I become obsessed with mesoamerica over the last 4 years and had never really been interested in history prior to this happening. Over the years since then I've had this recurring fantasy of the afterlife where I'll be able to witness firsthand the entire history of human activity in the western hemisphere from start to finish. I picture it as being like an invisible observer who can just witness things happening anywhere in the timeline. From this vantage point you wouldn't be able to tell what anyone is thinking, you'd just see things happening like a ghost. I think other amateur historians can relate to this yearning conception of paradise. Anyway, it occurred to me recently that the narrator in blood meridian takes on a role like the one I'm imagining. At no point in the novel do we access the thoughts of the characters directly. The narrator is just kind of "there" narrating what they witness as an invisible observer. I've never seen this style of writing before (is it original?), but it completely transformed my relationship with the narrator as I've been reading. Is anyone else here a history nerd and come to a similar realization while reading this?
I'm going to refrain from sayibg mean things to you & tell you that this is called third-person omniscient narration. It was not invented by cormac mccarthy
>>24936410okay I hear you, I know it's a somewhat stupid question, and maybe it feels unique to me because I don't read a lot of fiction, or something. Whether or not he came up with it, this was the major epiphany for me in reading the novel and not one I've had before.But the thing is, the narrator isn't omnicient in this. You don't know what any of the characters are thinking or feeling. This is literally the main distinction I'm talking about. So it's not exactly "third-person omniscient narration", but you're right it probably isn't something new. I don't care.
>>24936393I also fantasize often about seeing how ancient human civilizations really were like. I wish there was a way to replay the past somehow.
>>24936410The primary usage of 3rd person Omniscient is as free indirect discourse which the narrator in BM doesn't do.Wait till you discover that he is unreliable as well despite not witholding any significant information or being opinionated.>>24936423The narrator is Omniscient. Just because he doesn't choose to narrate their inner lives doesn't mean he doesn't know them. Narrating their inner lives will not change are perspective of the story.
Look up the white shaman mural and the lower-pecos pictographs fascinating stuff
