[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 1.08 MB, 1278x1204, sugar.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19676742 No.19676742 [Reply] [Original]

>Bloom writes, "I was not one of the admirers of No Country For Old Men, which I found strained and the brutality coming through it all so… Nothing really mitigated it. The negative protagonist has none of the legitimacy or grandeur that Judge Holden has."
is he right?

>> No.19676749

Embarrassing.

>> No.19677803

Mccarthybros...

>> No.19677832

>>19676742
>The negative protagonist
Faggot academic way of saying antagonist?

>> No.19678337

>>19677832
Seems to be

>> No.19678342

>>19676742

who cares?

>> No.19678366

>>19676742
>which I found strained and the brutality coming through it all so… Nothing really mitigated it.
What does this mean

>> No.19678382

>>19677832
retard

>>19678337
retard

>> No.19678396
File: 28 KB, 619x453, cc1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19678396

>>19678366
Too mean, makes me feel bad :,(

>> No.19680095

>>19676742
I think so, to be honest, I found Suttree and Blood Meridian to be excellent. Child of God is good too, but the Border Trilogy is just okay and everything after that seems better as a film than a book

>> No.19680111

>>19677832
He’s referring to Moss as being the false protagonist and Bell being the true one

>> No.19680133

>>19676742
Absolutely overrated writer

>> No.19680156

>>19680111
I'm dumb and I didn't read Blood Meridan but isn't Judge Holden the bad guy so he would be comparing Anton to Judge Holden

>> No.19680181

>>19676742
Bloom fantasizes every night about being in the outhouse when The Judge barges in.

>> No.19680188

>>19680133
Overrated poster.

>> No.19680209

>>19680133
He isn't for brainlets.

>> No.19680826

>>19677832
>>19678337
Funny if true.

>> No.19680991

>>19680095
The road is better than child of god

>> No.19681103

>>19676742
>he doesn't realize Chigur is a blood descendant of Judge Holden within the McCarthy Literary Universe, and a more sinister form of evil adapted to the 20th century.
>>19680111
No, he's referring to Chigur being an evil protagonist.

>> No.19681412

>>19676742
The movie is ridiculously overrated.

>> No.19681626

>>19677832
It's like antihero but he doesn't want to call Chigurh a hero.

>> No.19682465

>>19681412
lol no, it's excellent

>> No.19682470

>>19680181
seriously though what did he mean by this

>> No.19682574

The negative protagonist of No Country is not meant to be a human being, or even really a psychopath, he's an anthropormophised (or more appropriately, simply 'animated,' as he lacks basic humanity) representation of the cruelty of the world. This is like complaining that the world itself is on fire and offers no hope for the characters of The Road.
Bloom seems primed to miss the point of any work that does not repeat the humanistic values of the Western Canon.

>> No.19682662

>>19676742
I think NCFOM suffers by being written by McCarthy. Some nobody writes that book today, we probably consider it pretty good. Either way it was good entertainment, but it felt like a movie script. I think it was McCarthy’s version of going mainstream. He’s always towed the line to some extent

>> No.19683020

>>19682662
Didn’t he write the novel with the intention of it being a movie eventually?

>> No.19683038

>>19682662
>>19683020
I think he wrote it as a script first, but no one wanted it, so he rewrote it as a novel. Never read the novel, but the movie is fantastic.

>> No.19683152

>>19683038

I’ve never seen a movie that is more faithful to a book but I saw the movie first so that probably had a big influence on my perception. A lot of the cinematic choices like using lots of stationary shots and having no incidental music mirror the sparseness of the writing. The book feels like it was translated into a film, the mood of both works are almost identical.

Its one of McCarthy’s minimalist pieces, super easy and quick read, worth reading just to see what a flawless adaptation looks like imo.

>> No.19683591

>>19677832
MC is always the "protagonist." Chigurr is irredeemable so he can't be called an antihero.
>t. has only seen the film (which I didn't like and thought was overrated)

>> No.19683949

FRIENDO

>> No.19684604

>>19683591
why didnt you like it?

