Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.15 AVERAGE
4.15 AVERAGE
when boyd leaves billy after everything that billy has done for him, that’s one of the top three worst betrayals of all time easily
Very readable in the McCarthy way. A mostly compelling story (really kind-of 2 stories) that has a great cast of people both mad and brilliant. These are people that provide the existential meat in their mini-stories. There is one particular shock about 2/3rd through that actually had me gasping. Plot-wise, he occasionally leaves the reader as directionless as the protagonist for long stretches, which is fair enough, but not something I would look forward to re-reading.
Overall, highly recommended.
Overall, highly recommended.
Perhaps one life lesson I need to start learning is that it should be okay to give up on a book once I've started reading it. I have yet to figure out how to do it, so even why I hate something, I read the entire thing and suffer and complain and yet I also read every single word... This is one of those books.
I hated this. A lot. Divided in three parts, it follows the same New Mexico teenage boy as a crosses over into Mexico on three separate journeys: the first is to inexplicably take a pregnant wolf that was targeting the animals on his family farm into what he believes to be her native homeland, the second is with his younger brother as the two hunt down the men who stole some of their family's horses, and the third time is to try to find out what happened to his now estranged brother.
Cormac McCarthy, in this book, is the epitome of tell but never show. We are constantly told what someone is thinking and feeling, every introduced meaningless character stops all they are doing to wax poetic for a philosophical monologue only to then go about their way and never reappear in the narrative, but at no point did I actually find myself believing a single word of this over 400 page book. It's a book obsessed with masculinity and with reticence, with violence and meaninglessness, and I did not care for a single sentence about anything I was reading. I hated this.
I hated this. A lot. Divided in three parts, it follows the same New Mexico teenage boy as a crosses over into Mexico on three separate journeys: the first is to inexplicably take a pregnant wolf that was targeting the animals on his family farm into what he believes to be her native homeland, the second is with his younger brother as the two hunt down the men who stole some of their family's horses, and the third time is to try to find out what happened to his now estranged brother.
Cormac McCarthy, in this book, is the epitome of tell but never show. We are constantly told what someone is thinking and feeling, every introduced meaningless character stops all they are doing to wax poetic for a philosophical monologue only to then go about their way and never reappear in the narrative, but at no point did I actually find myself believing a single word of this over 400 page book. It's a book obsessed with masculinity and with reticence, with violence and meaninglessness, and I did not care for a single sentence about anything I was reading. I hated this.
My introduction to McCarthy began with Blood Meridian, a novel that makes The Crossing seem positively upbeat. Part of the Border Trilogy, this story of Billy Parnham's crossing and recrossing of borders highlights fascinating questions about space, place, and identity.
adventurous
dark
mysterious
sad
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
adventurous
challenging
dark
emotional
reflective
sad
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
adventurous
emotional
reflective
sad
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
i cried/teared up at least 4 times
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
The Crossing follows up All the Pretty Horses, a novel that saw Cormac McCarthy financially successful for the first time in his career. It's not difficult to see why, especially when reflecting on his more challenging earlier works; All the Pretty Horses features fairly standard plot pacing and structure, a love story, as well as a general restraint on the more darkly violent aspects of McCarthy's writing (see Blood Meridian, Child of God, Outer Dark...) which naturally made it more accessible to mainstream audiences. It's a great book, but what I find interesting about it in the context of The Crossing is how it may 'trick' fans of the first novel into reading this one, which is one of the most 'McCarthy' books he ever wrote. You only need to browse the 1 and 2-star reviews to see that exact sentiment over and over again. Now, that's not to smugly insist that McCarthy's writing is so intricate and challenging that mainstream audiences couldn't appreciate it, but there is certainly truth to the statement that he's not everyone's cup of tea. Having read almost all of his novels, I'm a big fan, and The Crossing is absolutely a very good book, but I found myself having no shortage of problems with it, either.
