July / USA Reading: The Road by Cormac McCarthy

[Scheherazade]

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/books/cormac460.jpg

In July we will be reading The Road by Cormac McCarthy during July.


The searing, post-apocalyptic novel destined to become Cormac
McCarthy's masterpiece.
A father and his son walk alone through burned America. Nothing moves in
the ravaged, nuclear landscape save the ash on the wind. It is cold enough
to crack stones, and when the snow falls it is grey. The sky is dark. Their
destination is the coast, although they don't know what, if anything,
awaits them there. They have nothing; just a pistol to defend themselves
against the lawless bands that stalk the road, the clothes they are
wearing, a cart of scavenged food - and each other.
The Road is the profoundly moving story of a journey. It boldly imagines a
future in which no hope remains, but in which the father and his son, `each
other's world entire', are sustained by love. Awesome in the totality of
its vision, it is an unflinching meditation on the worst and the best that
we are capable of: ultimate destructiveness, desperate tenacity, and the
tenderness that keeps two people alive in the face of total devastation. http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/product-description/0307387895/sr=8-3/qid=1214929948/ref=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8&n=266239&s=books&qid=1214929948&sr=8-3

Please post your thoughts and questions in this thread.

[Jozanny]

I have not stirred since yesterday when I posted I would have to scooter over to the library to try to get a copy, but I will try soon, since I have to sample Cormac sometime. If Vine Street turns up empty I will reluctantly continue to give Amazon my inheritance.:crash:

[Virgil]

I'm about 25 pages in and I'm finding it better than I thought it would be. The situation seems rather simple, but the prose seems extraordinary to me.

[Jozanny]

I'm about 25 pages in and I'm finding it better than I thought it would be. The situation seems rather simple, but the prose seems extraordinary to me.

Cool Virgil. I will try to go tomorrow or so, and won't look back in here til I get it or start it.

[Scheherazade]

I have not stirred since yesterday when I posted I would have to scooter over to the library to try to get a copy, but I will try soon, since I have to sample Cormac sometime. If Vine Street turns up empty I will reluctantly continue to give Amazon my inheritance.:crash:Good luck with the library!

I have been waiting for two weeks now for mine to be delivered (by the library).

[Jozanny]

Good luck with the library!

I have been waiting for two weeks now for mine to be delivered (by the library).

Ouch, shows how hot McCarthy is these days;) I may yield and go to Amazon... grr. Hope it comes in soon!

[plainjane]

I read The Road in January this year, it pulled me along like a freight train, I could hardly put it down. Should refresh my memory a bit though. :)

[DapperDrake]

*sigh* off to the book store for me then I guess :)

[HerGuardian]

I've read more than 100 pages of it. The event up to now are going slow. However, there's something about the story that makes you go on reading it. It's quite a page-turning story for me. Looking forward for the discussion.

[Walter]

Read it a little while back and am now going thorugh it again to refresh my memory. One thing I certainly remember is that it is wonderful story, just about impossible to put down. And the power is in how little is said, it seems to me. There is a shared bond between father and son beyond mere words and McCarthy conveys that.

[WildCityWoman]

Dunno' why, but I have this on order from the library - another online group doing it? Could be . . .

I'll just have to wait till it comes in from the library, then I can join you folks here.

Carly :-0

[sofia82]

My summer classes start and I cannot find enough time even to rest ... it's not fair ... anyway it is my choice ;) but I t ry to find time to read this too. :)

[DapperDrake]

My trip to the book store was as fatal as usual; I came back with four books when I only went to pick up the one :rolleyes:

Oh well, I'm going to finish the Odyssey then start right on this.

[Hira]

I've read about 50-60 pages of it and like it. Everything so bleak, grey.

[Nossa]

I find McCarthy brilliant in how he sets the setting of the story. His description is great, although I find myself lost sometimes and forced to re-read certain parts more than once (it's probably my problem though). I'm still in the beginning of the book, so I'll probably have more comments when I've read more. But so far it's good.

[Hira]

Had to re-read certain parts too Nossa.

Just finished reading it. It was a very harrowing read to be honest.

Loved the last paragraph:

Once there were brook trout in the streams in the mountains. You could see them standing in the amber current where the white edges of their fins wimpled softly in the flow. They smelled of moss in your hand. Polished and muscular and torsional. On their backs were vermiculate patterns that were maps of the world in its becoming. Maps and mazes. Of a thing which could not be put back. Not be made right again. In the deep glens where they lived all things were older than man and they hummed of mystery.

[lugdunum]

Hello everyone,

First time here and must say that I'm very excited about this new experience.
I'll be running to the English bookstore tomorrow to get my copy of "The Road".

A Friday evening is always a good time to start a new book... :P

[thelastmelon]

I especially enjoyed the dialogues between the man and the boy. I posted the same quote in another thread during my read, but I'll post one of them here as well. I like how simple, honest and at the same time bold but realistic the dialogues can be, for example the one below.

"They're going to kill those people, arent they?
Yes.
Why do they have to do that?
I dont know.
Are they going to eat them?
I dont know.
They're going to eat them, arent they?
Yes.
And we couldn't help them because then they'd eat us too.
Yes.
And that's why we couldn't help them.
Yes.
Okay."

[Virgil]

Hello everyone,

First time here and must say that I'm very excited about this new experience.
I'll be running to the English bookstore tomorrow to get my copy of "The Road".

A Friday evening is always a good time to start a new book... :P

Welcome Lug. I hope you can join us.

[motherhubbard]

I got my copy today and i hope to get a start on it tonight. Actually doing the homework first is one of the crappy parts about being grown up. This is my first time to get to take part- I'm so excited!

[Tersely]

although I find myself lost sometimes and forced to re-read certain parts more than once (it's probably my problem though). I'm still in the beginning of the book, so I'll probably have more comments when I've read more. But so far it's good.

I feel the same way. I started a bit way through it (pausing to comment now) and it feels like I'm glazing over every once and awhile. I think it's probably the structure. It's not broken up with quotations everywhere so I do get lost between them speaking,the landscape being explained, or actions happening around them. Guess I better slow down ;)

[HerGuardian]

I finished reading it. I'll post my comments soon. Waiting for the discussion.

[Virgil]

I haven't finished. I'm about half way, and I must say at this point I can't put the book down. I'm glued in. ;)

Just to get some discussion rolling, I typed up a passage I thought interesting to highlight. I'm sure there are others, but here's this one.


