Talk:No Country for Old Men (novel)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

This sentence appears to me to be POV/Original Research: McCarthy's prose is engaging if not downright addictive and as such is easily consumed.

I've pulled it for now, but would happy to see it go back in as a quote from a review or some such. --Dvyost 06:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cormac McCarthy NoCountryForOldMen.jpg

Image:Cormac McCarthy NoCountryForOldMen.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrong link for William J. Cobb

Wrong link for William J. Cobb:

The link for william J. Cobb here does not take one to the right William J. Cobb:

Literary significance and criticism

William J. Cobb, in a review published in the Houston Chronicle (July 15, 2005),

suggest that the link be removed, as there does not seem to be a wikipedia entry for the correct william j. cobb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.176.115 (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cormac McCarthy NoCountryForOldMen.jpg

Image:Cormac McCarthy NoCountryForOldMen.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Title

I don't think it's likely that the title is BOTH a reference to the Yeats poem and a J. M. Coetzee novel from six years earlier with similiar themes. I mean, given the fact that "...no country for old men" is a direct quote from the Yeats poem and, only the Yeats thing should be mentioned because it's closer to a "fact" and less likely a coincidence.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.223.14 (talk) 01:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Plot point?

The recent addition of the type of gun that a character uses seems to have been added just for shock value. The plot description at the moment is very short and the clarification of the gun does not seem significant plot wise. I have left it in for the moment but an expansion of the plot description would probably be necessary to justify such details being added. Ferengi 04:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The unusual type of gun was needed in the film not for the purpose of advancing the plot and not for shock value but to emphasize a certain philosophical point, namely: the incomprehensible nature of evil.66.65.129.159 (talk) 04:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

"Foreshadowing"...?

What is this? Badly written, irrelevant, and spoiler-filled. Yay? 98.16.131.141 (talk) 05:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

"Main Protagonist?"

I'm sorry, but I would argue that Llewelyn Moss is NOT the main character of NCFOM. That's a misunderstanding that has led many people to confusion when reading the book and watching the movie. I'm not for saying that Ed Tom is the main character either, but Llewelyn is most certainly not himself the main character. - EllisWords 11/24/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by EllisWords (talk • contribs) 21:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Redirect

Would it be possible to make the search No Country for Old Men redirect to a disambiguation that includes both the movie and the novel? --Nick4404 yada yada yada 03:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Redirection to Film

unless anyone cares to argue that the novel is more culturally relevant than the film, i suggest we direct "no country for old men" to the film with a link to the novel atop.

--Harlequence (talk) 11:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC) fuck

Time Period

The movie was set in 1980, but I don't think the book is. There is a "that's what she said joke", and the flap says "set in our own time."

Also, many of the weapons specifically mentioned, such as Heckler & Koch short barreled submachine gun, weren't available at that time.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.17.189 (talk) 23:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a fairly strong clue in the book that it is set in 1980. The coin that Chigurh flips for the gas station attendant on page 56 is dated 1958 and he says that "It's been traveling twenty-two years". If this is the case it would seem there are some anachronisms like the mobile phone that is in the novel but not in the movie.Nsmith999 (talk) 01:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Neither the book nor the film could possibly be strictly contemporary (2005), as Sheriff Bell is a WWII vet about to retire. The date on the quarter isn't a "clue" -- it's McCarthy's way of telling any reader who knows how to add (of which there are fewer and fewer) the date of the story, without having to clumsily state it. There is no question about when the story is set. As for "set in our time"... I'm 62, and certainly consider 1980 part of my own time.

I don't remember a mobile phone in the novel, but portable mobile phones (such as the huge unit carried by The Dude in The Big Lebowski existed prior to 1980, though they were hardly common. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 14:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I must admit I got a chuckle at the "Controversy" section when I thought of all the kids who would have botched book reports, but I am pretty sure it is a prank. Cormac likely wouldn't make a mistake like a cell phone. A citation should be provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.96.146 (talk) 00:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm just reading the book and the part with the mobile phone stumped me, too. In chapter VI, just after Cigurh kills Wells: "While he was standing there [in the parking lot] Wells' phone rang. He fished the phone from his pocket and pushed the button and put it to his ear." In the movie it's a land-line phone in the hotel room, but in the novel it sounds much more like a modern mobile phone. Even the first mobile phones were much too big to be carried in your pocket. — Preceding

Is there metaphors

Is there good metaphors i can use in the book —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.62.231.205 (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Plot Summary False as Written

-Moss returned to give water to the dying man, not to kill him (he was going to die on his own). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.172.242.153 (talk) 02:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The plot revolves around the protagonist's return to the scene (unmentioned here). This is the central, and controversially uninterpreted decision of the central character from which all else flows, and the reason he could be trailed for the rest of the film. Whether the last survivor he encountered lived to see anyone else is never known, and very likely wholly inconsequential in every respect. That isn't even a plot point, much less the central plot point as alleged here. Granted, it is possible to imagine that our protagonist returned to kill this witness after sleeping on it, but I've yet to meet anyone who has interpreted the book in this way, actually.