>> No.19684616

>>19683949
pass the benzo u fucking nigger

>> No.19684632

>>19683038
>>19683152
It’s basically a potboiler with the typical McCarthy themes, albeit watered down. A lot of literary writers have one of those in their oeuvre so I don’t consider it a bad thing like some; it’s fun, quick and easy to read. McCarthy seems to have a pretty high batting average as pretty much every book of the handful I’ve read of his has been worthwhile

>> No.19684672

>>19676742
>"I was not one of the admirers of No Country for Old Men"
>Is he right?

Unless if he's lying about not being an admirer, then yeah he's right.

With that said, the man's a faggot, because Chigger is not meant to be "legitimate" or "grand", he's an enigma, almost a ghost, and you question whether he's a single person or the embodiment of a mentality of people. To me he symbolises the degradation of society, and whether society (Chigur) is actually getting worse, or if we're just getting older and we are less innocent now. I disliked no country only for the hitchhiker at the end of the book, I guess McFarty was trying to be a moralfag and hint that Moss' indulging of temptation lead to his death, but it felt forced and unnecessary.

I'd say Chigur is more memorable a 'villain' than the judge, because he seems to obey some kind of logical/practical set of rules, rather than just being a self-inserted Mary Sue who rapes children because he's so evil and twisted >>:P

>> No.19685091

>>19684672
>To me he symbolises the degradation of society, and whether society (Chigur) is actually getting worse, or if we're just getting older and we are less innocent now.
Your post gives the impression you are retarded, but that there is hard evidence. Chigurh is not the new type of killer Bell was complaining about. He is the oldest kind. He follows a code according to which he acts. His beliefs don't follow any modern ideology or le randomness (which was what Bell kept complaining about). Agency in chance is the bedrock of almost all organized religions; Chigurh follows this code, the code that predates modern civilization. His psychopathy is most evident in his relegation of matters of life-death to a coin flip. For Chigurh, the coin flip is not random because grave matters rest on it; the most evident aspect of his psychopathy is his delusion that he's God's Judicator. He justifies his violence with this. The final accident was not McCarthy being a moral fag, he was just breaking the delusion both for the reader/watcher and Chigurh. That he is just another man, except with an eccentric coin dogmatism. This is about as heavyhanded and obvious McCarthy gets across his body of work. If you couldn't figure this out, then...

>> No.19685115

Negative protagonist is right. The judge and Chigurh are the agents in their books, the only guys with a plan

>> No.19685456

>>19685091
Your first sentence doesn't make sense.

>He is the oldest kind [of killer]
No he's not; I don't ever recall it being much of a fashion to put someone's life up to a coin toss. There's even a point in the book where Chigurh says to a character (I think Carla Jean), something along the lines of: "Your mistake was assuming someone like me couldn't exist". In some ways, CJ represents the naivety of the reader, in other ways Chigurh represents something we've not wholly seen. I know that your interpretation is wrong because Bell even says he can't make sense of [Chigurh's actions] in the novel.

>The final accident was not McCarthy being a moral fag
I never said it was, retard. Learn to read and come back to me. (I was talking about Moss' death, after picking up the hitchhiker)

I will say that the final accident does represent something other than what you think. The final accident came about only after Chigurh potentially went back on his word. He gave his word to Moss that he would kill Carla Jean if the money wasn't delivered to him, and for a moment there he faltered and almost let Carla Jean live. The accident occurred because he let his guard down, albeit momentarily. I would say that because of this, Chigurh is a man possessed by something evil, and that no matter how depraved someone is, there's a possibility that you can, even for a moment, redeem them ever so slightly. That is, the potential for Chigurh to die only arises when he ceases to be the cool calculating machine that he is, and instead decides to think empathetically, illogically, and go against what he had already said.

