NCFOM is written in action and stark images. What McCarthy may have said in a paragraph in ATPH, he says in a single phrase or a simple image in NCFOM. The musings and grandiose language may be absent, as are long monologues and philosophical digressions, but I think McCarthy shows another side here. It is not like BM, SUTTREE, TC, or ATPH. It is wholly something other. It works more along the lines of Hemingway's iceberg theory. Most of the work's foundation rests below the surface, upoholding it. I think Richard L. in previous threads has made a strong case to support this.
The main differences in this novel to those previous are the stark language and the strong "moral" character at the center. The other differences are in my opinion rather small and superficial. The ending is as enigmatic as OD or COG or BM. That's a strong similarity, something that seems to me to reek of McCarthy.
And nlawrence, don't you think it's pretty clear that Bell does "learn" something and experience some change or "growth" at the novel's end? Even if we can't name it? Doesn't the novel's final line: "And then I woke up" seem to imply in Bell some sort of awakening or growth. Imply...that's a good word in this context. I think the novel is full of implication, perhaps its chief method. And again, I think numerous upthread posts testify to this.
But let's not kid ourselves, this novel is a genre novel. Genre stories play by a certain set of rules, as its in their nature as genre stories. I have immense respect Kubrick's THE SHINING, though many cast it off as a genre movie, missing all the philosophical throughlines his previous films displayed so overtly. I'd argue Kubrick's at the top of his game in THE SHINING, and that perhaps it was an even greater challenge for him an artist to work within the strict confines of a specific genre and still maintain artistic integrity, and his penchant for philosophy and social commentary.
In crime suspense thrillers, there is usually a good guy and a bad guy. NCFOM follows that rule. But doesn't McCarthy fool around with that convention a bit? There are many posts on this forum that argue that Bell might even be the bad guy because of his lack of conviction. "The best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity." It's not your typical genre piece. The typical "alpha-male" character gets killed between chapters, or "off-screen." If that's how it goes down in the movie, off-screen, I'm sure many in the audience will be upset cause it will upset their conventional attitudes.
And another thing that I think is worth considering...how the novel functions as a parody of the "pot-boiler" suspense genre. Richard L's put some work into this theory, so I won't tread on his ground.
How about the characters talking to themselves all the time. I originally thought it was kind of cheesy, a pretty dated convention. On one hand, it supports the parody theory. Stock characters talking to themselves, speaking their thoughts. But I thought one of the most intriguing things that Richard pointed out was the novel's theme of the "double," or the "shadow." From one point of view the characters are talking to themselves, a convention that makes the novel even more "unrealistic" (a point I'll come to next), and from another point of view, the characters are speaking to their shadow or their double.
This novel announces itself as an artistic construct from the first sentence. It is not exclusively relative to the external world that exists outside the book. It is relative to itself as it is an entity unto itself, a la Borges' THE YELLOW ROSE. These might be stock character types who speak in cliches and often tend to voice rather simplistic political opinions. But I think what McCarthy does with them is pretty unique.
I admire James Lee Burke a lot, and I think his Dave Robicheaux crime novels are pretty top notch. Robicheaux is a lot like Bell, except Robicheaux goes after the bad guys. He gets in shoot-outs, he risks his life and his family's life all the time. Every novel, his family is in danger, he almost gets killed, and he gets brave or stupid enough to go after the bad guys. In the end he usually gets the worst of the bad guys while some of the smaller criminals get away. Even where Burke is pretty different from most, his books are standard formula. NCFOM is not formula at all. It takes the ingredients and kind of spins them around a bit.
The "large quesitions of God or humanity or frailty of human morals" lie beneath the surface, underlying the action. I think it is the general consensus that McCarthy is a highly allusive author who often, if not always, employs a complex symbolism in his novels. Why should we treat NCFOM any differently? Perhaps the allusions are not clear. Perhaps the symbolism seems non-existent. That doesn't mean that it isn't there. This has to be his shortest novel...is it? (Page-wise, COG may be shorter, but what about word count?) So as more action-based starkly written shorter novel, McCarthy may have gone about things differently. Isn't it our job as readers to step up to this new challenge? To give some respect to the work and see if McCarthy doesn't live up to his talents?
As for criticizing Bell for his moral and ethical musings, all I have to say is that he's a fictional character. Many readers are able to sympathize with Lester Ballard, a serial killer and necrophiliac, and yet this police officer who voices some personal opinions and who struggles to to live up to what he feels are his God-given duties seems to anger people. Go figure.
|