They backtracked and camped in the actual road and when they went on in the morning the macadam had cooled. Bye and bye they came to a set of tracks cooked into the tar. They just suddenly appeared. He squatted and studied them. Someone had come out of the woods in the night and continued down the melted roadway.
Who is it? said the boy.
I don’t know. Who is anybody?


They came upon him shuffling along the road before them, dragging one leg slightly and stopping from time to time to stand stooped and uncertain before setting out again.
What should we do, Papa?
We’re all right. Let’s just follow and watch.
Take a look, the boy said.
Yes. Take a look.


They followed him a good ways but at his pace they were losing the day and finally he just sat in the road and did not get up again. The boy hung on to his father’s coat. No one spoke. He was as burntlooking as the country, his clothing scorched an black. One of his ees were burnt shut and his hair was but a nitty wig of ash upon his blackened skull. As they passed he looked down. As if he had done something wrong. His shoes were bound up with wire and coated with roadtar and he sat there in silence, bent over in his rags. The boy kept looking back. Papa? he whispered. What is wrong with the man?
He’s been struck by lightening.
Cant we help him? Papa?
No. We cant help him.
The boy kept pulling at his coat. Papa? he said.
Stop it.
Cant we help him Papa?
No. We cant help him. There’s nothing to be done for him.


They went on. The boy was crying. He kept looking back. When they got to the bottom of the hill the man stopped and looked at him and looked up the road. The burnt man had fallen over and that distance you couldnt even tell what it was. I’m sorry, he said. But we have nothing to give him. We have no way to help him. I’m sorry for what happened to him but we cant fix it. You know that, don’t you? The boy stood looking down. He nodded his head. Then they went on and he didn’t look back again.

Two thoughts I would like to bring up. First, the situation is of another world, so I keep havinng all sorts of recalls of other literary works. One work is Defoe's []Robinson Crusoe[/I]. The man and the boy are sort of trapped in a new world, and this burnt fellow is almost like Crusoe coming across Friday. But this work is really a dystopia, an imaginary world of a possible horrific future. Crusoe is more utopian than not. Another work this seems to recall is Becket's "Waiting For Godot." But depite the dark themes there, that work is a comedy. There is no comedy in The Road, though the landscape appears similar. To some degree the dystopian vision of this novel recalls Lord of the Flies or A Clockwork Orange. You don't really see it in this passage, but humanity comes down to its most savage in other parts of the novel. And finally I see this work in the tradition of naturalism. It brings man down to its most elemental animal self, where survival is at its most fundemental essence.

Second thing I wish to point out is the style, especially the short clumps of paragraphs. I was going to say that the paragraphs are fragmented, but fragmented tends to imply a disconnect in some fashion, say like William Faulkner does in many places. I don't find that there is a disconnect from one passage to the next, they are just chopped apart. So instead of fragmented style, I'll call this a chopped style. I find it curious and I'm trying to understand what it implies. It certainly makes it rhythmic. And the more one reads, the more suspence one feels. In the more intense parts that come after this, I couldn't stop. I had to get to the next chopped off section. Any thoughts?

[HerGuardian]

I felt the same way about connecting it to the Lord of the Flies, especially that I read it two months ago. It's interesting how you sense the descending of humans into animalism and how you feel the horror and darkness throughout the novel. Cormac's style is very beautiful in setting the conditions and directing you towards what he wants without stating that directly.
It's true. His short paragraphs with run-on sentences, short phrases and within-paragraph dialogues are very notable. You fell the poetic style in many passages.
I mostly liked the dialogues. I keep reading fast till I come across a dialogue and slow down. Without words of love or respect, you can feel how the man and the boy love and respect each others strongly. Also, it's obvious that towards the end, the dialogues became longer, in a sense, and more emotional.

[Tersely]

(About 1/2 way at this point..)

You could also say the way it's written is because of the conditions that the father and son are exposed to. Short, precise, and to the point. If they are walking around in a post-apocalyptic world, would the father give winding details and stories about times past or what it means to be engaged in survival of the fittest? Why it's good to want to help everyone but that's all in the past now and we must focus on our futures, which generally means keeping away from everyone in sight? How could a young child after being sheltered absorb that change?
I think the style of writing is a good way to tie in events and feelings from the story. The father ultimately most of the time gives him short, blunt answers, only answering as vague as he possibly can sometimes. He's more worried about preserving the sons life, not stopping to explain why it's now too dangerous to do what most would have done before the mass destruction.
It's different, and I'm completely engaged.

[Hira]

Agree with everyone above.

I felt a thudding, clanging quality in the sentences when I read them. Perhaps they are meant to convey the utter finality, the hopelessness of the disaster. Of the situation they were in.

I love also the father-son relationship in the book. How the man reserved all his energies into saving his son and how it became his only hope, his only mission, so to speak, in that desolate world.

And it is curious they are always referred to by ‘man’ and ‘boy’.

I find it very haunting, humankind returning to its basest instincts. How far can we go for survival? And why was it that ‘the man’ or the other ‘good guys’ never felt it inside themselves to go that cannibalistic way, coz they ‘had the fire in them’ as the father said to his son? It was heart-wrenching to read the boy begging his father to help the man (and at another point about helping another boy he saw), and his father explaining about not being able to do anything. Its all very interesting, the question of whether in the most desperate of circumstances, is it still possible to help others in a selfless, altruistic way.

When I first finished it, it felt very terrifying, seemed so imminent, all of it. For a moment, I was glad to see the blue sky outside. McCarthy made it seem so real.

Anyway, I am going to try re-reading a bit again after I am done with my exam on Saturday.

[Virgil]

I felt a thudding, clanging quality in the sentences when I read them. Perhaps they are meant to convey the utter finality, the hopelessness of the disaster. Of the situation they were in.

That is exactly how I felt about the sentences. McCarthy can be so lyrical at times, but it's very sparing in this novel. "Thudding," "clanging" are perfect ways to describe it. It kind of echoes the paragraph style that I called choppy above. I'll give some more examples tonight when I get home.


I love also the father-son relationship in the book. How the man reserved all his energies into saving his son and how it became his only hope, his only mission, so to speak, in that desolate world.
That is marvelous, and it's what makes the novel. McCarthy could have written a novel about a solo guy and that might have been interesting, but I think it would not have been as powerful.

