No Country for Old Men

I think I like this book. I can’t be 100% certain, though. I can’t put my finger on the reasons I really really like the book nor pinpoint the reason I hated it. I can tell you quotations that I enjoyed or tell you it was a book that wasn’t very nail biting. It seems that for every good thing about the book, there’s a bad thing. This blog post isn’t really going to be telling you which one outweighs the other. Rather, it’s going to be a post, in part, about me trying to figure out which one outweighs the other.
The review on the back of the book claims that Cormac McCarthy dissects the crime novel. What constitutes a crime novel? James Patterson, Tami Hoag? I’ve read them both, among others in that genre. However, NCFOM seems to be more along the lines of a western. I really wasn’t able to place the time period very well because it takes place in the rural southwest. Near the end of the book it seemed to be a few decades back, but before that, I thought it to be more recent. You know, just more, kind of, backwoods-esq—kind of a In Cold Blood meets Brokeback Mountain. (After reading the whole book, I can only say that it takes place between the 80’s and now. If I sat down and cared enough tho think about it, I’m sure I could narrow it down more given the age of the characters and which one’s were in which war, but I don’t feel like it. Let me know, though, if you know.)
Was this a sort of crime novel meets literary genius? Maybe. That is to say that people like James Patterson just shit out books left and right for money and commercialism. I’m so up in the air about that one little saying about dissecting a crime novel. What was there to take apart? There was a lot of dissecting for me, but it was more along the lines of characterization and the rural/country mindsets. Maybe I just focused more upon that than the actually crime part. It seems to me that writing a crime novel wouldn’t really take literary skill as much as technical know how of the crime genre (whether it be film, movie, etc.). However, with McCarthy’s characterization, the novel takes on a whole new meaning (but, to me, not as a crime novel).

**I feel as though I keep running around in circles. Much of that is because I am a little confused about the novel. Please be patient with this blog post. It might be one of the most confusing yet. But, like I’ve said, I’m writing this in hopes of figuring out how I feel about the novel.

Side note (I think): I don’t see how they could have made this into an interesting film. The most interesting parts (again, maybe because it was more of the literary skill of characterization), were the conversations between the “simple folk.” It was so “weird” (for lack of a better word) to see (what most would stereotype as dumb or slow cowboy types) take what most people philosophize about and make it so simple. By simple, I don’t mean stupid, I mean simple. It really is just that simple. Period.
About being made into a movie, the crime/action parts were, well, simple. By simple, I mean dumb. Sure it was interesting to read about someone getting killed by a cow tazer thingy, and I’m sure there were lots and lots of blood. But Braveheart has a lot of blood, too. And The Departed had a lot of killing (the end in the elevator—that was an “oh shit” moment). So what’s so different this time? I don’t know, maybe I’ll just have to rent the movie.

OK, the above posted is from before I read the last couple chapters of the book, I am now finished. I must say, I really did like this book. I want to share my favorite quotation. “Suppose you was someplace that you didnt know where it was. The real thing you wouldnt know was where someplace else was. Or how far it was. It wouldnt change nothing about where you was at. She thought about that. I try not to think about stuff like that, she said. you think when you get to California you’ll kind of start over. Them’s my intentions. I think maybe that’s the point. ther’s a road goin to California and there’s one comin back. But the best way would be just to show up there. show up there. yeah. You mean and not know how you got there? Yeah. And not know how you got there. I dont know how you’d do that. I dont know either. That’s the point. She looked at him. I guess I aint sure what the pint is, she said. The point is there aint no point. No. I mean what you said. About knowin where you are. He looked at her. After a while he said: It’s not about knowin where you are. It’s about thinking you got there without takin anything with you. Your notions about startin over. Or anybody’s. You dont start over. That’s what it’s about. Ever step you take is forever. You cant make it go away. none of it. you understand what I’m sayin? I think so. I know you don’t but let me try it one more time. You think when you wake up in the morning yesterday dont count. But yesterday is all that does count. What else is there? Your life is made out of the days it’s made out of. Nothin else. You might think you could run away and change your name and I don’t know what all. Start over. And then one mornin you wake up and look at the ceilin and guess who’s layin there?”

The title of the book, really, doesn’t come into play until the end of the book, which isn’t a complaint; however, much of the good parts of the book (and I’m not talking plot-wise) come at the end. I think that is why I wasn’t sure if I like the book until I got through all of it.