No Country for Old Men discussion

macgregor wrote: "David wrote: "Simon wrote: "Why would so many post-literate people insist upon reading literature? And why does GoodReads have an open door policy to post-literates?"

Perhaps it is a desire to hoi..."

No idea. What do you want to go on you great debateoratory ? I can prolly fix it up to be somewhat Carmax McComical if you like:) You see dear heart even the mad are allowed to post re: the democratization of art

I'm not sure if your Joycean puns are as clever as you think they are.

macgregor wrote: "I'm not sure if your Joycean puns are as clever as you think they are."

Thanks for letting me know they are Joycean-I am perhaps now able to lay me down to sleep with the greatest pleasure.

How can they not be clever if they are even remotely compared to Joyce. I simply enjoy the Mickey whether it is mine or indeed yours.

Laura wrote: "I have twenty pages to go and I'm still trying to figure out what this book has to say except that we live in a violent world where the good guy abd the bad guy don't always get to face off in the ..."

Hey Laura, I have a couple points. I didn't read through the entire thread so they may be retreads.

1) Not his best book. Blood Meridian is my favorite of his that I've read (which incl. The Road and NCFOM.)
2) The movie was better. The book has, imo, too much exposition and Bell going on about the world. The Coens cut a lot of that w/o losing the message or intensity.
3) Let's be honest, the story's not for everyone. The movie won Best Picture, but I know people that hated it.
4) Nor is his writing style for everyone. It's sparse, sometimes breathless, often choppy, and to me refreshing.
5) Ditto subject matter. He tends to take on violent stories with lots of blood, death, and bad guys, and the closest to good guys are usually morally ambivalent or ambiguous.

I'm not sure why people feel the need to trash a book they didn't like that many other people obviously liked. And I mean intelligent people, including other writers, praised this book and others by him. I could understand if the criticism was constructive or legitimately asking questions, but I'm not sure I see that much.

McCarthy is a gem. Blood Meridian will stay with me a long time, as will Coen's version of No Country for Old Men.

Laura, open your mind a bit; conventions need to be broken for innovation in art to exist. And just because his style doesn't appeal to you, doesn't make it 'shit' and that was coming from 'the English teacher' in you - Really!? Glad I'm not your student!

It strikes me that the complaint against this book (and most other complaints against good books on here) consists of: it doesn't conform to my orthodox assumptions of what a novel should be. Sure, grammatically it isn't highly conventional, but I'd argue that it is a poetic and actually a highly readable novel. The complaints boil down to: it doesn't end how you want it to end? It doesn't have a typical protagonist? It's has no book-club or high school English teacher friendly meaning?

Well, forgive my bluntness, your are free to dislike whatever you want, but your complaints seem to miss the point, they boil down to this isn't the book I wanted it to be and no more than that. If NCFOM worked for you or not, isn't the point - it still took you to a place that as a reader you weren't very familiar with and probably stretched you more than reading yet another novel written in the same style as every other novel ever written with yet another protagonist who challenges yet another antagonist through a series of cause/effect plot-nodes that reach a satisfying climax that has some a simple meaning that every reader can grasp within seconds... It might not be for you, but sometimes its good to try something different. Maybe, instead of dismissing it as a bad book or whatever, you might get more out of it by judging it for what it is rather than what it isn't (yet another conventional book). This doesn't mean you have to like it, but if you let go of what you think a good book should be then you might find you get some worth out of the experience, rather than just a WTF reaction.

maybe you ought to focus on your own prose style first and stop using the word sh@t so much it's tedious

The book is a nihilistic tragedy and it's a fairly accurate and credible one at that. If young people go to see the film or read the book then they'll be well informed about what drugs and money do to people.

One theme of the book is that the love of money is the root of all evil. Many feel good books and movies decide to miss that altogether, glamourising and sensationalising evil. Take Evanovich's series for example also recently ported to cinema. This book is much more courageous and accomplished. McCarthy doesn't make any claim to "art" so why knock him off that dubious pedestal? That's a cheap shot.

