Following the path of reading novels (which we don’t necessarily intend to make a habit of) begun with #62, we have now recorded our discussion of No Country for Old Men
We primarily discussed the philosophies as represented by the various characters, specifically the contrast between the WWII generation (Sheriff Bell, who provides interstitial first-person commentary throughout the book, though he’s hardly involved in the action at all) and the Viet Nam Vets (both the protagonist Moss, who was a sniper but now displays a respect for life even with regard to criminals and the villain Chigurh, who sees himself as an agent of destiny and does not tolerate his enemies to live). Is the book, as Bell’s commentary suggests, just a complaint against the lack of morality among the young generation, which, through their appetite for drugs, enables the novel’s violent conflicts? The Viet Nam vets, though, display self-created principles instead of traditional religious ones, and we drew points of comparison (some of which McCarthy was surely aware of) to Nietzsche, Kant and Sartre.
We also spent some time talking about the advantages and disadvantages of the novel format for doing philosophy. On the up side, you can be very particular about circumstances, so, for instance, moral dilemmas can be much more compelling then in the case of philosophy class thought experiments. On the down side, that very particularity makes it difficult to actually get philosophical generalizations out of the particular cases. In fact, a non-typical case can be presented (and may even reflect the facts of some real-world event) as an object lesson; it’s very easy for novels to be used as propaganda for some position already decided beforehand. Good philosophical novels, though, tend to take advantage of the ability to present philosophies through characters’ words and actions and allow us to explore ideas and ways of life through them. Much like in comedy and irony, in a novel, the author can present a position that he needn’t himself be committed to, or have made his mind up about, or even to have fully worked out. Novels primarily serve in philosophy to pose questions rather than to provide definitive answers to them.
Buy the book.
Eric Petrie’s excellent paper has not yet been published, so we can’t release it publicly, but within a few weeks we plan to open a members-only section of this site that will allow folks that sign up to get it as well as some other free stuff. Keep an eye on this blog for details.
Note that the episode is full of plot spoilers. For maximum enjoyment, go see the movie before listening. If you do that, the book will still be enjoyable, but there are some plot turns that are perhaps not best given away by our analysis, and you may get a bit lost as we discuss several characters if you’ve had no exposure to the book or movie at all.
Comac McCarthy? Of all the great novels to read by great novelists, you pick something by this blowhard? Check out Reader’s Manifesto. There’s a chapter on McCarthy. Here’s the link:
http://www.amazon.com/Readers-Manifesto-Pretentiousness-American-Literary/dp/0971865906/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1345687505&sr=1-1&keywords=readers+manifesto
Why not Scarlet Letter or Moby Dick or The Trail or The Plague or Franklin’s autobiography or the Aeneid or even Fountainhead (as bad as Rand is, she is better then McCarthy).
Sigh
I don’t see why Cormac McCarthy falls under “pretentious American Prose.” I find many of his novels use plain language and short sentences. Just look at “The Road.” Anyone with grade 6 reading comprehension should understand that book. And as for “No Country for Old Men:” it was originally intended as a script, and is thus a very quick and easy read. It’s also a piece of genre fiction (crime).
Plus, I think this is a good novel to use because the movie has been seen by most people. For people like me, who are too busy for the readings, the upcoming podcast should be easier to follow than most.
Peace.
Noah, I brought up your “intended as a script” point during the discussion, and no one knew what I was talking about. Do you have a source for that? Thanks, -Mark
Moby Dick not pretentious? Are you serious?? It is one of the most elaborate, demanding, complex works by an American author ever written. Are you judging the books by their moral or cultural worth, or worse, their historical weight as a cultural “patriotic” artifact, or by the way they actually work or function on the page? Moby Dick was ignored as a mess until the 1920’s, whereupon it was rescued by “pretentious” academics who became preoccupied with that most “pretentious” subject of all, modernist aesthetics. It seems to me, your accusation of “pretentiousness” is a moveable feast, which in fact, it is. One’s “pretentious” book is another’s delight. And “The Fountainhead”? Really??
