No Country for Old Men discussion

Watch them opinions lady!!! Shall we graze shall we graze? King and I-nice show!

Whoever you are my dear I am prone-well a lot of the time-to strawberry ice cream-whadda ya gonna make of it-huh huh?

I rather enjoy Macgregor's inteyevictuality-bottom line is that in my opinion the book sucks-there are so many ands in the first five pages I had to surmise it was either lazy writing or a send up-proof?

The proof of the pudding is in the reading-some love it some don't-fair game. The insurmountable laziness of the-and-word in today's literature is symptomatic of the state of the art, among other things of course. Our society in general-not a hasty generalization-is set upon by a doltish thought process which believs good writing is proven if indeed someone of so-called authority states that said work is of genius-Oh look the King has no clothes-offensive statement to some I know. Look at it this way-just another man's clothing.

Kudos to David! He has a right to express his opinion, just as I do and just as you do. I think McCarthy's book was awful and I won't read anything else he wrote. Do others like the book? Perhaps...or perhaps they pretend they like it so others will think they are sophisticates who appreciate the arts.

I wasn't referring to art, Hon. The fact that you choose to not understand that doesn't surprise me in the least. If we were discussing the book anymore, I would welcome that. It isn't, so i will repeat that I admire and respect the OP for what she has said, I enjoyed reading the discussion and the opportunity to hear from others about McCarthy's other work, and I will back away and let you have what you so desperately crave because it apparently is a symbol of your wisdom and insight... the last word. Gnight pookey.

I thought this book was set up with a lack of literary conventions in order to assist in making its point. There is no great plan, you deserve nothing, nothing on this earth is put here especially for you, everything is an accident, evil and good are random, control is an illusion, etc. Look at the end, with the hitman getting in a car wreck. The event is random and meaningless to the plot, an anti-denouement.

That being said, does McCarthy's lack of grammar and punctuation make the book better? This book is a wash. In some of his books, I find it highly annoying at points, but in others, such as Suttree, I find it welcome. McCarthy is a mixed bag that no one should judge on one book. That being said, I would say The Road is his most accessible.

And for all those criticizing the OP for being critical, what the heck is the point of this site? Not to mention this thread is near five years old. She must have done something right.

AmandaLyn wrote: "I wasn't referring to art, Hon. The fact that you choose to not understand that doesn't surprise me in the least. If we were discussing the book anymore, I would welcome that."

Yes you were referring to art. You're referring to opinions about books. Literature is art. Thus, you're referring to opinions about art. Art is something to get my panties in a twist. You can be disingenuous and sidestep the debate if you'd like. My point about this being a discussion board still stands.

Why did you bother saying something if you don't have the wherewithal to back it up?

You admire and respect the OP for what? Stating her opinion. Great. I never took issue with her statement of opinion. I took issue with other people's statement of opinion based on conjecture and fallacious deduction.

The above post is resorting to twisted intellectual vitals which spoil my appetite. I see nobody sidestepping anything anymore than your apparent terpsichorean efforts to do exactly the same.

Everything you have stated in all of your posts is as the lady you refer to and mine-opinion that is all.

If our statements are conjecture and fallacious deduction then the same may be and should be said regarding yours.

You opine with words supported by pseudo intellectual thumbing of your nose at all the other posters.

You have the hutzpah to say that AmandaLyn was referring to art yet have not the capacity to understand that the woman is referring to the fact that far from art this particular book is anything but. I am speaking for the woman which I should not but what the hell! I am sure she will put her two cents in.

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". macgregpr's post

I see nothing in any post referring to this book as art-where do you see that? There are works referred to as art which by any standard-no macgregor not just mine-bring nothing to this world other than forcing folks to be ill or say what the fuck-some of these are truly works of art-the argument can be made that art is any work which stops a person-makes them think-consider what the fuck is up with that-yet what does that bring to the betterment of the world other than the what the fuck is that crap statement-one can discuss what art is until one's ass freezes up and shuffles off to Buffaloff-some think garbage is art-perhaps it is-then in my opinion this book is art and what the hell does it matter-art shmart-35,000 children starve to death each day-for some that may be art? The question is one can intellectualize this crap-somebody says a moving painting of starving children is art-is it? What is the point in discussing that-do something about that-I do!