>> No.19685664

>>19685456
>I don't ever recall it being much of a fashion to put someone's life up to a coin toss.
The coin toss is his religion. He believes in the old ways, in that whatever happens was chosen by God to happen. Hence, his belief in the coin's judgement. It is clearly a metaphor for religion in its most primitive form (the concept of God arose because man faced the need to make sense of an indifferent yet fatal universe; the coin is Chigurh's idol)
>I know that your interpretation is wrong because Bell even says he can't make sense of [Chigurh's actions] in the novel.
That was the whole point of the novel, you idiot. Bell spent the entirety of the time whining how the new world was too cruel and as an old man he couldn't make sense of it. Meanwhile the biggest threat in the novel is a man who follows the old ways (the oldest fanatical ways ftm) undermining Bell's pov. It was the entire point; that the world has been violent more less equally across the centuries. Bell's idea of Chigurh is naive, he never really knew the old world.
>The accident occurred because he let his guard down, albeit momentarily. I would say that because of this, Chigurh is a man possessed by something evil, and that no matter how depraved someone is, there's a possibility that you can, even for a moment, redeem them ever so slightly
Blehhh! I will give you the hitchhiker. I mistook that. But this one is shit. You are arguing on nothing here. There is absolutely nothing suggesting Chigurh was redeemable, nor that he was particularly bothered by his hesitation in killing CJM. If you have read the book, Chigurh manages to break CJ's spirit before killing her unlike the movie which cheapens the affair by excluding Chigurh's final monologue to Carla jean. Chigurh's strolls through the entire novel acting as self appointed dispenser of fate and his relative invincibilty up until the end enforces him as some sort of supernatural force. But then at the end he runs into an accident and we learn that God is as indifferent to him as he is to everything else.

>> No.19685783

>>19684672
>whether society (Chigur) is actually getting worse, or if we're just getting older and we are less innocent now
>>19685664
>that the world has been violent more less equally across the centuries. Bell's idea of Chigurh is naive, he never really knew the old world.

You're both saying the same thing

>> No.19685805

>>19684604
It was confusing, and the acting/directing was very awkward and stilted. I thought so anyways.

>> No.19686864

NCFOM isn't necessarily a liberal work, but it's deeply anti-conservative. Ed Tom is fooling himself; the world isn't going to shit, his own line is. He's weaker than his father and he knows it.

Reminds me of something EM Cioran said
>do we execrate the age, or all ages?
>do we imagine the Buddha rejecting the world because of his contemporaries?

>> No.19687425
File: 99 KB, 1280x720, 1632452231488.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19687425

CORMAC MCCARTHY PEAKED BEFORE WE WERE BOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRNNN

>> No.19688860

>>19680181
fucking kek

>> No.19688879

>>19681412
brainlet contrarian

>> No.19688899

>>19680181

the funniest things are the ones you never truly understand

>> No.19688940

>>19680181
lmao

>> No.19688999

>>19687425
Not quite. I have high hopes for the passanger and he's been working on it since like before the 2000s. plus the road was good

>> No.19689005

>>19688999
passenger this is embarrassing

>> No.19689157

>>19688999
lol there is no way that is coming out until he dies

>> No.19690765

>>19688999
boomer

>> No.19690937

>>19685664
An atheist? Opinion discarded.

>> No.19691037

>>19690765
>The road was published in 2006
>Anon is calling someone a boomer for being older than 16

You must be at least 18 years old to use this site.

>> No.19691066

>>019691037
I called (You) a boomer for being born pre-1985 and I stand by that assessment

>> No.19691733

>>19676742
so what is this guy like the ultimate badass

>> No.19692239

>19691066 (You)
You didn't call me a boomer, you called the other guy a boomer. Nothing about his post says he was born pre-1985, since the passenger hasn't been released yet, so the oldest book he's mentioned was the Road, which should be younger than all of us. Clearly it's not younger than you, because you're underage.