Two other literary allusions I think come to mind with this novel, both famous American novels. One is Huckleberry Finn, where Jim and Huck travel down the Mississippi river. The other is Jack Kerourac's On The Road. This novel i think stands in contra-distinction to those works. Huck Finn relates to this novel in the sense that a boy and a man travel alone and are faced with moral choices. McCarthy's work I think is a more pessimistic work (though I've only read two thirds of the book so far and have no idea how it ends at this point) than Huck Finn. At least nature in Huck Finn is something that can find sustenance and morality. Not sure there is any in The Road. Kerouac's work is an interesting contrast. It too has the road as the central defining feature of the novel and there is also a pair of friends on a journey. But with Kerouac the adventure is of self fullment, a journey to the heart of one's self, while here the journey is shear survival.


And it is curious they are always referred to by ‘man’ and ‘boy’.
Yes, the only name I've encountered so far was that of that old man, and then he tells us it's not his real name. :lol:


I find it very haunting, humankind returning to its basest instincts. How far can we go for survival? And why was it that ‘the man’ or the other ‘good guys’ never felt it inside themselves to go that cannibalistic way, coz they ‘had the fire in them’ as the father said to his son? It was heart-wrenching to read the boy begging his father to help the man (and at another point about helping another boy he saw), and his father explaining about not being able to do anything. Its all very interesting, the question of whether in the most desperate of circumstances, is it still possible to help others in a selfless, altruistic way.

When I first finished it, it felt very terrifying, seemed so imminent, all of it. For a moment, I was glad to see the blue sky outside. McCarthy made it seem so real.

Anyway, I am going to try re-reading a bit again after I am done with my exam on Saturday.
I can't wait to finish it. Normally I'm a slow reader, but i'm flying through this one. :D I may re-read it again too afterwards.

[motherhubbard]

I finished the book this afternoon. I cried. I hope I have time to talk about it tomorrow.

[Virgil]

Here's another passage I find fascinating. It's the flash back passage of the last day with his wife. And that's when he and the boy start down the road, and he has another fashback to the boy's birth.


We’re survivors he told her across the flame of the lamp.
Survivors? she said.
Yes.
What in God’s name are you talking about? We’re not survivors. We’re the walking dead in a horror film.
I’m begging you.
I don’t care. I don’t care if you cry. It doesn’t mean anything to me.
Please.
Stop it.
I’m begging you. I’ll do anything.
Such as what? I should have done it a long time ago. When there were three bullets in the gun instead of two. I was stupid. We’ve been all over this. I didn’t bring myself to this. I was brought. And now I’m done. I thought about not even telling you. That would probably been best. You have two bullets and then what? You cant protect us. You say you would die for us but what good is that? I’d take him with me if it weren’t for you. You know I would. It’s the right thing to do.
You’re talking crazy.
No, I’m speaking the truth. Sooner or later they will catch us and they will kill us. They will rape me. They’ll rape him. They are going to rape us and kill us and eat us and you wont face it. You’d rather wait for it to happen. But I cant. I cant. She sat there smoking a slender length of dried grapevine as if it were some rare cheroot. Holding it with a certain elegance, her other hand across her knees where she’d drawn them up. She watched him across the small flame. We used to talk about death, she said. We don’t anymore. Why is that?
I don’t know.
It’s because it’s here. There’s nothing left to talk about.
I wouldn’t leave you.
I don’t care. It’s meaningless. You can think of me as a faithless slut if you like. I’ve taken a new lover. He can give me what you cannot.
Death is not a lover.
Oh yes he is.
Please don’t do this.
I’m sorry.
I cant do it alone.
Then don’t. I cant help you. They say that women dream of danger to those in their care and men of danger to themselves. But I don’t dream at all. You say you cant? Then don’t do it. That’s all. Because I’m done with my own whorish heart and I have been for a long time. You talk about taking a stand but there is no stand to take. My heart was ripped out of me the night he was born so don’t ask for sorrow now. There is none. Maybe you’ll be good at this. I doubt it, but who knows. The one thing I can tell you is you wont survive for yourself. I know because I would never have come this far. A person who had no one would be wel advised to cobble together some passable ghost. Breathe it into being and coax it along with words of love. Offer it each fathom crumb and shield it from harm with your body. As for me my only hope is for eternal nothingness and I hope it with all my heart.
He didn’t answer.
You have no argument because there is none.
Will you tell him goodbye.
No I will not.
Just wait till morning. Please.
I have to go.
She had already stood up.
For the love of God, woman. What am I to tell him?
I cant help you.
Where are you going to go? You cant even see.
I don’t have to.
He stood up. I’m begging you, he said.
No. I will not. I cannot.


She was gone and the coldness of it was her final gift. She would do it with a flake of obsidian. He’d taught her himself. Sharper than steel. The edge an atom thick. And she was right. There was no argument. The hundred nights they’d sat up debating the pros and cons of self destruction with the earnestness of philosophers chained to a madhouse wall. In the morning the boy said nothing at all and when they were packed and ready to set out upon the road he turned and looked back at their campsite and he said: She’s gone isn’t she? And he said: Yes, she is.


Always so deliberate, hardly surprised by the most outlandish advents. A creation perfectly evolved to meet its own end. They sat at the window and ate in their robes by candlelight a midnight supper and watched distant cities burn. A few nights later she gave birth in their bed by the light of a drycell lamp. Gloves meant for dishwashing. The improbable appearance of the small crown of the head. Streaked with blood and lank black hair. The rank meconium. Her cries meant nothing to him. Beyond the window just the gathering cold, the fires on the horizon. He held aloft the scrawny red body so raw and naked and cut the cord with kitchen shears and wrapped his son in a towel.

There's a lot here that's relevant to the novel. This is probably (I still have about a quarter of the book to finish, so I could be proven wrong) the only passage with a woman character, and McCarthy clearly makes her a defeatist. Of course she may be proven a realist. How we interpret this passage depends a lot on the conclusion of the novel. But what's striking is that man and woman seem to be delineated as archetypical. It seems to be saying that this is a woman's point of view and that is a man's point of view and that there is something innate about it. Like most of the novel there is no individuality. What individuality exists is simple, man, woman, old man, boy, good guys, bad guys. Another motif that comes up is that of dreams. At a number of places in the novel both the boy and the man experience dreams. Notice what the woman says at one point: "They say that women dream of danger to those in their care and men of danger to themselves. But I don’t dream at all." Now I'm not sure what to make of that rght now, but dreams do figure prominantly. Another motif that comes up is the child. Chldren come up in a few places, besides of course the boy. What does the child signify? Innocence? Continuity? Family bonds?