Now off to Pinky's to get a good bit of nucky and some beer-anyone care to join?

"consider what the fuck is up with that-yet what does that bring to the betterment of the world other than the what the fuck is that crap statement"

Better people than us have been debating this since they were able to debate this. Surely you've articulated it fairly well: "art is any work which stops a person-makes them think". I'm not quite sure what else you're trying to say here. That books like No Country for Old Men do nothing for the starving children of the world?

I don't quite understand: if there's no point in discussing this piece of garbage, why are you here? If this book contributes nothing to society, then why are you still here typing responses?

To me, and this is just my opinion, as if I needed to couch my statement in such rhetoric, the very fact that the work elicits such strong reactions on either side of the spectrum means that the work has some value and should be explored.

I don't love everything I read, but every time I read something I ask myself why do I love it or hate it? What makes the art work or not work? This is why I was getting at all those responses ago. Our opinions are only meaningful if we can understand why we hold them. It's totally acceptable to hate this book. I'm not claiming otherwise. What I'm saying is, that there's something of value to be gained in interrogating ourselves and figuring out why.

I totally appreciate that people have taken the time to articulate their feelings and reactions to the novel, whether positive or negative. In this very thread, back in March, I commended someone for trying another McCarthy book after being disappointed in the first.

Maybe I can bring this discussion full circle in a tighter fashion. Laura, in her very first post, attacks the novel for disrupting conventional narrative structures. While she thinks that McCarthy is doing so with false depth, she at least articulates that the novel does not work for her. She even explains why she holds her opinion: she's an English teacher with a prescriptive outlook on style. Thus, her opinion is meaningful because she understands why she holds it. Whether or not she's understood the text is irrelevant to this particular discussion.

In fact, the discussion in this thread was particularly interesting and fruitful up until the 31st comment in which somebody just claims to hate it without saying anything else. After this, the floodgates were opened and people just said things to say things as oppose to debate. Laura, even with her provocative thread title, manages to find nuance in her very position while engaging with other people's opinions.

The key difference, if you've kept up with me, is that both Laura and the other commentators engage with the text beyond simple dismissal. Even if they didn't like it, they at least didn't make wild speculations without a shred of evidence ("a send-up").

If you've managed to read this entire response, I commend you. I hope to show you that despite my initial flash of snark, I actually respect people who take the time to articulate their thoughts, even if I categorically disagree.

The key difference, if you've kept up with me, is that both Laura and the other commentators engage with the text beyond simple dismissal. Even if they didn't like it, they at least didn't make wild speculations without a shred of evidence ("a send-up").

Morning magregor-what makes you think we/I cannot keep up with you-that is probably what makes one feel you are perhaps a tad arrogant? Once again I believe it to be either a send up or an excercise in lazy writing-once again this is not fact-simply my opinion based on my experiences with writing, writers, editors etc-and my occasional common sense.

If you've managed to read this entire response, I commend you. I hope to show you that despite my initial flash of snark, I actually respect people who take the time to articulate their thoughts, even if I categorically disagree.

Thanks for the commendation I have a few from the corp in a drawer somewhere.

I partake because it is fun!

Took a look at your blog-excellent work

I love this exchange. Some people must think something is special about this book to have had such a prolonged, heated debate about its meaning, quality, etc. Compare the discussion on Hunger Games or Twilight.

macgregor wrote: "AmandaLyn wrote: "I wasn't referring to art, Hon. The fact that you choose to not understand that doesn't surprise me in the least. If we were discussing the book anymore, I would welcome that."

Y..."

