Reading Four (Pages 236-309): All Good Things Eventually Meet Their End
In fact, of all the novels that I have read throughout high school, this novel, in particular, could easily be regarded as one of the most violent considering the high proportion of its characters that are seriously harmed or killed. This list, of course, includes Moss because even though he has been shown to possess admirable qualities prior to taking the suitcase full of money it seemed nearly inevitable that he would end up paying the ultimate price for his demonstrated greed. Consequently, whereas I had previously concluded that McCarthy’s use of the motif of the color white was intended to indicate Moss’ purity I now recognize that this device instead ironically emphasized the potential and goodness that was wasted as a result of his decision to act on his greed.
However, in spite of the fact that Moss was the only person responsible for his initial decision to take the money it is evident that the repercussions of his actions extend well beyond the fate of just his character. For instance, both Carla Jean and Wells are dragged into the path of Chigurh’s reign of terror because of their connections to Moss’ character and his recently acquired wealth; connections that actually end up costing both of them their lives. Furthermore, Chigurh’s choices to flip coins to decide if he will kill Carla Jean and a gas station attendant are significant because they symbolize the fact that money serves as the eventual decider of their fates. Thus, Chigurh ends up sparing the life of the gas station attendant because he has not been shown to be greedy in any sense of the word, unlike Carla Jean who accepts some of the stolen money that Moss finds. Therefore, all of the deaths of the book’s major characters can be traced back to Moss’ decision to take the money.
The fate of Chigurh’s character proves to be partially based on greed and morality as well. After all, even though he manages to escape with his life—a truth that does not apply to many of the book’s other characters regarding their confrontations with his character mind you—Chigurh ends up being seriously injured in a car accident directly after he kills Carla Jean. So while Chigurh obviously commits a variety of crimes including murder as a bounty hunter employed by a drug cartel—possibly the same cartel ironically responsible for the production of the drugs that lead to the driver of the other car involved in the accident being impaired—he still fails to demonstrate any signs of the greediness present in Moss’ character. Thus, even though Chigurh’s various injuries like a broken arm and a bullet to the leg serve as forms of twisted compensation for his heinous crimes he stays alive throughout the duration of the book thanks to his oddly principled nature. In conclusion, the events and outcomes in McCarthy’s writing evidently act as manifestations of the personalities and moral dispositions of his characters.
Did you like ending of the book? From reading your post, McCarthy's assessment of the morality of his characters seems questionable. Maybe you'd change some of the characters' fates, if you were writing the book?
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I assume that Moss meets some sort of horrible and bloody fate at the end of the story.
ReplyDeleteMy major question revolves around how you say McCarthy creates a theme out of the condemnation of greed. While greed and money certainly seem to have a major negative effect on the characters, I feel like they more worship it than anything else. Chigurh several times leaves the question of life and death up to money-- much like one would with a god. What is your interpretation of this? Are the two themes intertwined or is one more dominant?
I can confirm that Moss does indeed meet a bloody end at the book's conclusion after Chigurh shoots both him and the hitchhiker he has been traveling with. To respond to your question though, I would say that Chigurh doesn't regard money the same way that many of the books other characters do in spite of his decision to base his actions off of the flip of a coin. In fact, Chigurh makes a repeated point of demonstrating his lack of greed as evidenced by his decisions to not spend any of the money in the suitcase after recovering it and kill Wells instead of taking the $14,000 that he offers in exchange for his life. Consequently, while I do agree that the flipping of the coin is significant I see it as more indicative of the role greed plays in the fates of other characters rather than any attachment that Chigurh feels to money.
DeleteHey Seamus! Nice job with this post- your writing is clear, thoughtful, and eloquent.
ReplyDeleteI have not read the book, but I like how the author uses the color white as an ironic emphasis of Moss' greed. White is so commonly used to represent purity it is practically a cliche. I like how this author chose to invert its typical meaning.
I also like the author's use of a coin flip as a literal representation of how money can be a decider of fates. Is it literally the money (or a lack thereof) that ultimately decides the characters' fates (for example, they lose all the money and have to live on the streets)? Or is it the character's negative attributes, such as greed, that determine their fates? (Again, I have not read the book so this question may be irrelevant in context.)
McCarthy seems to have some sort of karma complex going on. It is fascinating that his character's fates are determined by the morality of their actions.
Lastly, I'm curious as to what you mean by Chigurh's oddly principled nature. Is he somehow principled in his criminality?
Again, great job! Your post makes me want to read the book.
I wonder how the death counts in this book compare to Macbeth's, by the end anyway. Do you see any similarity in the characters of those two texts, as there is a sense of honor and decency in Macbeth before he kills Duncan, just as you discuss how Chigurh has a sense of honor and principle in letting the coin decide (though of course it's always McCarthy who does the deciding).
ReplyDelete