My first issue is with the protagonist, Billy Parham. After reading a lot of McCarthy, you come to realise that his strong suit is time and place, not character. He is incredible at writing believable and realistic dialogue, but his characters tend to lack a lot of intrigue. Now, his characters often find themselves in really interesting *situations*, but the characters themselves don’t come across all that deep. When I think of a novel like Blood Meridian or No Country For Old Men, I tend to remember the events happening to the characters, not any particular traits or quirks inherent to them personally (other than his ‘force of nature’ characters, which I’ll get to in a bit). I think in The Crossing this comes down to the fact that McCarthy is incredibly reluctant to let us inside Billy Parham's head, rather it's almost as if we're passionless observers watching events happen at him. We can no further understand Billy Parham beyond the basic level of empathy anyone would have towards the tragedies he experiences. Parham acts as though guided by destiny, rather than organically. His plot to take the wolf back to the mountains happens practically on a whim, and we never get a sense that he weighs up the pros and cons of undertaking this quest whilst abandoning his family as a real person would. I won't spoil anything here, but Parham seems to throw himself into situations like his life is predestined, not because he has reason to do so. This could absolutely be what McCarthy was going for, but it's difficult to know since he keeps Parham an enigma for most of the book. McCarthy's characters often come off as like the aforementioned forces of nature, rather than people - just see Blood Meridian's Judge Holden, or No Country For Old Men's Chigurh. They're almost inhuman. Billy sometimes feels the same way, but I feel as if this approach to a main character leaves him feeling at times inorganic and lacking in depth. A parallel here is Blood Meridian’s The Kid, a fairly similar character - a boy losing his innocence by travelling down through the borderlands spanning the lengths of Mexico and America. I think the ‘force of nature’ style of characterisation for the main character worked a lot better in that book, though, because that’s exactly what he was. A force of nature, representing America’s westward expansion and all the horrors that brought. He didn’t necessarily need to have all that much depth beyond his allegorical role. In The Crossing, Parham really could have used that extra exploration of his psyche.
Second of all, the pacing and structure of this book are odd in a way that I don't think helps it. Split into four parts, The Crossing spans 430+ pages, making it one of McCarthy's longest. The first part, with the wolf, is wonderful and engaging and the most like its predecessor. Once we move past that, the book invariably becomes 300 pages of going across the border both ways and talking to people. This bulk part of the book features lengthy interludes where Parham encounters people who sit him down and regale him with tales of their lives or philosophical parables that span dozens of pages with little to no input or reflection from Parham. These are all certainly interesting to read in their own right, but they begin to create a feeling that the book is becoming a slog, especially when it's unclear how they link to the story at hand. Billy will ride in to somewhere, listen to a tale for 20 pages, and leave, never to think about it again. This becomes almost comical when Billy endures an unresolved, ongoing tragedy and the first thing he does is sit down in someone's house whilst they tell him war stories. The reader is hit with a feeling much like whiplash, after reading a tightly paced and gripping first part, the rest of the book is meandering with only a handful of plot points that could be summarised in one or two short sentences. In this way, The Crossing reads much more like a collection of short stories than a novel. I don't want to harp on this issue too much since it is still all very good, but the structure and pacing of the novel, whilst perhaps done deliberately, works against it rather than for it, since it harms enjoyment. I suspect many readers will have begun to scan the book at a certain point since very little is happening and so many scenes are similar. However, McCarthy’s unique writing style demands attention at all times, and if you begin to scan it becomes incredibly easy to not understand what is happening, who is on page or why. In this regard, The Crossing is one of McCarthy’s most challenging reads as it requires constant attention from the reader to follow it properly whilst rarely rewarding them with ‘story moments’ or action. To be clear, I have no problem with this and I am very much appreciative of books that don’t spoon feed the reader, but, in reality, the book’s pacing can begin to obfuscate its brilliant prose and themes by making it far less enjoyable to sit through. The book having unorthodox pacing and structure would be absolutely fine if I felt it added to the overall quality of the book, but I really don’t think it does. Despite really enjoying The Crossing, I also would not be complaining if McCarthy had paced it more traditionally.
I also want to briefly mention the use of Spanish in this book. I applaud McCarthy for this since it lends a huge amount of realism - obviously, Mexicans would not be speaking primarily in English. However, I also won't lie and say that having to translate entire conversations added to my experience. This compounds the feeling of the book being a slog since not only do you have to get through it but you need to be constantly translating lines of dialogue, unless you happen to be bilingual. There's not really much you can do here, though, since America's relationship with Mexico is a big part of the whole Border Trilogy. An American reader who could automatically understand everything would probably hinder this theme. Still, it's a little frustrating as a reading experience. I guess McCarthy didn't predict that one day we'd have kindles to translate it for us.
