here are many similarities and differences between the novels Raylan by Elmore Leonard and No Country for Old Men by Cormac McCarthy. While both novels are thriller novels about crime and law enforcement, their narratives, characters, and the entirety of their plots differ greatly. Raylan is a novel which makes for light reading, fast pacing, and a likeable hero. No Country for Old Men, by contrast, is a novel which is neither for the faint of heart of the dull of mind, tearing through a brutal landscape and a complex ideology build upon pessimism.
The narrative of Raylan jumps from character to character depending on whomever can give the audience the most useful information to the plot or create the most suspense in standard form for a thriller
…show more content…
While there is a definitive, singular villain of the story, Anton Chigurh, a gun for hire referred to as “a true and living prophet of destruction” (4) even he has more complexity and reality to him than most are willing to admit. A psychopath who seems to kill without a care, Chigurh is often described as impossibly inhuman. However, those claims ignore the reality of serial killers in the real world, such as Luis Garavito, Pedro Lopez, and Daniel Camargo-Barbosa who each raped and murdered hundreds of boys and girls as young as six years old. Also ignored are those who caused death and destruction for a cause or country which history has deemed acceptable, such as Sgt Dillard Johnson, Simo Hӓyhӓ, and Klaudia Kalugina, who collectively have killed over 3,500 people. However, even Chigurh is shown to display restraint and change by the end of the novel, and while not explicitly stated, he even has deeper motivations for his actions than violence for violence’s sake or for the money. Another character who could easily fall into tropes is the investigating officer of all the destruction Chigurh leaves in his wake, Sheriff Bell. Bell could have easily been written as a hero, brave and strong, and the moral compass of the novel. Instead, Bell is uncertain about the world around him, about what is right and wrong, and afraid of Chigurh. This fear of having to continue hunting Chigurh leads Bell to resign as sheriff, along with a a number of other morally and bravery deficient decisions. The third major character is McCarthy’s story, Llewellyn Moss, is neither hero nor villain, but a regular man who makes dubious decisions which ignite and drive the plot of the
Both “Full Circle” and “The Most Dangerous Game” have many differences with how the murder is presented in the story, but both also have many similarities. In the short story “The Most Dangerous Game” the murder was done for fun and sport, General Zaroff killed his victims to fulfill a hunting sensation. But in the short story “Full Circle”, the murder was done out of jealousy, because the Terry was rejected. Throughout my paper I hope to show the similarities and differences of the murder cases within the two stories.
“She still today never told me she loved me…never… never in her life … it’s too hard to explain,” says Anthony Sowell as he mentions his mother while he is being interrogated by Cleveland Homicide Detective (Sberna). The classic neighbor that every family wishes to have, friendly, helpful and caring was holding back numerous secrets. In Anthony Sowell’s actions of the rape, beatings and murder of 11 innocent women, he demonstrates the qualities of a human monster while showing how nurture creates a personality as well as proving that humans are capable of creation more fear than those who are written about in fiction.
The similarities are prolific in their presence in certain parts of the novel, the very context of both stories shows similarities, both are dealing with an oppressed factor that is set free by an outsider who teaches and challenges the system in which the oppressed are caught.
It is a given that every piece of work that people read will contain all sorts of characters. Those characters can range from villains, victims, or venerables. Two pieces of work that easily portray those types of characters is in F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novel, The Great Gatsby, and in Arthur Miller’s tragedy, The Crucible. It is revealed to the readers that Mr. Wilson in The Great Gatsby takes the role of the victim because of the how he was lied too and deceived throughout the entirety of the novel, and in the end died from it. Also, in The Great Gatsby, Daisy Buchanan is almost an undercover villain. It is not revealed to most, but by speculating on her actions she does some things that prove her to be a villain. Lastly, in The Crucible Giles Corey comes off as a venerable,
Neither of the two men was the average “John Wayne” war hero that fights and dies for his country. This is what makes these two books stand out from other war books. Both of these books also were used during the Vietnam War as anti-war books denouncing the war. One major theme that comes up in both of these books is the theme of no free will.
The basic ideas of the two novels are also similar. They have to do with rebellion against the so-called perfect new world and the sanctuary
In many works of Literature, a character comes forth as a hero, only to die because of a character trait known as a tragic flaw; Hamlet from Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Okonkwo from Achebe’s Things Fall Apart, and Winston Smith from Orwell’s 1984 all exhibit that single trait, which leads, in one way or another, to their deaths. These three tragic heroes are both similar and different in many ways: the way they die, their tragic flaws, and what they learn. All three characters strongly exhibit the traits needed to be classified as a tragic hero.
These three characters’ behaviors, personalities, and their thoughts affect the story “Catch a Killer”. Also Tawney’s behaviors, that shoots Gladston’s theory down and finds Corso and Andrew, show his honesty. The beginning of the story tells how rebellious Andrew is. Bullying and cruelty is the reason that Corso becomes a killer. These three main characters are revolved around each other in the
... almost nothing alike from a superficial aspect. The stories have different historical contexts and they simply don’t have much in common to the average audience. It is easy to contrast the stories, but deep within certain elements, the stories can be linked in several ways.
In this short story, O’Connor depicts a violent character to the reader known as ‘The Misfit.’ The Misfit can be described as a distorted, violent character that questions the true meaning of life and his role within it. The Misfit uses the anger that he possesses inside of him as a form of violence, and this is why he is known to be a wanted murderer, ever since he escaped from the penitentiary. This Misfit was put into the penitentiary when he was accused of murdering his own father, which might have been a lie based upon the head-doctors accusations. O’Connor reveals violence in a very peculiar way, and this is based upon the struggle of living in a world where finding a good man is hard to find in our society.
Such a series of tragic events has a great toll among the two main characters (Cox ) . For a vicious, careless indivi...
The characters in the novel, including the operative himself are willing to lie, cheat, and kill in cold blood for their own personal gain. Although infidelity, greed, and self-preservation are expected from characters involved with the murders and inner crime ring; the story becomes more complicated when characters like the operative, and chief of police begin to get their hands dirty. Bringing the age-old crime ad punishment theme to a higher tier where the reader is unable to make an impulsive decision on who is a “bad guy”, and who is a “good
To the character and to the author, it seems that ghastly nature murder and the immoral approach of treachery is merely an element of reality. This story is a true representation of author’s anguish and torment nature.
Both narratives compare as timeless tales of reputable heroes. They both include similar plots of long journeys back home. The main characters’ flaws are arrogance which is the source of many of their troubles.
Amongst other things, “The Dead Man” is a story of political ambition, and personal pride which ends up being the downfall of our protagonist. Benjamin Otalora, the Argentinean Buenos Aires hoodlum turned Uruguayan gaucho, is ambitious and most of all brave. However, he is also reckless and lacks any kind of discretion whatsoever. His physical daring is un-complimented by any higher meaning or purpose. He doesn’t save Azevedo Bandeira, the mobster boss, in the knife fight because of any morals or virtues he believes in, but simply because he was drawn “to the sheer taste of danger.” Otalora’s braveness is also completely selfish. It is a raw, violent, braveness that ultimately blinds him to the reality to which he becomes self-aware in the last moments of his life; he is a man who is completely oblivious to forces outside himself. Otalora’s uncontrolled ambition and unchecked bravery disallows him the ability to calmly make calculations, to make the most intelligent choices, to think things through; all essentials in leadership and especially in ultimately coordinating a power grab from someone the likes of Azevedo.