Rule: you can’t accuse someone of being a blowhard and then link to B.R. Myers, who is the epitome of a blowhard and simply wrong about McCarthy, who is an excellent novelist. (That said, read and enjoyed his manifesto a great deal, as i do any literary spleen-venting). Also, No Country is a very different novel from Blood Meridian — read the first few pages and give us your own critique of his prose style if you feel that strongly; we’re not in the habit of entertaining second-hand objections.
We picked McCarthy because he’s a contemporary novelist who we all happen to at least like (and I at least love) who has a philosophical edge. And because we have a guest for this episode who’s written on philosophy in No Country.
The Fountainhead is a maudlin piece of crap and it’s a pity you think something like that is better than McCarthy.
And for those interested in the Myers manifesto, you’ll find an article length version in the Atlantic Monthly here: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/07/a-readers-manifesto/302270/
I’d love it if you could use your discussion of No Country to talk about real, true evil.
I’ve often found myself, usually in the context of politics, but in philosophy as well, to be of the opinion that in most of our discourse “evil” doesn’t exist. To call a person or group evil usually seems like a shallow “us vs them” name calling- whenever one looks at the specifics, “evil” usually turns into something else. Sick, perhaps, or all too human, but never “evil”.
Philosophically speaking, there seem to be similar issues: I can’t imagine a psychological state where someone *wanted to do evil*. When we take action, we either act unthinkingly, or because we think some action will be roughly “best for us, all things considered”. Perhaps we are short sighted, or deluded, or overwhelmed by emotion, or we get our calculation wrong, and things turn out badly. But I think psychologically that doing evil- doing wrong for the sake of doing wrong- just makes no sense.
That said, real true metaphysical evil just seems to EXIST in McCarthy’s works! No Country, The Road and Blood Meridian just positively breath “evil exists”. How is this possible? Is evil really possible? Is this just some feat of literature? Fantasy evil never seems real- Sauron is a bad guy but is never scrutinized; Macbeth has his reason… Whats going on here?
Im excited to hear this episode, as always- keep up the good work.
Evan, sorry to report that evil does exist, though perhaps not as you fear. If you would like to observe a person of “evil” then they either need to have experienced serious nurture deficit: the Disorganized Attachment style, resulting in over 90% involvement with the criminal justice system, or serious nature deficit: paranoid schizophrenia, manic depression, etc. Evidence comes from those such as Charles Manson (both crazy and criminal) and most humans who experience extreme absence of human nurture, such as those raised in Romanian orphanages.
so disabled people are evil?
I believe that society inaccurately labels the disabled as evil when they murder.
who knew? http://journals.tdl.org/cormacmccarthy/index
I think the danger lies in using artistic works as illustrations of things already worked out in philosophy/theory as opposed to thinking thru what philosophical work these forms might afford us that other means don’t.
I expect that the latter (along with some of the controversy between philosophy and poetry) will loom large in our conversation.
very good, lots of interesting angles to poetry/rhetoric vs philo, the role of metaphors in philo, the place of speculation/invention in philo, and to build off the last podcast is fiction/art a “lie” or something else?
after a kind of oldmannish ramble J.Hillis Miller discusses his book on novels and the Holocaust:
http://newbooksincriticaltheory.com/2012/08/23/j-hillis-miller-the-conflagration-of-community-fiction-before-and-after-auschwitz-university-of-chicago-press-2011/
As a self-syled fiction writer/theorist with a background in analytic philosophy, I’m thrilled that PEL is doing a podcast like this. I think philosophers and philosophy would be rewarded by paying more attention to fiction. Looking forward.