Why THANK YOU, Pookey!!!! I soooo love to be told what it is I might be referring to when I say something. Stupid me... where would I be without someone as pedantically erudite as yourself to let me know. My opinions are based on what i read in the book, nothing else. Apparently that's not good enough for you. Since you care to read what you want to read, instead of what is written, I won't waste my time here. I will go look for the Twilight thread instead.

William wrote: "I love this exchange. Some people must think something is special about this book to have had such a prolonged, heated debate about its meaning, quality, etc. Compare the discussion on Hunger Gam..."

Whatever the reasons for others as I said to magregor my main reason is amusement. The book is of course lazy writing at its worst. Then again maybe not? Who knows? Where is that damned shadow anyway?

AmandaLyn wrote: "pedantically erudite "

I refuse to apologize for articulating myself with precision.

1.
You guys sure do get your panties in a knot about nothing. Some people don't like the book.
You're referring to the book when you say "nothing"? Yes or no?

2.
If yes, then I say the book is literature. Literature is art. Thus, art can be substituted as the general for the specific in your sentence. If you disagree with this, then we're splitting hairs over "what is art" and not what the subject of your sentence is.

3.
If no, then what are we getting ourselves worked up over? What is the subject of your sentence? What are you referring to? Why did you come to a discussion board, throw in your hand and then refuse to unpack your meaning?

I too was an English teacher. I am not suggesting anyone re-read the book, only that the first time through is not the entire experience. Someone said on this site that he or she has never re-read a book because there are too many books. Well, I am only dating a book the first time around, getting to know it over dinner. When I find a keeper, I stick with it. You wouldn't want to find a different love every week; it is just too hard. The first time I read a book is for plot and, maybe, some empathy with the characters. The second time through, I am trying to put it all together--meaning, structure. The third time, I am looking for aesthetics. Is this book worth reading twice? Yes. But don't slip Child of God in between until you get a grip on McCarthy's view of existence and our common problem with living in this world. If you do, you'll think he is nuts.

I just don't get this whole love-in with McCarthy or this new sub-genre 'grit-lit'. Both seem to me to be very cultural-specific to certain parts of the US and therefore as a Brit, I fell kept at arms length by it. And I ask myself why now? These areas have always had such values and a tradition haven't they? As much as I dislike that interminable chapter in Bolano's "2666" of the murdered girls, one can at least acknowledge that the phenomenon is both real and relatively recent in coming to that part of Mexico and therefore Bolano gets some credit for bringing into his literature. I'm not sure the same can be said for McCarthy. While "The Road" wasn't cultural-specific, it was a pretty average post-apocalyptic movie, sorry book... Can't say i'm tempted to try another Mccarthy book.

William wrote: "I too was an English teacher. I am not suggesting anyone re-read the book, only that the first time through is not the entire experience. Someone said on this site that he or she has never re-read..."

I certainly understand your point of view. I have read East of Eden at least a dozen times. It never ceases to amaze me. Others think it is not much of a read and probably would be loathe to read it more than once. I feel the same regarding this book. I had to force myself to read it. Therefore seeing no worth in the piece I simply cannot imagine forcing myself again.

Marc wrote: "I just don't get this whole love-in with McCarthy or this new sub-genre 'grit-lit'. Both seem to me to be very cultural-specific to certain parts of the US and therefore as a Brit, I fell kept at a..."

Agreed-well stated

"I knew that already, so thanks for nothing, McCarthy. I read to expand my understanding of the world, not to have the obvious presented to me in bad prose."

You understand that authors don't know you, or write specifically for you, right? It's not McCarthy's fault that you were familiar with what he tried to convey with this novel. Using this as an argument makes no sense.

An open letter to cormac mccarthy http://dailybrass.blogspot.com/2012/0...

Christamar wrote: "An open letter to cormac mccarthy http://dailybrass.blogspot.com/2012/0..."

Hilarious!

