I just finished reading Blood Meridian by Cormac McCarthy. The writing is beautiful and very lyrical but it's very dense and not an easy read. I shall probably have to go back and reread it again just to see what I missed the first time. It's fun for me to read a book then go and look at all the reviews about the books just to see what other people say about it.

There is a lot of violence in the book but because the writing is very stylized and lyrical, it cast an artistic sheen for me over what I think others would considers overwhelming and grotesque. I dislike violence in real life but in wriitng, plays and movies, violence if done right can actually be quite beautiful. I'm not surprised by the cruel and evil acts in this book but then I read this book after the tragedy of 9/11, so maybe nothing violent shocks me anymore, nothing man can to do to other men shocks me anymore. What's that famous phrase, man's inhumanity to man, a phrase that is so descriptive of the characters in Blood Meridian.

I suppose the only slightly surprising thing for me was the ending, but I suppose what happened at the end was logical and inevitable and I congratulate McCarthy for taking the end to its most logical extreme. Very few writers do that.

I don't think finishing Blood Meridian and then going to see Amy Freed's play "The Beard of Avon" was probably a good idea. God, it was hard to sit through this very funny comedy of a play and to hear people laugh after spending the last week and half trying to get through what some critics have called the "great american novel".

I liked "The Beard of Avon", it was very cleverly written and very entertaining, but I found it derivative of all the sight gags and jokes in Shakespeare in Love. And Tom Stoppard is a much better writter than Amy Freed. I also found it annoying that Freed used the same device of putting cliche lines in the play like they did in Moulin Rouge. God, I found that so ghastly and annoying, but people in the theatre loved it and laughed at every old and tired line. I had a friend who saw Moulin Rouge when it first opened and she loved the movie because it used all those old lines.

I find it odd that this play was the most produced play in regional theatres across the country in 2001 but there are no backers for a broadway version. Why? I thought all great plays if they are that good are bound for Broadway. I don't know. There was a lot humanity in Shakespeare in Love, something about the wriitng of that movie touched a human chord in me and I think in many others who saw it. I saw no such thing in "The Beard of Avon". Oh, the play is very well written to be sure, but great, I'm not sure. For me, the play did not strike me deep in the heart like Shakespeare in Love did and for me to really like a play, it has to do that.

But the play is very funny and entertaining and part of me thinks I might have enjoyed it more had I not finished Blood Meridian the night before. I did a brief search on reviews for this play and found critics who thought the same. Isn't it gratifying when you find a critic who agree with your assessment. It makes me feel like I'm not crazy, especially when a respected reviewer has the same thoughts I have.

I felt the same way about that movie, Erin Brockovich. I really was not enamored of the movie and when I read Roger Ebert's review which nearly mirrored my own thoughts, I felt so much elation. An entertaining movie to be sure but not great art.

I did enjoy reading Amy Freed talking about her process of writing in the program though because when I do write, my inspiration is the same as hers. But of course, all the published writers say that to write great things, you must first write horrible things. But my question is, how do you know what' s good and what's horrible? Who's to say?