[motherhubbard]

We hear stories of shipwreck or other extreme situations where people have to make a choice. To survive they must become cannibals. It is very hard to think of. I know that it is a common practice among some cultures to eat their dead. It’s not part of my culture and so it certainly sounds horrific.

Some of the people in this story lost all humanity. They lived to satisfy their own needs or wants if possible. In that respect the world may be more like the book than the landscape suggest. I feel that it would be better to be dead than to loose one‘s humanity. I suppose that either way it is really death. Is humanity something that can be regained once it has been lost? I don’t think so. I think it would be hard to live with the monsters of one’s past if humanity returned.

I admired the man. He did his best. I think the flame they kept was their humanity.


Another motif that comes up is the child. Chldren come up in a few places, besides of course the boy. What does the child signify? Innocence? Continuity? Family bonds?

children are the future. To the man this child held the universe; he was deity. Every hope not just for this man but also for the world was bound up in this boy. If the child survives so does he, so does the past, so does the future. The boy was everything good found in mankind.

[Hira]

Another motif that comes up is that of dreams. At a number of places in the novel both the boy and the man experience dreams. Notice what the woman says at one point: "They say that women dream of danger to those in their care and men of danger to themselves. But I don’t dream at all." Now I'm not sure what to make of that rght now, but dreams do figure prominantly. Another motif that comes up is the child. Chldren come up in a few places, besides of course the boy. What does the child signify? Innocence? Continuity? Family bonds?

Most of the dreams in this book are nightmares though. What did that penguin dream signify?

Love the description of the dream or the nightmare with which the book begins.


he had wandered in a cave where the child led him by the hand. Like pilgrims in a fable swallowed up and lost amongst the inward parts of some granitic beast. Deep stone flues where the water dripped and sang. Tolling in the silence the minutes of the earth and the hours and the days of it and the years without cease. Until they stood in a great stone room where lay a black and ancient lake. And on the far shore a creature that raised its dripping mouth from the rimstone pool and stared into the light with eyes dead white and sightless as the eggs of spiders



children are the future. To the man this child held the universe; he was deity. Every hope not just for this man but also for the world was bound up in this boy. If the child survives so does he, so does the past, so does the future. The boy was everything good found in mankind.

You put that well, motherhubbard.


"If he is not the word of God God never spoke"

All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes. So, he whispered to the sleeping boy, I have you.

----------

What do you think of the ending motherhubbard, now that you've read the book? Particularly the last paragraph, I find that very interesting.

[Tersely]

I finished the book this afternoon. I cried. I hope I have time to talk about it tomorrow.

I stay up until the am hours to finish it. After everything it does make me a little sad.

[DapperDrake]

It was a lot shorter than I was expecting, is it common practice with modern fiction to lower the word count per page in order to make the book look bigger? its just a short story.

well... I didn't like it, I acknowledge the writing skill but I struggled with incredulity pretty much all the way through, it just didn't have the ring of truth. Its like it was more of a metaphor or poem than a real stab at fiction - I have a long list of things that bothered me, things that didn't add up in my mind, but I guess that's not the point :s

someone further back said they cried at then end, well I just sighed and thought "thank God that's done with", the book I mean. I would of been more titillated if it had been a more poetic ending, if they'd both died perhaps - complete the metaphor.

Worth reading but not exactly my favourite read this year, off the top of my head I'd rate it 3rd from bottom of the books I've read this year.

[motherhubbard]

What do you think of the ending motherhubbard, now that you've read the book? Particularly the last paragraph, I find that very interesting.

I felt as though the ending was no ending at all. I think it just shows a continuation. The boy goes on, life goes on, people keep striving. The last paragraph also felt like a continuation because the boy remembered and therefore the past and the beauty of the earth remained. Mankind is tenacious. :thumbs_up


well... I didn't like it, I acknowledge the writing skill but I struggled with incredulity pretty much all the way through, it just didn't have the ring of truth. Its like it was more of a metaphor or poem than a real stab at fiction -




I understand not liking the book. It was kind of an outline rather than a story. But I think that it suited the situation. Very little meant anything anymore. It focused on the man and the boy, humanity, means of survival and I think hope. I did wonder if he would have been able to get this published if it were a first book.

Virgil- Have you finished yet? I’ve been thinking of the female archetype that you mentioned a ways back. There is another woman at the end and I wonder what you have to say about her.

[Virgil]

No, I think I have about forty pages left. I will sign off in a minute to go read. I'm a little tired so I still don't know if I'll finish.

[Tersely]

I would of been more titillated if it had been a more poetic ending, if they'd both died perhaps - complete the metaphor.


Like I said I was a little sad to see one go (and sorry if this is a little off the discussion flow) but does it ever bother anyone else when books kind of drop off like that? We have really no idea what happens to the human race or what becomes of that boy even though we are given a hint that the adoptives are nice. I'll probably wonder all week what could happen to that boy. Ack. Hate that.

[Agatha]

Well, I've finished. I don't read fictional books usually, it's not my favorite literary genre, but I really like this book. Although at the beginning McCarthy's writings was a bit weird and annoying, after some 50-40 pages I got used to it. Especially those short dialogues were very interesting idea in my opinion(My favorite is conversation between the mother and the father). It's a pity that we don't know very much about mother- she seemed for me very interesting character.
I liked that McCarthy wanted to show readers not only struggling for survival, but also struggling for humanity. Although the boy and his father were looking for food, place to sleep etc., I think that they were desperately also looking for a sign of humanity and they really want to keep their human dignity in spite of whole situation.(the boy would say: “we won't be like those bad people)
Vision of destroyed and desolate America was shocking and terrifying sometimes. Although all descriptions were very short and brief, they were believable and suggestive. The whole scenery was very dark and bleak... and when I was reading, sometimes the book resembles a bit some poems... Maybe because of the dialouges. don't you think?