Maybe I've been duped by the intellectuals, but I thought I discovered McCarthy on my own without outside influence, and I appreciated his unusual slant on the human condition--oh shit, that sounds like I'm one of those intellectuals. But hell, this isn't a happy world we live. Look at the news: Syria, Afghanistan, and where else. If you think these books are dark, try Vonnegut, de Bernieres, or Catch-22--even more recently Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk. Then tell me what a load of crap is sticking to our Nike waffled sneakers. By the way, Cormac McCarthy is also the name of a folk singer--not related to the author.

I for one would not disagree with anything stated in your post-I love well written darkness-I do not consider myself in any way shape or formication to be even remotely auntylectual-it is just a book in my opinion poorly written-the same was said by many of Vonnegut. However, I never had the feeling that his work was lazy writing. I could be wrong-certainly not the first or last time-lazy writing is the feeling I got while trying to read this book.

William wrote: "Maybe I've been duped by the intellectuals, but I thought I discovered McCarthy on my own without outside influence, and I appreciated his unusual slant on the human condition--oh shit, that sounds..."

To me, the writing fits the story. It's sparse, terse, and emotionally distant, much like the story. It's not going to be to everyone's tastes. I just don't get the need by some (not necessarily you) to disparage it simply because it's on a different wavelength.

"Lazy Writing" is something of an oxymoron. I have tried my hand at the task and have so far fallen short of my own standards. Someone once said that "Writing was easy, you just sit and stare at a blank piece of paper until blood comes out of your forehead." I have to agree with Luke. I read somewhere that Charles Simmons tried 40+ voices to tell his tale in Wrinkles; matching a voice to the content is not something many of our contemporary writers are concerned about.

Laura can I ask have you read Fifty Shades of Grey or even the Harry Potter series? As a an intelligent person I would be more concerned with the bland prose and the laconic syntax I found in these books, compared to the intricate prose offered by McCarthy.
Modern fiction writers are conformists and rarely venture into unknown territory. Perhaps they are restrained by people such as yourself who would rather we all sing from the same proverbial hymn sheet, in order to please your delicate sensibilities.

Good story. Not sure what the OP was ranting about. My review is posted.

The movie was great, but the book killed me. I thought it was an interesting idea to investigate, but was literally executed in the poorest way possible. Once Moss was killed, I decided to skim through the rest of the book. I would have never put so much effort into reading it if it wasn't assigned for my Horror Fiction class. The lack of quotation marks and the constant "this and that and this again and then he did this and then this happened" made me want to murder someone.

-____- So disappointed.

Laura wrote: "To respond to a few of your points... I am not categorically opposed to nonstandard English. There are ways of flouting the conventions with style, which can make the prose interesting, sometimes b..."

Laura wrote: "Thanks for the comments. You're right, I'm not from the south. (Had a bicoastal upbringing before landing in the southwest.) You're also not the first reasonable-seeming person to advise me to try ..."

Terrence wrote: "I was confused for a while as well, more than half-way into the book. I wasn't sure where Mr. Mccarthy was going with the direction of the story. It was not until Moss was killed that I realized th..."

Well stated friend. I have read a lot of his books and there is something tragic yet beautiful about the way he writes. his stories aren't filled with mirth and don't often end happily ever after, but I never feel sad or depressed when i am done. I digress, I just wanted to say I think you're spot on, I agree, this story is about sheriff bell. Have you read blood meridian? That is one of my all time favorites

Um... i need punctuation.

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 ..."

If you comment about other people's writing and claim to be an English teacher it would make sense to ensure correct spelling and capitalization in your review.
To say the book doesn't tell you anything new, well neither does Shakespeare to any one who paid attention in history class. Literature is there to make you think. If you need a sledgehammer read Clancy.

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 ..."

Could be worse, you could be reading anything by Stephanie Meyers or that 50 Shades of Grey chick.

I loved this book - I actually listened to it on audiobook on the long drive to and from work - it was gripping! The narrator was wonderful and sucked me right in! I think the film was great, but not a patch on the book.

