![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
So. Has anyone here read NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN by Cormac McCarthy?
If so... can you explain to me what the fuck was the deal with the last 1/6th of that book?
I wanted to read it ever since I saw the kickass trailer for the upcoming movie, directed by the Coen brothers, starring Tommy Lee Jones, Josh Brolin, Woody Harrelson, and a potential role-of-a-lifetime for Javier Bardem.
That got me really excited, partially due to the prospect of a story involving a coin-flipping madman, but mainly because this looks like a real return to form for the Coens. I'm still firmly of the opinion that their greatest film was their very first, BLOOD SIMPLE, a film that deserves to be seen by absolutely everyone.
I honestly didn't care for O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU?, but I suppose I'll give it another chance at some point. INTOLERABLE CRUELTY felt like shiny, clean, soullness cynicism, and I couldn't even bring myself to see THE LADYKILLERS (and not just because it's a remake; the original wasn't very good either). NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, based on that trailer alone, immediately brought back memories of the Coens who made BLOOD SIMPLE and MILLER'S CROSSING. So hell, I thought, I gotta read the book.
Let me just say that, for 5/6th of the whole thing, I was loving this book like hell. Hard boiled Texas noir, beautifully narrated and packed with great characters. Especially Anton Chigurh (pronounced like "sugar"), who has the makings of being a new Hannibal Lecter.
And then the last 1/6th kicked in.
Please. Has anyone, ANYONE else read this book? Can you please explain to me why, artistically, the book turned into... *that*?! Because I'm sure there's an artistic reason. There has to be. The book's whole purpose can't just be to exist as a soul-crushing, pointless, deeply cynical and nihilistic exercise in frustration, can it?!
Problem is, I can believe it could. We live in a day and age where such things are considered art. God DAMN it, it's another reason why I'd never fit in with the literary world. Few things piss me off (indeed, hurt me) quite like a great book with a shitty ending. To this day, I have never forgiven THE HOUSE OF SAND AND FOG for breaking my heart in such a cheap, pointless, forced-tragedy way.
But I can't even begin to complain or discuss this until someone explains to me what the hell the ending meant, why the book chose to resolve (or not resolve) things the way they did. I mean, God! I loved Chigurh: a scary-ass badass motherfucker through and through... but by the time we reached the last 1/6th, I just yelled out loud, "Jesus fuck, people, can someone please kill this son of a bitch and shut him up already?!?!?!"
I'm still looking forward to the Coen's film version. Especially to see what they do with that "resolution." I want to see if it'll clear things up for me. Or if they'll change it altogether. In the meantime... I'm begging you, my f-list, please explain what the hell the deal is with NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN.
If so... can you explain to me what the fuck was the deal with the last 1/6th of that book?
I wanted to read it ever since I saw the kickass trailer for the upcoming movie, directed by the Coen brothers, starring Tommy Lee Jones, Josh Brolin, Woody Harrelson, and a potential role-of-a-lifetime for Javier Bardem.
That got me really excited, partially due to the prospect of a story involving a coin-flipping madman, but mainly because this looks like a real return to form for the Coens. I'm still firmly of the opinion that their greatest film was their very first, BLOOD SIMPLE, a film that deserves to be seen by absolutely everyone.
I honestly didn't care for O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU?, but I suppose I'll give it another chance at some point. INTOLERABLE CRUELTY felt like shiny, clean, soullness cynicism, and I couldn't even bring myself to see THE LADYKILLERS (and not just because it's a remake; the original wasn't very good either). NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, based on that trailer alone, immediately brought back memories of the Coens who made BLOOD SIMPLE and MILLER'S CROSSING. So hell, I thought, I gotta read the book.
Let me just say that, for 5/6th of the whole thing, I was loving this book like hell. Hard boiled Texas noir, beautifully narrated and packed with great characters. Especially Anton Chigurh (pronounced like "sugar"), who has the makings of being a new Hannibal Lecter.
And then the last 1/6th kicked in.
Please. Has anyone, ANYONE else read this book? Can you please explain to me why, artistically, the book turned into... *that*?! Because I'm sure there's an artistic reason. There has to be. The book's whole purpose can't just be to exist as a soul-crushing, pointless, deeply cynical and nihilistic exercise in frustration, can it?!
Problem is, I can believe it could. We live in a day and age where such things are considered art. God DAMN it, it's another reason why I'd never fit in with the literary world. Few things piss me off (indeed, hurt me) quite like a great book with a shitty ending. To this day, I have never forgiven THE HOUSE OF SAND AND FOG for breaking my heart in such a cheap, pointless, forced-tragedy way.
But I can't even begin to complain or discuss this until someone explains to me what the hell the ending meant, why the book chose to resolve (or not resolve) things the way they did. I mean, God! I loved Chigurh: a scary-ass badass motherfucker through and through... but by the time we reached the last 1/6th, I just yelled out loud, "Jesus fuck, people, can someone please kill this son of a bitch and shut him up already?!?!?!"
I'm still looking forward to the Coen's film version. Especially to see what they do with that "resolution." I want to see if it'll clear things up for me. Or if they'll change it altogether. In the meantime... I'm begging you, my f-list, please explain what the hell the deal is with NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN.