[motherhubbard]

I liked that McCarthy wanted to show readers not only struggling for survival, but also struggling for humanity. Although the boy and his father were looking for food, place to sleep etc., I think that they were desperately also looking for a sign of humanity and they really want to keep their human dignity in spite of whole situation.(the boy would say: “we won't be like those bad people)


Possible spoiler

I like this comment. I agree, but I think that the boy and the man were so different in this quest. I don’t think the father would have considered trusting the man at the end. The father was protecting humanity by protecting the boy, but the boy had to consider more than that. When the boy told the father that he was the one who had to worry about everything he was right. Although the father worried about so many things they all came back to only the boy. I doubt he would have continued if the boy had died. It’s an interesting look at strength.

[Agatha]

Possible spoiler

I like this comment. I agree, but I think that the boy and the man were so different in this quest. I don’t think the father would have considered trusting the man at the end. The father was protecting humanity by protecting the boy, but the boy had to consider more than that. When the boy told the father that he was the one who had to worry about everything he was right. Although the father worried about so many things they all came back to only the boy. I doubt he would have continued if the boy had died. It’s an interesting look at strength.
SPOILERS!!!
I also think that the man wouldn't have continued his journey if the boy had died. The boy was the only reason why the man wanted to keep going the journey. Sometimes I thought that the boy was much stronger that his father and the boy was a mainstay for his father. And ending... Frankly I was surprised that the boy survived, I thought that they both would die. I think that the ending was positive. It wasn't of course: And they lived happily ever after :) But.. Boy survived, wasn't alone, so there's a chance for human race :)

[lugdunum]

Wow!
Finished reading the book last night and cried just like you Motherhubbard.

I liked the book more than I thought I would. I found the style hard to get used to at the beginnng but I think that it helps you get into the atmosphere of the book. Like you have to go little by little, one (hard) step at a time, along with the characters.

Mc Carthy succeeds in creating this chaotic and oppresive atmosphere and at some points I was glad to put down the book and go out to get some fresh air and see blue sky, sun, trees, birds etc. ;)

The relationship between the boy and his father is full of hope and love which is a total contrast to the world they live in. I really liked their dialogues. Simple, nothing superfluous and yet both meenings and feelings are perfectly conveyed.



children are the future. To the man this child held the universe; he was deity. Every hope not just for this man but also for the world was bound up in this boy. If the child survives so does he, so does the past, so does the future. The boy was everything good found in mankind.

I agree with you that the child represents the future and hope. When they meet the blind old man on the road the old man says "when I saw the boy I thought I had died" like he's an angel. You can almost picture a cherub. At one point it says: "He (the man) sat beside him and stroke his pale and tangled hair. Golden chalice, good to house a god" . There you can

Besides, as you said the man and the child play different roles. I think that "the man" feels that he has to protect the child and teach him everything that he can so as to enable him to carry on after he dies.

The child knows what he has to do: "carry the fire". He is aware of his role and you can see how he tries to breathe (new) humanity into others (including his father). He is constantly reminding him that they are the good guys and that they should be doing the right thing. He always wants to share with others and especially with the other little boy who, like him, would represent the future.

And at the end (as you pointed out, Motherhubbard) when he says that he is the one who has to take care of everything ou can see that he has fully accepted his role and that he knows what he is expected to do.

I found the child to be endearing because at some points you can see how innocent he still is even though he's living in a world where there is no room for it. I almost cried when they find the bunker with all the beds and all the food he says: "Why is this here? Is this real?"

What I still don't get is the thing about dreams. And I don't undestand why the man tells the child that when he'll start dreaming of rich land and nice things that will mean that he's lost hope. Am I missing out something important here? What do you think about dreams?

Also there is a paragraph at one point that I am not sure what to think about.
It's at about 1/3 of the book when they see the little boy and the dog. It says:


The dog that he remembers followed us for two days. I tried to coax it to come but it would not. I made a noose of wire to catch it. Threre were three cartridges in the pistol. None to spare. She walked away down the road. The boy looked after her and then he looked at me and then he looked at the dog and he began to cry and to beg for the dog's life and I promised I would not hurt the dog. A trellis of a dog with the hide stretched over it. The next day it was gone. That is the dog he remembers. He doesn't remember any little boys.

What is this? How come all of a sudden the man is the narrator? And who's "she"? Can someone explain?

[eyemaker]

Believe it or not, I just bought this book yesterday and I'm about to start reading this after settling all my errands.

[Virgil]

Finished last night. It wa incredibly touching. A wonderful novel. Frankly I McCarthy should get the Nobel prize for this.

[lugdunum]

Finished last night. It wa incredibly touching. A wonderful novel.

It does take some time to get out of the book and back to colorful earth.

I wish it went on a little bit more. Just to make sure the boy's doing ok! :p

[Virgil]

It does take some time to get out of the book and back to colorful earth.

Yes! I keep seeing grey ash everywhere. :lol: I was completely absorbed. How did McCarthy do that? It's really just a simple story.


I wish it went on a little bit more. Just to make sure the boy's doing ok! :p
It would be nice, but I think this was a natural ending.

[DapperDrake]

I must confess I did have a strong urge to buy lots of canned food once I finished the book :p

[lugdunum]

Loved the last paragraph:

Once there were brook trout in the streams in the mountains. You could see them standing in the amber current where the white edges of their fins wimpled softly in the flow. They smelled of moss in your hand. Polished and muscular and torsional. On their backs were vermiculate patterns that were maps of the world in its becoming. Maps and mazes. Of a thing which could not be put back. Not be made right again. In the deep glens where they lived all things were older than man and they hummed of mystery.

I also liked this last paragraph. Really nice ending. So peaceful. It's like going from a sepia photo to a color one.



I felt as though the ending was no ending at all. I think it just shows a continuation. The boy goes on, life goes on, people keep striving. The last paragraph also felt like a continuation because the boy remembered and therefore the past and the beauty of the earth remained. Mankind is tenacious.

I agree on that one too. Even though as I said before and as someone esle said previously "I'll be wondering all week about what will happen to the boy".

[bouquin]

What age would you give the boy? He is afraid all the time, always so tremulous. One would think that he would have more mettle, given the overwhelmingly trying circumstances that he is in and has always known.

[Virgil]

What age would you give the boy? He is afraid all the time, always so tremulous. One would think that he would have more mettle, given the overwhelmingly trying circumstances that he is in and has always known.

I was meaning to ask this myself. I would put him at six or seven at most. What do others think?

