No Country for Old Men by Cormac McCarthy

"You never know what worse luck your bad luck has saved you from."
— Cormac McCarthy (No Country for Old Men)

I always find it very interesting when authors are able to juxtapose different types of narration within novels. It is a very difficult technique to master and it can very easily fall flat. This book accomplishes this technique very successfully. There is no single narrator of the story. At some points, the narrator is the sheriff. At other times, there is an omniscient narrator that can see into the minds of all characters, good and bad. All of the action of the story is contained within the omniscient narration. But the "real" story (in my opinion) lies within the personal narration of the sheriff. These short, almost vignette-like, glimpses into the sheriff's mind appear throughout the book. They break up the real time action that occurs through the novel. This book is incredibly gruesome and these pauses for reflection that are offered by the sheriff are necessary to keep the reader from becoming immune to the violence. They really are the beauty of the book.

First, I want to make note of the limited amount of female characters within the book. In The Road there were basically none (a few glimpses, and arguably one female appears with a voice at the very end) In this story we see the Sheriff's wife (who is spoken about often and very highly by the sheriff), the hitchhiking girl, and Moss's wife. None of the girls appear to be too stereotypical, although none are too rounded either. Just an observation... I cannot speculate on the meaning behind it.

Now, on to the notion of luck with in this novel. I am compelled to draw a parallel between the Sheriff (Bell) and Anton Chigurh. In one of the first scenes, Anton enters a store and flips a coin to decide if he is going to kill the clerk or not. He refers to this coin periodically throughout the novel to make decisions. Bell never learns about this yet he refers to a toss of a coin toward the very end. With the toss of a coin, could Bell have been Anton? Is it luck or chance that creates a person? Bell struggles with these questions throughout.

I love in novels when the read can catch a glimpse of the author. In The Road this most likely happened more. BUT... in this interview with Mr. McCarthy, he touches upon the notion of luck and how he considers him to be the luckiest of us all. (Website: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704576204574529703577274572.html) Humm, it really make you wonder...

One of the most significant scenes is between Bell and his uncle. Bell confesses his deep dark war secret to his uncle and tells him he is going to quit his job. He has come up against something he cannot beat. He has come up against pure evil. He is dismayed that this type of evil exists, but admits that he may have some of that evil in himself (because of his actions during the war). He claims he is lucky to have such a wonderful wife. It is her who he attributes his goodness to. Is he right? Could he have been Anton without her? What do you think?

The Road by Cormac McCarthy

"How does the never to be differ from what never was?"
— Cormac McCarthy (The Road)

I am hooked. The Road was the first book by Cormac McCarthy that I have read, and the first book that I have read basically cover to cover in as long as I can remember. Not being used to his eccentric use of language, the first fifty pages or so took me some time to get through. I was forced to reread, and then re-reread, several passages. Once I got used to McCarthy's sporadic and often lacking use of punctuation as well as his tendency to never specifically identify who is speaking in dialogue, I was hooked. Why have I been wasting so much time creating over-the-top, way-too-detailed dialogue descriptions in my writing? Why have I been obsessing over commas and periods, capitalization and possessive pronouns? Mr. McCarthy has just thrown those rules out the window! So why can't I? Oh, yeah. That's right... it's because he is a MASTER OF LANGUAGE. And you can tell from page one.

This is a must read post-apocalyptic drama that never describes the actual Apocalypse. The reader never learns how the world became the gray ashen lands as it now exists. The human eating "bad guys" are seen, but very vaguely described. As father and son trudge through the beyond bleak lands heading south, the reader is not inundated with tales of the past or thought of the future. The reader thinks and feels exactly as the father and son: of the hear and now. After finishing the book and being left with almost no answers to the who, what, when, where, why and how, one would assume a reader would be left hungry. The only thing I am left hungry for is more. The most powerful thing about McCarthy's writing in The Road is the images his writing conjures. At one point, the father and son stumble upon an abandoned house and pry open a locked door to a cellar. As they walk down the stairs, they see a man laying, eaten from the waste down but still alive, laying on a mattress. The cellar is full of naked humans trying to hide against the walls. They hear the "bad guys" coming across the lawn and the father and son are forced to flee. Hiding in the woods, they hear the humans being killed and eaten. This scene will haunt me for the rest of my life. It was one of the most visual scenes I have ever come across in written language. Grotesque, and strangely beautiful.

The one question I am left with is what biblical, if any, symbolism did this book contain? This is all personal, but there is certain language in the book that is typically Jewish (tokus) and I wonder if the boy is to represent the coming of the next Messiah. The ONLY light imagery within the novel surrounds the young boy. I won't talk about the very end, but it basically solidifies the religious tones within the story, but does not answer any specific questions. The boy carries the fire. What, pray you, is the fire?

Please, Mr. McCarthy, write a sequel.