The story is believable on every level and there's a lot of books you can't say that about. As TS Eliot said, human kind cannot bear too much reality. Most people do want characters they can like but that doesn't mean being different and going against the grain is wrong. What is all this swearing from an English teacher? Too much Guardian reading going on there. Use English properly if you are teaching it for heaven's sake.

Mary wrote: "The story is believable on every level and there's a lot of books you can't say that about. As TS Eliot said, human kind cannot bear too much reality. Most people do want characters they can like..."

Bahahahaha! No, he had it right. "Lot" is the subject, and it's singular, so "is" not "are". "A lot" is two words, not one.

Mary wrote: "The story is believable on every level and there's a lot of books you can't say that about. As TS Eliot said, human kind cannot bear too much reality. Most people do want characters they can like..."

You're not seriously correcting the grammar, are you? "There's a lot" is a perfectly acceptable abbreviation.

Luke wrote: 'Bahahahaha! No, he had it right. "Lot" is the subject, and it's singular, so "is" not "are". "A lot" is two words, not one.'

Wrong, lot is not the subject, books are the subject, lot is a quantifier. The grammar is wrong. Not that it relates to the argument. Thd book is amazing

Eric wrote: "Luke wrote: 'Bahahahaha! No, he had it right. "Lot" is the subject, and it's singular, so "is" not "are". "A lot" is two words, not one.'

Wrong, lot is not the subject, books are the subject, lot ..."

Nope. Books is the object of the preposition "of books", which modifies "lot". "Books" can't be the subject and the object of a preposition.

It's fine if you guys don't know grammar well enough, but don't try to correct it.

Laura wrote: "I have twenty pages to go and I'm still trying to figure out what this book has to say except that we live in a violent world where the good guy abd the bad guy don't always get to face off in the ..."

Laura, you are absolutely correct. When I read it when it first came out it struck me that this wasn't a novel but a treatment for a Cohen Brothers movie. I guess they had the same impression.

The book isn't minimalist and it's not a celebration of brevity. It's just lazy writing.

Early in the book, one of the main character relates the story of the death row inmate eating his last meal before execution and telling the guards that he set his desert aside to eat later. The main character then says he didn't know what to think of that.

That's because he's a moron. Why should we care about anyone that stupid when he's telling the story?

Maybe McCarthy's early books are American classics, this one was a con he ran on the intellectuals who fell for it.

Your first impression was correct, Laura. You didn't not get it. As Gertrude Stein said of her hometown, there was no there there.

Tom wrote: "Laura wrote: "I have twenty pages to go and I'm still trying to figure out what this book has to say except that we live in a violent world where the good guy abd the bad guy don't always get to fa..."

He doesn't know what to think of it because he, as an idea, is an outmoded concept in a world that has moved beyond simple concepts of "justice" and monochromatic morality. The characters are archetypes, not real people. They exist as symbols, or better yet, metonyms of bigger ideas.

To each his own taste, but there's more to this novel than a "con" on the "intellectuals".

Mal wrote: ""For Sale: Baby Shoes. Never worn."

Either you get the beauty and power of brevity, or you don't."

Hear, hear

"There is a lot of books" *is* not correct gramattically but it's in such common usage to make it on the boundary of what can be reasonably proscribed.

It's similar to the argument about no and any.

I can't get no satisfaction vs I can't get any satisfaction.

A lot of people won't get no supper tonight.

The double negative is blatantly incorrect but very expressive, it places the speaker in the counter-culture.

Language and usage are in constant flux, Vernacular structures do eventually become correct if they're used enough, the rules are to help communication, when they start to hinder it, you need to look at how you're applying the rules and whether in fact you're just being anal.