[motherhubbard]

I think the book took place over time. In the end I thought he was a little older, maybe 11.

[lugdunum]

Yes, I would say around 8/9. And about a year older at the end of the book.

[Tersely]

I must confess I did have a strong urge to buy lots of canned food once I finished the book :p

If not, as exampled in the book, there's always people around :D

[DapperDrake]

Yeah, I'd put him between 6 and 10 tops. What I was trying to workout the whole way though the book was how much time had elapsed since the nukes fell, this is where I start to have problems with the book because the whole premise just does not add up.
Lets look at the scenario, enough nukes are set off in America and presumably the rest of the world to create significant firestorms in most major cities, the smoke/soot gets up into the stratosphere. Now thinking about it that could create a nuclear winter situation that would potentially last years but I would of though 2-3 at the most, and yes a lot of vegetation and animal life would die. in the book though there is complete destruction, no plant life at all and no birds, animals, or fish.
Thats too extreme, there is obviously a significant amount of sunlight getting through as they do have daylight in the story even though they don't see the sun, some plants and trees would 100% certainly have survived and in the fire areas some would certainly be growing back even in the first few years, and I don't think you would get rid of birds and animals so easily either, life is tenacious.
Think about it, the dinosaurs were wiped out by a meteor impact, supposedly igniting the methane rich atmosphere and creating a global firestorm, followed by perhaps a decade of darkness and deep winter. Lizards, rodents, fish, sharks etc. all survived as did most plant life. The impression given in the story is of irredeemable and final destruction which is just totally unrealistic, how long would it take for food to run out and civilisation to breakdown to the extent in the story? How many governments have food/fuel stockpiles and bunkers, what about using hydroponics and artificial light to grow food? How long would it take America to work though its supplies of ammunition and firearms? the thugs in the story we're using spears, clubs, and knives!!! there's got to be thousands of bullets for every citizen in the US and more than a gun per person, I would of thought it would take at least a decade to even begin to run out.

The whole scenario presented in the story just could not happen. All the way though the book I was trying to make sense of it in my head but it just doesn't work.

All that aside I thought it was very good.

[Virgil]

Yeah, I'd put him between 6 and 10 tops. What I was trying to workout the whole way though the book was how much time had elapsed since the nukes fell, this is where I start to have problems with the book because the whole premise just does not add up.
Lets look at the scenario, enough nukes are set off in America and presumably the rest of the world to create significant firestorms in most major cities, the smoke/soot gets up into the stratosphere. Now thinking about it that could create a nuclear winter situation that would potentially last years but I would of though 2-3 at the most, and yes a lot of vegetation and animal life would die. in the book though there is complete destruction, no plant life at all and no birds, animals, or fish.
Thats too extreme, there is obviously a significant amount of sunlight getting through as they do have daylight in the story even though they don't see the sun, some plants and trees would 100% certainly have survived and in the fire areas some would certainly be growing back even in the first few years, and I don't think you would get rid of birds and animals so easily either, life is tenacious.
Think about it, the dinosaurs were wiped out by a meteor impact, supposedly igniting the methane rich atmosphere and creating a global firestorm, followed by perhaps a decade of darkness and deep winter. Lizards, rodents, fish, sharks etc. all survived as did most plant life. The impression given in the story is of irredeemable and final destruction which is just totally unrealistic, how long would it take for food to run out and civilisation to breakdown to the extent in the story? How many governments have food/fuel stockpiles and bunkers, what about using hydroponics and artificial light to grow food? How long would it take America to work though its supplies of ammunition and firearms? the thugs in the story we're using spears, clubs, and knives!!! there's got to be thousands of bullets for every citizen in the US and more than a gun per person, I would of thought it would take at least a decade to even begin to run out.

The whole scenario presented in the story just could not happen. All the way though the book I was trying to make sense of it in my head but it just doesn't work.

All that aside I thought it was very good.

I do not recall it ever saying it was a nuclear explosion. In Wikipedia (granted it may not be accurate) it says the following:


The Road follows a man and a boy, father and son, journeying together for many months across a post-apocalyptic landscape, some years after a great, unexplained cataclysm. The story takes place in the former United States, where civilization has been destroyed, along with most life; the precise fate of the rest of the earth is not made clear, though the implication is that the disaster has affected the entire planet. What is left of humanity now consists largely of bands of cannibals and their prey, and refugees who scavenge for canned food or other surviving foodstuffs.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_(novel).


All I remember it saying was that there were fires. It coud have been an asteroid hitting the earth or something like that initiated it all. It leaves it to the imagination to speculate.

[Hira]

Initially I thought too there would be nukes or something of that sort, but now I think perhaps there were some sort of wide-scale volcanic eruptions:


In two days' time they came upon a country where firestorms had passed leaving mile on mile of destruction

[Jozanny]

Not to interrupt the current flow of the discussion, but my copy may have landed in the package room today, unless it was The Third Policeman, which I ordered with The Road. I will in any case try to join in tomorrow evening, and read all of your posts more carefully. I scrolled by so as not to read spoilers.

[Hira]

Cool Jozanny, hope you'll join in soon.



I also liked this last paragraph. Really nice ending. So peaceful. It's like going from a sepia photo to a color one.


I felt as though the ending was no ending at all. I think it just shows a continuation. The boy goes on, life goes on, people keep striving. The last paragraph also felt like a continuation because the boy remembered and therefore the past and the beauty of the earth remained. Mankind is tenacious. :thumbs_up

I thought, to some extent, it rang of some kind of a sad nostalgia, about the world gone past, the world that will no longer be. Such a sad, beautiful paragraph.

[bouquin]

I do not recall it ever saying it was a nuclear explosion. In Wikipedia (granted it may not be accurate) it says the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_(novel).


All I remember it saying was that there were fires. It coud have been an asteroid hitting the earth or something like that initiated it all. It leaves it to the imagination to speculate.




I was struck by the apparent number of bridges still left standing. I did not really keep tabs, nevertheless, Papa and Boy seem to be crossing them and seeking shelter under them every other day. I am skeptical about the plausibility of that.

[DapperDrake]

I do not recall it ever saying it was a nuclear explosion. In Wikipedia (granted it may not be accurate) it says the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_(novel).


All I remember it saying was that there were fires. It coud have been an asteroid hitting the earth or something like that initiated it all. It leaves it to the imagination to speculate.

