No Country plausibility issues (spoilers!)

[Daniel Julius]

On Nov 20, 2007 12:02 PM, Richard Ryan <richardryannyc at yahoo.com> wrote:

> So Wells is subject to the karmic laws of hubris and Chigurh is not?


No, not the karmic laws of reckoning.  How about just being out of his
league at this moment?  He was once a good killer and he's either lost
his game permanently or had a momentary, but ultimately critical
misstep.

I don't think it's either outrageous or out of the logic of the story
at all for him to succumb to a serial killer pointing a shotgun at
him.  Especially as it's portrayed in the movie, I haven't read the
book.  What is he supposed to do, turn around and rip the rifle out of
his hands?  Karate chop him?  And from the portion Keith quoted, it
sounds like the novel is even more plausible, his hand partially blown
off.  It seems like that's what anyone -- whether they are a former
Lt. Col. in the army and hired gun or a pizza boy -- would do in the
moments before they are shot in the face, raise their hand
instinctively in cover.

Richard, you started this discussion by asking why Wells "submit[ted]
to his own execution," and the answer is because he had a fucking
shotgun pointed at his head!  There is no choice but to submit.  I
can't speak to the question of why McCarthy introduced and then
dispatched him.

--
Dan