I thought No Country was a great book. While it is a nontraditional take on the whole good vs evil theme (a line that is blurred at times), for me this book's merit is that it is simply a great story. I remember that I was hooked by the end of the opening interior monologue.

But then again, I have learned to really enjoy McCarthy's writing style. It is an acquired taste for sure, but once you get it (for me it was Blood Meridian that did it), it is a very effective, and unique, voice that perfectly fits his characters and themes.

I adore his writing style. I commend a writer that can hook me in the first page. There should be more books written like that.

This book is like "Blood Meridian". It is a morality tale. The fact that neither has the classic happy ending of other morality tails or adjoining denouement does not diminish the moral force. In "No Country For Old Men" there is a clear moral voice In the character of the girl friend.

I wasn't a big fan...it just seemed like a "regular story" without an ending...maybe that's thr frustrating part for people. We are used to reading books where the characters have a connection they have to learn about...this is literally what it is...wish there had been a bit more of an ending though.

Maybe you should try cutting your teeth on Blood Meridian, All the Pretty Horses, The Crossing...before you try something that sums up all the McCarthy vision of evil. Or maybe if you just want to read this single novel, you could try mapping the locations in the novel to prove to yourself that this book is accurately researched. Just saying...

Nathan wrote: "Good grief, I thank heavens McCarthy does not follow the conventions I learned from my school english teachers. Sure, it takes some time to adjust onself to his style of writing, but the reward is..."


Thank you Nathan for some sense in this regard.
I grew up in an environment where teachers denied anything outside the orthodox writing styles, and even Ken Kesey was considered too outrageous to teach, let alone Hunter S Thompson.
The rejection of traditional structures and punctuation puts us in McCarthy's space, rather than our own comfort zone. I understand how this might be difficult for some to adapt to, but I liken reading McCarthy to reading a book in a foreign language you are only vaguely familiar with. You have to read, re-read, go to a dictionary or translation device, and then return and try to comprehend.
Prehaps that's why I read so many books translated from foreign languages......

I love this book. I've read it ten times, maybe more. It's interesting to glance through the comments and see the wide range of reactions. I find this a very affecting book, with everything -- the style, the characters, the events, and the eventual fates of those involved -- all working together. Not that it's neat and tidy. In the same spirit, I won't try to sum up precisely what it's about -- I don't know -- but for me, the book definitely has to do with fate and free will and the nasty way the universe has of smashing us on its windshield from time to time. It's all in there, from the fates of the primary characters to the old woman sitting dead in her chair to Chigur's unexpected car accident. But we're left with another carrying the fire reference. I pair this with THE ROAD, and I have to think McCarthy's saying (in part)life's tough, but we have to keep trying.

Ten times! Good heavens! I can't bring myself to read a book - any book - a second time because there are so many other ones out there I have yet to read.

I think Blood Meridian was much better than either of these books, not to say I didn't enjoy them.

Mal wrote: ""For Sale: Baby Shoes. Never worn."

Either you get the beauty and power of brevity, or you don't."

Papa!

Laura,
You know, my parents always said, "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.". I don't understand why you would voluntarily force yourself to read a book you don't like, and then say on a public forum that it almost made you sorry you ever learned to read, then go on to berate the author. It makes me sorry that you ever learned to put letters together into words and those words into sentences and fills me with fear that you could possibly be a teacher.

Saw the movie and had to read the book right after. McCarthy writes lean dark prose and this did not disappoint. I loved it, but if his style is not for you, I can see how the book would be hard to take.

I have to agree with Laura. Why is Cormac McCarthy celebrated and famous? Having read two of his books, both felt like chores. Never again.

And as for the "For Sale. Baby Shoes. Never worn" comment on brevity, I feel that statement is much more gimmicky than it is powerful and beautiful, and patting yourself on the back far "getting it" takes a lot less insight than you think.

Beata wrote: "I have to agree with Laura. Why is Cormac McCarthy celebrated and famous? Having read two of his books, both felt like chores. Never again.