Well you're right, I don't think it says nuclear in so many words but if I remember correctly, and I don't have the book with me right now, there is a description of the day the apocalypse happened. The man described distant thuds, EMP knocking out electronic equipment, mushroom clouds even?
And they sheltered from the shockwave in a bath tub, or at least that was implied.

There was no doubt in my mind he was describing nuclear explosions but I'll have to go back to the book to be sure.

Edit: Here, I found this quote on the net:


The clocks stopped at 1:17. A long shear of light and then a series of low concussions. He got up and went to the window. What is it? she said. He didnt answer. He went into the bathroom and threw the lightswitch but the power was already gone. A dull rose glow in the windowglass. He dropped to one knee and raised the lever to stop the tub and the turned on both taps as far as they would go. She was standing in the doorway in her nightwear, clutching the jamb, cradling her belly in one hand. What is it? she said. What is happening?
I dont know.
Why are you taking a bath?
I'm not.

Not conclusive but it was enough to convince me. I suppose It could of been a meteor but that really didn't occur to me at the time.

[bouquin]

I feel the same way. I started a bit way through it (pausing to comment now) and it feels like I'm glazing over every once and awhile. I think it's probably the structure. It's not broken up with quotations everywhere so I do get lost between them speaking,the landscape being explained, or actions happening around them. Guess I better slow down ;)




I found the dialogues rather uninspired towards the beginning. They alternated mainly between saying "okay" over and over again and the boy declaring that he is scared. But I think the exchange between Papa and Boy does get better as the story develops.

There's one paragraph on page 87 (Vintage International edition, 2007) that's written in the first person, I'm wondering why it is so :

The dog that he remembers followed us for two days. I tried to coax it to come but it would not. I made a noose of wire to catch it. There were three cartridges in the pistol. None to spare. She walked away down the road. The boy looked after her and then he looked at me and then he looked at the dog and he began to cry and to beg for the dog's life and I promised I would not hurt the dog. A trellis of a dog with the hide stretched over it. The next day it was gone. That is the dog he remembers. He doesn't remember any little boys.

[lugdunum]

There's one paragraph on page 87 (Vintage International edition, 2007) that's written in the first person, I'm wondering why it is so :

The dog that he remembers followed us for two days. I tried to coax it to come but it would not. I made a noose of wire to catch it. There were three cartridges in the pistol. None to spare. She walked away down the road. The boy looked after her and then he looked at me and then he looked at the dog and he began to cry and to beg for the dog's life and I promised I would not hurt the dog. A trellis of a dog with the hide stretched over it. The next day it was gone. That is the dog he remembers. He doesn't remember any little boys.

Yep, I was also asking this previously?

I really don't understand the purpose/meaning of this paragraph.
Why is Papa the narrator all of a sudden?
And who is she?
And why does it say that "he" (the boy?) "Doesn't remember any little boys" when throughout the book the boy will be remembering (even obsessed) with the little boy?

Any ideas?

[motherhubbard]

And they sheltered from the shockwave in a bath tub, or at least that was implied.



I think he filled the tub so that they would have a source of water. Here in the country we have to fill the tub when there is a storm of any kind. If the electricity goes out there is not water and that’s why I think that.


Yep, I was also asking this previously?

I really don't understand the purpose/meaning of this paragraph.
Why is Papa the narrator all of a sudden?
And who is she?
And why does it say that "he" (the boy?) "Doesn't remember any little boys" when throughout the book the boy will be remembering (even obsessed) with the little boy?

Any ideas?

I think the man became narrator when he remembered the past
She is the wife/mother
She was pregnant when this happened and so the population was decimated by the time the boy would be old enough to remember. He had seen a dog before and begged for it’s life, he had never seen another boy. The boy had no playmates. He had is mom and dad then he just had his dad. He later sees a little boy which would be delightful in one sense. He lived in relative isolation and it would be further isolating to be the only little boy in the world. Also, he would be able to identify with the other boy. Imagine being the only man on a planet of apes for your entire life then suddenly glimpsing another man across the way. I think he worried about the other boy all the time because he was so compassionate. The boy had the man, but who did the other boy have, what would happen to him, would someone eat him, was he all alone, who would take care of him…? I think it’s interesting that the boy had such great empathy and the man had lost his. I think that is very realistic.

[bouquin]

I think the man became narrator when he remembered the past





But there are numerous other instances when the man remembers his past and yet the narration remains 3rd person, like that scene where he & his wife discuss the aftermath of the cataclysm and what she was going to do next (pages 55-59); or his recollection of being in a foreign city where he stood in a window and watched the street below (page 187). That scene on page 87 is the only one that's narrated in the first person, as far as I can gather.

[DapperDrake]

I think he filled the tub so that they would have a source of water. Here in the country we have to fill the tub when there is a storm of any kind. If the electricity goes out there is not water and that’s why I think that.

Ah, ok. I'm sure you're correct, we don't really have any natural disasters in England except a bit of regional flooding so i'm not up on disaster procedure. :)

[lugdunum]

She is the wife/mother
She was pregnant when this happened and so the population was decimated by the time the boy would be old enough to remember. He had seen a dog before and begged for it’s life, he had never seen another boy. The boy had no playmates. He had is mom and dad then he just had his dad. He later sees a little boy which would be delightful in one sense. He lived in relative isolation and it would be further isolating to be the only little boy in the world. Also, he would be able to identify with the other boy. Imagine being the only man on a planet of apes for your entire life then suddenly glimpsing another man across the way. I think he worried about the other boy all the time because he was so compassionate. The boy had the man, but who did the other boy have, what would happen to him, would someone eat him, was he all alone, who would take care of him…? I think it’s interesting that the boy had such great empathy and the man had lost his. I think that is very realistic.

I like this thought. It makes a lot of sense now when I read this paragraph. Thanks :D

Yet, I agree with Bouquin:


But there are numerous other instances when the man remembers his past and yet the narration remains 3rd person, like that scene where he & his wife discuss the aftermath of the cataclysm and what she was going to do next (pages 55-59); or his recollection of being in a foreign city where he stood in a window and watched the street below (page 187). That scene on page 87 is the only one that's narrated in the first person, as far as I can gather.

As far as I know, this paragraph is the only one in the first person.

Any other suggestions?

[Virgil]

Yep, I was also asking this previously?

