No Country plausibility issues (spoilers!)

[David Morris]

Book Spoiler Below (haven't seen the movie yet):

I agree that The Judge & Chigurh are more-than-human, and maybe they
are a form of horror movie monster.  But they don't function in the
same way in both books, and thus aren't equally "serious technical
flaws."

Chigurh is very much in the same vein as Freddie or Jason:  morality
vehicles - the venal get slaughtered, and the charmed, lucky or
virtuous *may* survive.

The Judge is similar, but much more attractive.  There are parts of
him that are admirable (also true for Chigurh only in his absolutist -
no compromise - morality).  The Judge also has seductive attraction
(both sensual and intellectual) besides his horror aspect, and he is
also more unpredictable (therefore more "human" - one senses that he
might be defeatable).  "No Country" was too much a morality lament for
me.  "Blood Meridian" was more of a journey.

David Morris

On Nov 20, 2007 12:02 PM, Richard Ryan <richardryannyc at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Suppose this discussion needs a spoilers alert....
>
> So Wells is subject to the karmic laws of hubris and Chigurh is not?  Chigurh sees himself as the living embodiment of fate, and possesses an indestructibility that is completely unbelievable and out of keeping with any psychological or aesthetic realism.
>
> The problem with Chigurh as a character (a serious technical flaw that applies to The Judge in Blood Meridian)  is that at a certain point you realize he's not a man - he's a horror movie monster,  a la Jason Vorhees or Freddy Krueger.  No matter what the protagonists do to defeat a horror movie monster you know these creatures always resurrect in the end, because they're plot devices rather than realized characters.