My first issue is with the protagonist, Billy Parham. After reading a lot of McCarthy, you come to realise that his strong suit is time and place, not character. He is incredible at writing believable and realistic dialogue, but his characters tend to lack a lot of intrigue. Now, his characters often find themselves in really interesting *situations*, but the characters themselves don’t come across all that deep. When I think of a novel like Blood Meridian or No Country For Old Men, I tend to remember the events happening to the characters, not any particular traits or quirks inherent to them personally (other than his ‘force of nature’ characters, which I’ll get to in a bit). I think in The Crossing this comes down to the fact that McCarthy is incredibly reluctant to let us inside Billy Parham's head, rather it's almost as if we're passionless observers watching events happen at him. We can no further understand Billy Parham beyond the basic level of empathy anyone would have towards the tragedies he experiences. Parham acts as though guided by destiny, rather than organically. His plot to take the wolf back to the mountains happens practically on a whim, and we never get a sense that he weighs up the pros and cons of undertaking this quest whilst abandoning his family as a real person would. I won't spoil anything here, but Parham seems to throw himself into situations like his life is predestined, not because he has reason to do so. This could absolutely be what McCarthy was going for, but it's difficult to know since he keeps Parham an enigma for most of the book. McCarthy's characters often come off as like the aforementioned forces of nature, rather than people - just see Blood Meridian's Judge Holden, or No Country For Old Men's Chigurh. They're almost inhuman. Billy sometimes feels the same way, but I feel as if this approach to a main character leaves him feeling at times inorganic and lacking in depth. A parallel here is Blood Meridian’s The Kid, a fairly similar character - a boy losing his innocence by travelling down through the borderlands spanning the lengths of Mexico and America. I think the ‘force of nature’ style of characterisation for the main character worked a lot better in that book, though, because that’s exactly what he was. A force of nature, representing America’s westward expansion and all the horrors that brought. He didn’t necessarily need to have all that much depth beyond his allegorical role. In The Crossing, Parham really could have used that extra exploration of his psyche.
Second of all, the pacing and structure of this book are odd in a way that I don't think helps it. Split into four parts, The Crossing spans 430+ pages, making it one of McCarthy's longest. The first part, with the wolf, is wonderful and engaging and the most like its predecessor. Once we move past that, the book invariably becomes 300 pages of going across the border both ways and talking to people. This bulk part of the book features lengthy interludes where Parham encounters people who sit him down and regale him with tales of their lives or philosophical parables that span dozens of pages with little to no input or reflection from Parham. These are all certainly interesting to read in their own right, but they begin to create a feeling that the book is becoming a slog, especially when it's unclear how they link to the story at hand. Billy will ride in to somewhere, listen to a tale for 20 pages, and leave, never to think about it again. This becomes almost comical when Billy endures an unresolved, ongoing tragedy and the first thing he does is sit down in someone's house whilst they tell him war stories. The reader is hit with a feeling much like whiplash, after reading a tightly paced and gripping first part, the rest of the book is meandering with only a handful of plot points that could be summarised in one or two short sentences. In this way, The Crossing reads much more like a collection of short stories than a novel. I don't want to harp on this issue too much since it is still all very good, but the structure and pacing of the novel, whilst perhaps done deliberately, works against it rather than for it, since it harms enjoyment. I suspect many readers will have begun to scan the book at a certain point since very little is happening and so many scenes are similar. However, McCarthy’s unique writing style demands attention at all times, and if you begin to scan it becomes incredibly easy to not understand what is happening, who is on page or why. In this regard, The Crossing is one of McCarthy’s most challenging reads as it requires constant attention from the reader to follow it properly whilst rarely rewarding them with ‘story moments’ or action. To be clear, I have no problem with this and I am very much appreciative of books that don’t spoon feed the reader, but, in reality, the book’s pacing can begin to obfuscate its brilliant prose and themes by making it far less enjoyable to sit through. The book having unorthodox pacing and structure would be absolutely fine if I felt it added to the overall quality of the book, but I really don’t think it does. Despite really enjoying The Crossing, I also would not be complaining if McCarthy had paced it more traditionally.
I also want to briefly mention the use of Spanish in this book. I applaud McCarthy for this since it lends a huge amount of realism - obviously, Mexicans would not be speaking primarily in English. However, I also won't lie and say that having to translate entire conversations added to my experience. This compounds the feeling of the book being a slog since not only do you have to get through it but you need to be constantly translating lines of dialogue, unless you happen to be bilingual. There's not really much you can do here, though, since America's relationship with Mexico is a big part of the whole Border Trilogy. An American reader who could automatically understand everything would probably hinder this theme. Still, it's a little frustrating as a reading experience. I guess McCarthy didn't predict that one day we'd have kindles to translate it for us.
adventurous
dark
reflective
sad
slow-paced
Welcome to real world, kid. Part 2
adventurous
challenging
dark
emotional
reflective
sad
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes