that you are a hipster that doesn’t like it because others like it

The Judge doesn't actually have a consistent philosophy, the entire book is the characters meandering around and killing people with no strong or interesting ideas developed or real direction. The book is over-written to sound cool at all times, and that doesn't preclude it from sounding cool very often. But it ends up becoming a series of foreboding descriptions and lines of dialogue without much actual substance beyond "humanity is barbaric and they love war lol".

It must suck even more not being able to read at all.

Give me three (3) examples of this, user.

>the only good Cohen brothers movies are the ones with good source material
What?? The only adaptations they've made are O Brother Where Art Thou, Millers Crossing, The Ladykillers, NCFOM, True Grit, and partly The Ballad of Buster Scrugs and Intolerable Cruelty. Most of their best movies are their own original stories.

That's quite a blunt reading you have there. The substance of the story relies more on the question of the capabilities and urges of humanity. "humanity is barbaric and they love war lol" is but one view on this subject, which is the Judge's. The entire point of the Kid's bildung is to show that there is an opposing force to Holden's theory. It's a story of two characters with incompatible philosophies butting heads and that's where the meat of the story is, ya dumdum

And what is the Kid's philosophy?

Inherent Vice

One of compassion. A Sisyphean quest to bring empathy to a dystopian world. He represents a perpetual force of good. The philosophy behind his character could include anything you'd put under the label of order in a "order /vs/ chaos" story.

meant for

>"Give me 3 examples"
>Gives me 1
>It's wrong

Attached: Tr.jpg (667x514, 49K)

He shows very little compassion throughout that book. There's a little hint of it towards the end, but it's too late

The Coens might just about manage to not fuck it up.

Post kino scenes
>injun savages run down, scalp and rape dying and dead men
>white men slaughter the injun camp
>white men slaughter mexican civilians
>pure white man rapes and scalps a young mexican boy
>pure white man takes a retard for a sexual pet
>pure white man tosses puppies into a river

yeah, but literal terms it's also just an incredibly simple dark western where they travel around killing injuns and then have a climactic final battle where Glanton and most of the others die and then a celebration where Judge rapes the Kid to death or whatever

Of course. He's a kid. He reaches his sense of morality through his hardships, that's what bildung stands for. Perhaps this maturation is what makes the Judge kill/rape him at the end of the novel rather than in the middle of it.

I think the epilogue can be read in a supportive way to this idea. It invokes the image of an opposing figure to the Judge, let's say a reincarnation of what the Kid stands for. The man digging holes across a plain is reminiscent of Sisyphus pushing a boulder up a slope, I'd say.

You said that he represents a "perpetual force of good" when he only shows the slightest traces of compassion briefly at the end.
>The man digging holes across a plain is reminiscent of Sisyphus pushing a boulder up a slope, I'd say.
Not really

the best director in the world wouldn't be able to do anything with this book other than make an edgy ultra violent western. it would lose everything that people like about it if it was turned into a movie.

Uwe Boll.

Its too based though. Its impossible to make white people see this and not totally agree with Glanton skinning those red niggers

>Can Hollywood produce a 7 hour nature film based in north Mexico/Texas with intermittent scenes which feature babies being brained by Delaware Indians.

Attached: 1334290338819.jpg (1920x1080, 569K)

>the best director in the world wouldn't be able to do anything with this book other than make an edgy ultra violent western
That is what most people like about it, though. See:

Reading this book became a bit of a chore after a while. Cormac's style of writing gets so irritating after a while.

I can almost agree with this. The Kid represents innocence and his soul is what's at stake in the story. The Judge ultimately wins as the Kid inevitably becomes the Man and embraces his way. What actually happens in the jakes never mattered.

Not that user but I wouldnt go as far to say that the kid represents a force of good, but rather he represents a simple denial of Holden's philosophy of war by not taking part in it, which is why he tends to disappear whenever the violence happens.

I thought the epilogue was about them laying a railroad. More of the man-dominating-nature theme shown throughout.

I bet you sub-vocalize.