If you liked this book, try "Blood Meridian" by McCarthy. It's my favorite book by McCarthy, but it's not for the faint of heart. It's his take on the Faust myth, and it's much darker than "No Country for Old Men".

Thanks Chuck...I didn't think you could get much darker! OOH I'm scared, but strangely excited - I'll get on it! Thanks for the tip.

George 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..."

George 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..."

George 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..."

Since I am a student I had to read No Country for Old Men (subject : Modern American Novel, roughly translated) and we were taught that the novel spoke of modern American culture and the way McCarthy wrote the story is from a position of a Republican in contrast to DeLillo or Pynchon, who are more oriented towards the Democratic Party. It basically means that McCarthy yearns for "good old times" and the "frontier" as it used to be. He constantly alludes to the Wild West and the "non determined past when things were better"(the Sheriff dreams of his father riding a horse, many times the sheriff thinks about the past and how better it was when the crime wasn't perverted, souless crime, there is this remark about abortion being wrong etc). It is a book about American xenophobia, especially towards Mexicans, but also any foreigners in general. In the book everything that's bad comes from Mexico. Drugs, crime, criminals. Anton Chigurh is also described as exotic, non - American. He is the exotic Other in the novel. He is the danger that is coming from the outside and is unstoppable. The message of the book is that old heroes are dead - the sheriff, an old hero, does not catch Chigurh in the end and that in these new times your life depends on nothing but chance (some say this is illustrated through Chigurh and the way he tosses a coin to see if he will kill a person or not). It is definitely a negative picture od the modern age. The characters and their personalities are not important therefore they are not further developed. Their actions and their symbolism is important. Chigurh as the new age, Sheriff as the age that has passed. As for how the book was written, I would agree with the comment about the southern way of talking but here's also what my professor said : the language in the book lacks the system of importance which reveals a deeper epistemological crisis, a world that doesn't understand the importance of events ,a fragmented world, a vision of dystopian future.
Of course, everything is subjective and I cannot claim that this is correct but I hope that perhaps you will find answers to some of the matters that you did not like or understand. I am only aiming to help :) not to disagree or argue

Maybe I got it wrong, but the book seems to be about the inevitability of fate, like it or not, violent or compassionate, it is possible. Accept it!

Sorry Marija, but this book isn't about politics, Democrat or Republican. How much experience do you have along the Tex/Mex border? Let me guess...none? American xenophobia? I don't think so. I'm across the border quite frequently. Maybe you should wander around Tex/Mex border for some time on your own before passing judgements on the Gringos.

Michael (Mike) wrote: "Sorry Marija, but this book isn't about politics, Democrat or Republican. How much experience do you have along the Tex/Mex border? Let me guess...none? American xenophobia? I don't think so. I'..."


I think Marija is repeating what she was told by her professor. It sounds very much like what a professor would say. It is such a horrible book that only a professor would try to find meaning in it.

Emily, why do you say that it is a horrible book?

☯Emily wrote: "Michael (Mike) wrote: "Sorry Marija, but this book isn't about politics, Democrat or Republican. How much experience do you have along the Tex/Mex border? Let me guess...none? American xenophobia?..."

Well...I think she(he?) is off base in trying to link the story to partisan American politics. I also think your thoughts here are, not only off-base, but dim, anti-conversation, anti-intellectual, and aggressively anti-literature to claim "only a professor would try to find meaning in it". What the hell does that even mean? Only someone educated in literature would venture to attach meaning to a piece of literature that you happened to not like? And that's your idea of a criticism?

Erik wrote: "☯Emily wrote: "Michael (Mike) wrote: "Sorry Marija, but this book isn't about politics, Democrat or Republican. How much experience do you have along the Tex/Mex border? Let me guess...none? Ameri..."