McCarthy’s Blood Meridian easily qualifies as one of the single best works of American fiction published in the last 25 years (see New York Book Times Book Review). If you add No Country for Old Men, All the Pretty Horses, The Road, and the exquisite Sunset Limited, Cormack McCarthy has few equals in nihilistic literature. Faulkner is my favorite American author, and McCarthy often reminds me of his writing style. McCarthy’s philosophy is consistent, relentless and explosively demonstrated in every aspect of his writing, from his use of characters, plot, and landscape–all metaphors to portray his bleak and purely nihilistic philosophy of life.
Oops–replace nihilistic with existential.
I just saw a documentary on Richard Ramirez, the Night Stalker, whose calling card was to attack victims randomly, which reminded me of Chigurh (Dr. Death), who killed by the flip of a coin–randomly. Perhaps the human experience of a world being foundationally random, personally delivered by Dr. Death, is quintessential “evil.”
This is a great idea. I look forward to this podcast. Can you comment on the movie as well for those of us more familiar with the Coen brothers film.
I would love for the podcast to address post modern versus traditional. (Is that the right term?) I get the impression that many people feel if you “break the rules” of a genre than your story trumps others in the past who’ve followed the rules. For example: expecting a big show down at the end from the good and the bad guy. It doesn’t happen. Why is this good? Or purposely not showing the climactic scene of the protagonist. They don’t show the hotel scene? Pros and cons of this? What is the point besides breaking rules?
I’m personally turned off by this. Playing tennis without a net is boring. Playing tennis with the net and rules in place is much more exciting. So simply defying rules doesn’t make it a good story.
If you can briefly compare NCFOM with classics like “Touch of Evil” or “The Third Man”. Both of those films also deal with border crossing / boundary crossing of morality, etc.
I think we can see how different modern story telling has become. I think this fascination with simply breaking rules is boring. Who would be interested in that stuff but writers? Is it a good story for an audience?
I believe the Coen brothers majored in Wittgenstein which would also be relevant to the podcast.
Have you guys seen the Austrian film “Revanche” (2008)? This is a superior movie IMO and one of the best in recent years.
Hi, Dave,
Didn’t get your questions until after we recorded… we did end up talking some about the movie, in particular which crucial thematic parts it left out.
Mark,
Thanks for the response. I should have submitted my questions earlier.
You don’t need my questions, It sounds like this episode is going to kick ass. I like that you guys are taking risks and putting yourselves in a corner. Cormac McCarthy is so contemporary and new you can stumble and get in over you head. You guys are really walking the tight rope without a net on this one. (Maybe seek out Harold Bloom’s thoughts).
The safer bet would be: The Iliad, Oedipus Rex, Prometheus Bound, etc. Those works have numerous literary criticism that you can lean on and easily tie into Philosophy. But, you guys don’t take the easy route. Good job.
This newer work will probably be a lot more interesting and engaging. Good luck with the episode.
Let’s see what you guys can do. Mark, light it up kid. Release the Kraken.
Dave, Your fear that the guys are doing a precarious high-wire act is perhaps unfounded. It may become evident from the podcast that discussing a work of fiction philosophically is its own thing, and not an unschooled stab at literary criticism. Critics relate works of fiction to their concerns and philosophers relate them to theirs and these two sets of cares may have but a small intersection. I say this as a fan and avid reader of literary criticism who would like to see more in the way of purely philosophical consideration of fiction as well. The “Philosophy and …” series (such as Philosophy and The Simpsons) is a sort of pop-culture version of what I have in mind. To give a more precise example, a literary political philosopher or ethicist may have interesting things to say about what, say, Edith Wharton is concerned about philosophically in The Age of Innocence.
Paul,
I see what you’re saying and I look forward to the podcast. It already has my interest.
I’m just saying: Edith Wharton has stood the test of time, I’m confident that she can be analyzed. Cormac McCarthy seems to be experimenting with storytelling a bit too much for my taste. It might turn out to be “the emperor has no clothes”.
Experimental stuff like the poem “ode to a blank page” is clever and entertaining but when repeated by others it gets old quick. Better to write a solid poem and not a commentary on the “idea” of a poem. Is NCFOM simply pointing out the story beats of Hollywod Genre movies and then subverting them? What’s the point of that?