And as for the "For Sale. Baby Shoes. Never worn" comm..."

Why should all literature be entertaining? For that matter, why should all art be entertaining and distracting? Sometimes you have to work to engage with art. I like to work hard sometimes and read difficult works (not that this is particularly difficult) and sometimes I like a breezy read.

McCarthy is famous for being on Oprah's Book Club. McCarthy is celebrated for being an interesting, challenging, idiosyncratic, iconoclastic writer whose oeuvre is rich.

It also seems particularly unfair when authors are dismissed on the basis of their more popular works, especially given that The Road is not very representative of the rest of his works.

Totally agree with Tom's comments

Laura wrote: "I have twenty pages to go and I'm still trying to figure out what this book has to say except that we live in a violent world where the good guy abd the bad guy don't always get to face off in the ..."

Laura, you are absolutely correct. When I read it when it first came out it struck me that this wasn't a novel but a treatment for a Cohen Brothers movie. I guess they had the same impression.

The book isn't minimalist and it's not a celebration of brevity. It's just lazy writing.

Early in the book, one of the main character relates the story of the death row inmate eating his last meal before execution and telling the guards that he set his desert aside to eat later. The main character then says he didn't know what to think of that.

That's because he's a moron. Why should we care about anyone that stupid when he's telling the story?

Maybe McCarthy's early books are American classics, this one was a con he ran on the intellectuals who fell for it.

Your first impression was correct, Laura. You didn't not get it. As Gertrude Stein said of her hometown, there was no there there.

David wrote: " It's just lazy writing. "

Must be nice to know everything about literature.

haven't read the book but seen the film a gazillion times, the story must have 'something' as this discussion has been ongoing for the last four years? (that's assuming there is a 'something' somewhere?)

I was pleasantly surprised by how thoughtful and insightful Andrew's and Adam's responses were. I think when one is dealing with a serious author whose books may be around for a few years, the reader is expected to participate.

"When I read, I read because a good author can open up a new world, a new way of looking at things. No statement, nothing is being "said." "

Sorta contradictory, no?

Interesting thread from it's verbose beginnings to the current one sentence retorts. Kudos to the OP for sticking with a book to the bitter end—I close the cover well before I get to the point where I feel the need to spew vitriol at the author. For me, though, McCarthy is a master. A truly great writer.

Mal wrote: ""For Sale: Baby Shoes. Never worn."

Either you get the beauty and power of brevity, or you don't."


Who wrote that? I know....

Hemingway.

In what? The Snows of Kilamangrio? [Sorry I didn't look it up].

macgregor wrote: "David wrote: " It's just lazy writing. "

Must be nice to know everything about literature."

Actually it was Tom who said that-I of course agree with him-the book is terpsichoria of the finest art-it is the author's art and way sending up the reader as he so often does-this is of course my opinion which is as valid as any other written here-still a right we have which soon may disappear along with good writing.

Your opinion is valid if it is backed up by evidence or at least with common sense. You point to the novel as some sort of confidence game on the reader without any evidence to support this opinion whatsoever.

I'm not the first person to have said this, but I'll say it in this thread: not all opinions are right.

If you can say about this novel that you didn't connect with it, or it has technical flaws or that it was structurally a mess, these are all valid criticisms.

However, saying that the novel is a con game, without knowing the author's intentions, is without a doubt not a valid argument.

Rubbish-have you read the damn book? Common sense dictates that it is either a monstrous send up-or intellectual falderal of the meanest art.

David wrote: "Rubbish-have you read the damn book? Common sense dictates that it is either a monstrous send up-or intellectual falderal of the meanest art."

I admit that I actually laughed out loud at this. Your adherence to your prejudice is actually impressive in its stubbornness. The best I can say is, "hats off to you for your dogmatism".

If that is your best then one suggestion-There is a sweet little nutten house in Des Moines-Pinky's by name-Miss Angela Dogma will get ya goin. Sonst ist keine hoffnung mein lieber!