I was responding to Michael's comments about political parties. Only a professor would try to relate the book to the viewpoints of the dysfunctional political parties in America. I think that is a stretch.
Since I am part of the college community, I think I can make that statement.

How has your comments toward me advanced the discussion of this awe-inspiring work?

I think anyone who comes at the book looking for a certain 'message' will be confused or disappointed. I see this book as a thriller/crime novel, albeit one with more interesting prose than many commercial novels. It's almost a horror story: think of Chigurh as the Creature from the Black Lagoon, or slasher villain.
McCarthy is a smart and observant man, and therefore his world-portrayal will contain smart and observant details, leading people to suspect he might be writing to educate us about the nature of international relations, or the war on drugs, or whatever; but I don't believe such messages are the purpose of this book. If a writer accurately expresses his times and/or human nature, you may feel like there's more to the story than the simple action, even if that isn't the author's ultimate goal.

J. wrote: "I think anyone who comes at the book looking for a certain 'message' will be confused or disappointed. I see this book as a thriller/crime novel, albeit one with more interesting prose than many co..."

McCarthy's world is a hostile world, no happy endings, no deus ex machina to round out the plot, just violence without remorse. Isn't ironic that the main character's, Chigurh's, name is pronounced "Sugar." This is unusually cute for McCarthy but I'll buy it.

William wrote: "McCarthy's world is a hostile world, no happy endings, no deus ex machina to round out the plot, just violence without remorse."

Yes; and I doubt anyone would suggest that he wrote NCfOM to convert people to nihilism, or that the book is an apology for bleak cynicism, or there is some 'message' along those lines.

... At least not a message meant to be instructive in real life rather than one more element of a work of fiction.

Michael (Mike) wrote: "Sorry Marija, but this book isn't about politics, Democrat or Republican. How much experience do you have along the Tex/Mex border? Let me guess...none? American xenophobia? I don't think so. I'..."

Yes, I was only repating what I've heard. Since I have very little interest in politics in general I would not venture to say that what he said is correct or not since my own personal knowledge of politics in America is limited. Since I do not live in America I can only repeat the stereotypes that most people know by now. I did have to learn the way politics work and how a bill gets elected, about the Constitution, the founding fathers, the separation of powers etc etc
Everything we see we interpret through the way in which we understand the world. My professor lived in America for 20 years so I guess he does have a wide knowledge of how the system functions. He is mostly focused on economy and politics which I believe, although interesting, is a bit limiting because his statements are based on those two perspectives only. That is why all the books we've read (Monkey Hunting, The Falling Man,Inherent Vice,Let the Great World Spin, Cosmopolis...)have been interpreted through the economy and politics of the time, although monkey hunting had more to do with immigrants if I recall. I was afraid that the part about politics would get the most attention while the rest of the comment would go unnoticed because somebody would feel insulted in some way but I felt it would be unfair to cut some parts of what I've heard out. In general I do think that the part about dystopian future and the new "bad" times is spot on when it comes to what the book represents.
As for the xenophobia here is what American Civilization An Introduction (Mauk, Oakland) says : "In 1996 California and Texas voters ended state affirmative action programs knowing well that these helped not only black people but Latinos secure better eduaction" (pg 107)... "In 2003-4 polls in California showed that large majorities opposed allowing illegal immigrants to receive state driving licenses, without which this largely Latino group would find making a living increasingly difficult", "The high number of Latino newcomers, especially illegal immigrants, continues to feed rising hostility or worry about Latinos" (pg 109)"Since 1990, sharp differences in public attitudes to immigration have been evident. The backlash against the level of immigration grew strong by the mid 1990s, especially in some groups in the seven states (California, New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, Illinois and Arizona) where over three quarters of newcomers settled." (pg 71) , "More restrictive attitueds also found expression in the federal immigration and welfare reform laws of 1996. These strenghened border controls against illegal immigration, made it easier to deport suspicious visitors and immigrants, required family in the USA to take more responsibility for keeping newcomers off the welfare roles, and denied legal immigrants federal welfare benefits." (pg 72)
So I would say that it is possible that Mexico is here in the book to represent the current (2005 is the year of the novel) tension about Latinos (The U.S. Government has defined Hispanic or Latino persons as being "persons who trace their origin or descent to Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Central and South America, and other Spanish cultures)or foreigners in general. It is also possible that it is not here to serve this purpose.
Mostly every intepretation can be backed up by something - just like I did in defense of a xneophobia comment and I could probably oppose my own comment with some other different statistics - that's why it's an interpretation not a fact. Much like the ley lines. What I'm trying to say, in an elaborate way, is that I understand and acknowledge your reaction and that I also believe that everyone is entitled to his or her own interpretation and opinion. And so...