The other most noteworthy fact about the plot, and book, is that the author dares to have the central event (the protagonist's death) occur offstage, violating all narrative convention (although respecting how the deaths of those we care about usually impact our lives) simply outraging many readers (most notably Aristotle). This wee fact about the plot also goes unmentioned here.

The most notable consequences of the protagonist's decisions -- the death of his wife, and his killing of a bystander, also go unmentioned!

"Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.244.96 (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you raised the point about why Moss returns to the scene. The book goes like this:

Where are you goin, baby?

Somethin I forgot to do. I'll be back.

What are you goin to do?

He opened the drawer and took the .45 out and ejected the clip

and checked it and put it back and put the pistol in his belt.

He turned and looked at her.

I'm fixin to go do somethin dumbern hell but I'm goin anyway...

Given the way McCarthy writes this -- Moss takes the weapon he found at the scene -- the logical conclusion is that he's going back to kill the wounded man, who might conceivably describe him to whomever inevitably comes looking. (You don't really think he's going to grab a few bricks of heroin, do you?) Neither the book nor the film explicitly spell this out. Watching the movie, your reaction to his discovering the survivor is "Kill him, kill him, kill him, you fool." His error of judgment -- that the nearly dead survivor has not died, and he'll talk -- is indeed what drives the plot. Without it, Chiguhr would be cruising all over the county searching for the transponder. Moss "needs" to abandon his truck, so that Chiguhr can use the door plate to locate him, and Moss's foolishness in returning at exactly the wrong moment provides the opportunity.

As for the transponder... There's a major plot problem with it. Its output is likely no more than 100mW, which means its practical range is under a mile (and likely much less, given the short antennas). As it probably works at VHF, the signal would be easily blocked by conductive surfaces, rather than diffracting around them (as lower frequencies would). In short, Chiguhr would have trouble detecting it from the highway, even if it were merely sitting on the motel room's floor. But it's in the air conditioning duct, where it would be shielded. And the interrogation unit is sitting on the car's front seat, where the signal can be blocked by the metal door. (I'm a degreed EE and licensed Amateur. If someone has more information about the capabilities of transponders available in 1980, please let me know.)

At the risk of offending Cormac McCarthy, it's obvious that he knows a lot about guns, but not much about electronics. Of course, had he been given a good editor, she would have caught this. (I consider "good" an adjective that can only rarely be applied to "editor".) The editor also missed the fact that, although McCarthy names the make and model of nearly every weapon, he does not name the make or model of the camera Wells uses. In a book overflowing with often-unnecessary detail, this sticks out.

Another point... No Country for Old Men is no more a thriller than (as Lex Luthor puts it) "War and Peace is a simple war story". The plot is a framework for McCarthy's meditations on social changes since the end of WWII. This article might profitably explore the novel's deeper issues -- particularly the "apocalyptic moral judgments" that Harold Bloom so objects to. One of these -- arguably the principal one -- is that America is choking to death on its grotesque materialism. McCarthy makes this perfectly clear, in the passage where Bell asks someone whether they know who Mammon is.

And just to make it clear... For all its faults, this is one of the best novels I've ever read. I cannot recommend it highly enough. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 14:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

the logical conclusion is that he's going back to kill the wounded man

No it's not. The logical conclusion is that he's going back to succour the wounded man with a drink of water, taking with him a gun less unwieldy than his rifle to defend himself in case the owners of the drugs or money turn up.

If he were going back simply to kill him, why take the water?

It's also inconsistent with the way Moss is presented: he is not shown killing anybody in the rest of the book. Others are shown killing carelessly, such as the Mexicans whose stray shot kills the old woman, and Chigurh is shown killing relentlessly (aside from the two boys at the end, he kills or contemplates killing almost everyone he encounters) - a total of 13 people by my count. The circumstances in which one takes another's life seem to me be defining of the various characters' humanity. I think it quite unlikely, even without the water point, that Moss would have gone back and killed the driver out of hand. Tirailleur (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Plot Expansion

I do believe that a longer plot is necessary. The book is very complicated with several "main" characters following different paths and several underlying, figurative messages. The current plot is too short and somewhat confusing. A huge chunk of the book is left out, and instead it just skips directly to Llewyn's shootout. I understand a plot should be basic plot points, but the plot shouldn't just leave things out and replace them with a "cat and mouse chase that happens throughout the rest of the book." That's unclear. And to your point where the plot is too long, things like the "stungun" and many other unimportant details could be taken out to shorten it. If you're going to claim a plot is too long and should only be basic points, then a lot of the details in the summary can be removed too.

If anything, I definitely think the cast should be mentioned in the film section. It gives a bit more information and provides readers an idea of what the characters look like in the film. Also, many people watch movies based on their cast, so I feel it should be included. QuestionWhy (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Should the disambig header link to the poem?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I always found the opening line of Yeats's poem more memorable than the title, and for folks like me who know the poem a lot better than the book or film, this article showing up on a search is a bit of a surprise. But I'm really not sure, so I'm come here rather than making the change unilaterally. Thoughts? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I am an idiot

I screwed up my own "bold" move and I am unable to move it back. Derp. I've made a request at technical move requests to undo my dumb move so this will be back to normal shortly. Brycehughes (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Short story titled "No Country For Old Men" (1967)

I think a disambiguation should be made — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.45.177.95 (talk) 02:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)