You are so cute-prejudice? Stubborn? Well I am a retired Marine so maybe that is what leads to my dogmatismicality. So it is all that and a cup of coffee.

dogmatism
1. a statement of a point of view as if it were an established fact.
2. the use of a system of ideas based upon insufficiently examined premises. — dogmatist, n. — dogmatic, adj.

You used the word incorrectly. I have made a supposition based on common sense-the crap just has to be a send up or a lazy piece of drool-where's the beef money? Oh! Did you see Brittany's shaved her box again? Oh! Eggcitin'
right?

David wrote: "You used the word incorrectly. I have made a supposition based on common sense"

Er no. I didn't use the word incorrectly. You stated your opinion ("send up") as fact, but without any evidence to support your claim whatsoever other than to point to common sense. Your (chief) fallacy is called an argumentum ad populum.

Er no. I didn't use the word incorrectly. You stated your opinion ("send up") as fact, but without any evidence to support your claim whatsoever other than to point to common sense. Your (chief) fallacy is called an argumentum ad populum.

Actually it was Tom who said that-I of course agree with him-the book is terpsichoria of the finest art-it is the author's art and way sending up the reader as he so often does-this is of course my opinion which is as valid as any other written here-still a right we have which soon may disappear along with good writing.

this is of course my opinion which is as valid as any other written here-

Um-er-Gosh gee whiz thanks for the agumentum ad populum I feel so much better now-oh no that was my chief fallacy-there I go again huh? Common sense came up in your post aways back-just sayin'. We could converse in German Latin would that be more fun? I often performed Verdi's Requiem Mass in Germany in that rather senseless language-the bass part-it is just so much better in Latin Latin don't you think?

This is not avoidum penticton-I spent some time there-do not recommend it although the salmon fishing is pretty hot

As granny used to say-omnibusum-impotentis-kotzmeanum-you gotta love them old broads don't ya?

Steven wrote: "Hemingway."Yep.......

I am using it for a sentence starter for my bookclub....

gary

i don't like strawberry ice cream. Is that a hanging offence around here as well? The OP said she didn't enjoy the book. She neither has to defend nor explain. The whole purpose for a site like this is to exchange opinions on books... or are we just supposed to like em all, just like we're told to? As far as I know, we are all free to like or dislike without being criticized for it. Just because she didn't like the book doesn't mean she doesn't understand english, literature, life, the publishing industry or anything else. it means she didn't like the damned book, and kudos to her for having the balls to say that. Oh... wait... will i get my wrists slapped for saying balls, just as if i were to say shit? You guys sure do get your panties in a knot about nothing. Some people don't like the book. get over it. the world isn't gonna end, and Cormac McCarthy's ass isn't gonna fall off because not enough of us are kissing it. I read it, didn't enjoy it, would not read more of his work... it wasn't my cup of tea. His writing is strawberry icecream to me.
David, you rock and made more sense than anyone else here and you managed to keep it real without all the bullshit pseudointellectual babble. (ooops... sorry, another opinion. Guess my ass is grass now, huh.)

AmandaLyn wrote: "Guess my ass is grass now, huh"

Yep sure is. You say this website is a place to exchange opinions on books. Why bother coming to a discussion board if not to discuss? Frankly, it's perfectly healthy to have somebody question your beliefs. Makes you think about them critically. Helps you understand why you think the way you do.

or are we just supposed to like em all, just like we're told to?

Or we should just accept everybody's opinion as perfectly equal?

You guys sure do get your panties in a knot about nothing.

Art is not nothing. Art is something to get up in arms about. Art is about seeing the world in a different way. Art is about more than simply books to entertain and pass the time. Art is one of the most important things humanity has ever accomplished. Without art there is no civilization. Without art, we are but animals scrabbling in the dirt. People die for art; it can't be just "nothing".