I can't say that I liked the book but it made a vivid impression and it will stick with me for a long time. It produced some strong emotions. Whatever the meaning of the book it makes for an interesting read. Personally I've been taught and believe that even without any intention of putting some hidden meaning behind what we write about, there is always some meaning behind it because we're writing from the person that we are, our culture, our religion (if we have any) our country, our gender, our race, our age, our preferences, our experiences etc. and in the same way we find meaning in other things outside of ourselves. That's why I do believe that McCarthy did write from the position of himself and that the book is a reflection of some of his own views.

And that's all I'll be saying about this topic further because I can see how it could stretch forever into a topic not really realted to the authentic topic. Namaste and comment away.

☯Emily wrote: "Erik wrote: "☯Emily wrote: "Michael (Mike) wrote: "Sorry Marija, but this book isn't about politics, Democrat or Republican. How much experience do you have along the Tex/Mex border? Let me guess...."

Well I apologize. That context wasn't clear from the initial statement, which seemed to be suggesting all "meaning" and not partisan political correlations. And it hasn't advanced any discussion. If anything, I was trying to remove a rhetorical roadblock that seemed to suggest that meaning was impossible to cull from the novel.

Marija wrote: "Michael (Mike) wrote: "Sorry Marija, but this book isn't about politics, Democrat or Republican. How much experience do you have along the Tex/Mex border? Let me guess...none? American xenophobia?..."

Well Marija, thank you for finally being honest in that you were parroting your professor. Emily was correct after all.

I also think the perspective you are being taught on Latinos living in the US is hyped nonsense. This does not surprise me given where Europe generally falls on the political spectrum with respect to America. Europe should probably look at its own Muslim immigration problem before attempting to psychoanalyze the U.S. problem with illegal immigration. And by the way I have lived in Europe as well and am therefore familiar with the various "gastarbeiter" programs and the angst created there in the various countries. Being from Croatia yourself, I am sure you are well aware of your own country's ethnic strife problems.

The issues you cite are more with regards to illegal immigrants, not "Latinos" per se. If you looked at my profile, you would notice I am Latino. Furthermore, having lived in California and now in Texas, I find the descriptions you have been fed laughable.

In any case, the book was not about some psychosis, real or perceived, that the US has with Mexico, Mexicans, or other Latinos. The book is a novelized approach of describing what is actually happening along the Tex/Mex border. While the assassin's character is extreme, there are indeed assassins at work on both sides of the border engaging in such behavior. Lost stashes of money are a regular occurrence, and so are the attempts of recovery. The author did a good job of bringing the border issues to the attention of the rest of America by writing this book. That was probably his only intent other than just to write a novel. If you have read his border trilogy, those books also give a good description of border life in earlier years, and for many places on the Mexican side of the border people still live as back in those times. Smuggling is not new to this region. It has been going on since there was a border. In fact Fidel Castro picked up his US weapons in Ciudad Mier, right along the border, and then took them to Vera Cruz before sailing back to Cuba on a ship named "Granma." That same region is where guns were smuggled to feed the Mexican Revolution of 1910. In many ways what the author reported is business as usual, except there is more of a murder component today than in the earlier days.