IMO, a safer modern bet would have been Umberto Eco or Jose Saramago. I have more confidence in them. I feel the PEL group can analyze anything and make it sound good. I don’t want the reviewers to raise the work by their insights and not because the material is great.
For example: the movie “Match point” had a lot to say about chance and randomness that really made me think. Chance can work for or against you — that’s the nature of chance.
NCFOM didn’t have that depth for me. When Chigurh gets in a random car accident near the end. I get that it’s random, but what is the writer saying? Then when a hit-man is hired to kill Chigurh and quickly gets killed. LOL. It’s unexpected and interesting, but I’m not sure what it means?
Hopefully, the podcast will clear up lots of issues I had with the story. Clearly, I didn’t “get it”. But I don’t feel the audience should have to extend so far to the artist. The writer should do some work and try to reach me.
This podcast sounds like fun though and might get me interested in watching the film again or maybe even reading the book. Kudos, for doing this, guys.
“It’s unexpected and interesting, but I’m not sure what it means?” is an interesting complaint,
what, if anything, do you make of the modern movements in the plastic arts or music or dance?
I’m not against contemporary art, but if I need a headset to explain a painting in front of me — something is wrong. The artist should extend a bit more to the audience.
I don’t think half the people watching NCFOM understand what it’s about.
From what I understood. The WW2 ranger was a cowboy who rode a horse and wore a white hat. He felt his kind was becoming extinct. The protagonist was a Vietnam sniper who had self imposed confused morals. Chigurh was about fate and randomness.
This is really “on the nose” writing.
It might be an interesting set up for a first act. But what about act two and three? The characters should engage each other. Stories are about conflict. When these dueling philosophies collide — what is the author saying about them?
Maybe I’ve seen too many movies and expect too much.
what if there are aspects of life that defy easy assimilation, are beyond our immediate grasp?
Dave, I see more clearly what you mean. Interesting points.
Will Self on writing a modernist novel:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01mf9qf/Arts_Extra_03_09_2012/
I’ve only seen the film, so there may be aspects of the novel that contradict my interpretation, but I don’t buy that McCarthy shares Bell’s view of the violence being a generational thing. it seems clear to me that Bell is intended to be a somewhat naive character, and it’s his brother, towards the end of the story with his “that’s vanity” speech, that (to a limited extent, at least) more closely resembles McCarthy’s own views. I think this is backed up by the fact that McCarthy has written stories about gruesome violence taking place in the past, present, and even the future, and from the two works of his I’m familiar with, I get the sense that the idea of violence as a trans-historical component of human nature that will always be with us is completely central to his work. he even starts Blood Meridian with a quote from an article about a 300,000-year-old skull found in Ethiopia showing evidence of having been scalped.
Right on.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2012/08/10/was-james-joyce-the-greatest-mind-scientist-ever/
I’m looking forward this, I really loved the movie adaptations. Cormac makes me think of fate, choices and the ending of NCFOM to me is a huge compassionate metaphor for following the foots steps of others that went before, such as dying.
And in
the dream I knew that he was goin on
ahead and that he was fixin to make a
fire somewhere out there in all that
dark and all that cold, and I knew
that whenever I got there he would be
there. Out there up ahead.
The book says, instead of “Out there up ahead,” “And then I woke up.” Clearly the movie is trying to inject hope in place of McCarthy’s nihilism.
FUCK! Reality! Ty, I hate that hollywood shite. I’ve been duped again by the old moving pictures and didn’t even realize it. Ty.
I had never read the book, but had seen the movie. I greatly enjoyed the podcast, I can’t stop talking about how enlightening it was. In fact, because my husband (who has two undergrad degrees- philosophy and literature) was so sick of hearing me talk about it, he bought me the book. I just wanted to say thank you. You made my commute quite pleasant that day!