Partially Examined Life  

Just reread this book with some folks. Exciting to see you guys devoting some time and thought to this modern classic.

Finished this novel a month ago. Over two or three weeks I had to put it aside for a while, to simply absorb it, and to step away from the gore a while (... so I read McCarthy's latest, The Passenger). Cormac is neither a nihilist nor a gnostic. The novel lingers yet. And that's the beauty of great literature. His latest was exceptional.

Read this book a year ago and boy was it tough also since it was my first book in years . Now on my second read and everything just hits different

Coincidentally reading it for the first time right now :D

I'm not sure if it's on this video or the other that has the discussion about the bears, but I think the bear on the very first page was not mentioned? Maybe it was and I missed it. I think they talked about three bears.

Weird head canon: the judge doesnt kill the man. It's the judges body that they find in the outhouse. The judge is an immortal being who possesses the kid and thus "lives forever and never dies". It amplies the horror of the judges interest in the kid: he was grooming a new host for his evil spirit to inhabit and while critical accepts him anyway. The kids body goes on to wreck violence until worn out and the entity possesses another. And another. So on till the end of time when he mounts a red horse to ride at Armageddon. I'm sure McCarthy would not confirm. Probably wouldnt deny either. He went through great pains to make the judge's status ambiguous however so it's a viable interpretation.

Apart from the bizarre chuckling, the format is engaging, with discussion interwoven with passages read aloud. Points about Manifest Destiny and especially about the violence not being gratuitous are very good. • Excuse my stupidity, but how does one 'more or less randomly' pick a paragraph (6:28)? (And said paragraph has a lot of description, with no 'constant, relentless' similes: only one). • Understand that prose can be economical but egregious? • It is also a mistake to equate teleology (11:29) with destiny (11:44). The former refers to purpose whereas the latter refers to inevitability. • And to say that the 'only source of agency is morality', is to make out that human agency is never driven by greed, hatred, delusion, love, and a host of other immoral/amoral mental factors. • '...state monopoly on violence in the service of peace or order' (17:54). How about in the service of greed? • And is it not obvious that the main reason a film cannot be made is that it describes a chapter in American history that America doesn't want to own up to, since Manifest Destiny is as alive as ever, leading to endless foreign wars, a continued manifestation of the state monopoly of violence in the service of greed.