I really don't understand the purpose/meaning of this paragraph.
Why is Papa the narrator all of a sudden?
And who is she?
And why does it say that "he" (the boy?) "Doesn't remember any little boys" when throughout the book the boy will be remembering (even obsessed) with the little boy?

Any ideas?

I'm re-reading the novel (I really loved this and want to go through it again ;) ) and I just passed that paragraph. I got the impression that this was a dream the man was having. Other than that, I don't understand that paragrph either.

[Agatha]

The dog that he remembers followed us for two days. I tried to coax it to come but it would not. I made a noose of wire to catch it. There were three cartridges in the pistol. None to spare. She walked away down the road. The boy looked after her and then he looked at me and then he looked at the dog and he began to cry and to beg for the dog's life and I promised I would not hurt the dog. A trellis of a dog with the hide stretched over it. The next day it was gone. That is the dog he remembers. He doesn't remember any little boys.

I've been wondering about this part too. At the begining I thought that it is the retrospection of father. But why he is the narrator? The other retrospections are in third person narration... Hmm I can't really think out why McCarthy decided to use narration in first person...

[bouquin]

I think the book took place over time. In the end I thought he was a little older, maybe 11.






The boy is not born yet (page 59) when the catastrophe occurs. But from the moment we first pick up the man and his son on their southbound voyage up to the point where they finally reach the sea, I think we can safely approximate the interval to be a matter of a few months. On the 2nd paragraph of the book the man estimates that it is probably October although he is not sure. Somewhere in the middle of the story he thinks that now it is probably November. Towards the end (page 275) we find that Winter was already upon them.




________________________________
Currently reading : The Shipping News (Annie Proulx)

[lugdunum]

I've been trying to find an answer to that 1st person paragraph and I found this theory in another forum: (http://www.jadaproductions.com/cormacmccarthy/getthread.asp?searchmydate=All&recordnumber=34480&mydate=&threadnumber=6344&threadname=McCarthy%27s+Western+Novels&threadtopic=Shifts+in+Point+of+View&search=yes&UserName=&UserPassword=)

First of all they point out 2 similar passages in the book:

1: p 11 (Vintage International edition, 2007) "If only my heart were stone";
2: the last paragraph "Once there were brook trout in the streams in the mountains. You could see them (...) they smelled of moss in your hand".

So what they say basically is that McCarthy uses this to "to slow down perception, to trip it up, in order to increase awareness. .


What do you think?

[Virgil]

So what they say basically is that McCarthy uses this to "to slow down perception, to trip it up, in order to increase awareness. .


What do you think?

Thanks for that lug. That was interesting. I'm not sure what that means, "slow down perception." He does break narrative style and shift, but for the life of me I don't see why. I'm not saying it's bad or wrong. It's certainly done on purpose, but for what rationale I don't know. I wasn't convinced by any of the ideas presented, though a good discussion.

[bouquin]

I was meaning to ask this myself. I would put him at six or seven at most. What do others think?






It's not easy to really narrow down the boy's age. His vocabulary seems limited; his father is surprised each time he utters a byline or an idiomatic expression. He is alien to a lot of things like Coca-Cola, coffee, or spreading butter on biscuits. And like I expressed earlier, he is quite timorous. Nevertheless, he matures towards the end of the story, doesn't he? The dialogues between him and his dad become more sophisticated. I found it very significant when, in page 275, the man says to the boy, What are we going to do Papa?
And apparently without hesitation the boy assumes the role of father gives his reply.

[motherhubbard]

I don't think his lack of knowledge or experience with things like soda and biscuits says anything about his age. I think those things just weren't around for him to experience. He also had little contact with people or situations where he could pick up some of those expressions. His dialog with the man was very limited and if you were to take out the okays there would be very little left. It's always surprising how kids listen and pick up more than we may think.

I had to reread the part where the man says what are we going to do Papa because it struck me as out of character for him. I took it to be him anticipating the question from the boy. I wonder what everyone else thinks

I think he only stopped worrying about the boy when he was almost dead and he had little choice then. I think that if he had not been sick he would have continued worrying and protecting.

[bouquin]

Here's another passage I find fascinating. It's the flash back passage of the last day with his wife. And that's when he and the boy start down the road, and he has another fashback to the boy's birth.



There's a lot here that's relevant to the novel. This is probably (I still have about a quarter of the book to finish, so I could be proven wrong) the only passage with a woman character, and McCarthy clearly makes her a defeatist. Of course she may be proven a realist. How we interpret this passage depends a lot on the conclusion of the novel. But what's striking is that man and woman seem to be delineated as archetypical. It seems to be saying that this is a woman's point of view and that is a man's point of view and that there is something innate about it. Like most of the novel there is no individuality. What individuality exists is simple, man, woman, old man, boy, good guys, bad guys. Another motif that comes up is that of dreams. At a number of places in the novel both the boy and the man experience dreams. Notice what the woman says at one point: "They say that women dream of danger to those in their care and men of danger to themselves. But I don’t dream at all." Now I'm not sure what to make of that rght now, but dreams do figure prominantly. Another motif that comes up is the child. Chldren come up in a few places, besides of course the boy. What does the child signify? Innocence? Continuity? Family bonds?






What made the man choose to stay on? What did he see that his wife could not? What would you do in a situation such as this? Would it change your outlook/beliefs?

I think the child represents hope. A very weak, rachitic kind of hope though. Very fragile.

I'm not sure that the respective points of view of the man and the woman in The Road could be considered as archetypical. For aren't there in reality more men who commit suicide than women? More men who turn their backs on their families?

At the end of the story there's a woman who talks to the boy about God. What do you think McCarthy is saying about religion? Is the author himself a Christian, a believer?

[Virgil]

What made the man choose to stay on? What did he see that his wife could not? What would you do in a situation such as this? Would it change your outlook/beliefs?

Endurance. Hope. Perseverence. Tenacity. The will to live. His wife didn't have it. Some people are fighters. I have a hard time accepting defeat, death. I've spoken to nurses in hospitals about some who fight and hold on (if humanly possible of course) and those that give up. To me there is always something to live for. I have a hard time resigning. It's really too hypothetical to say how I would change or react if I were in the man's shoes. I don't know if I would have ventured onto the road south, but I wouldn't have ended it all.


I think the child represents hope. A very weak, rachitic kind of hope though. Very fragile.
Yes. In some ways it's more than the hope for humanity, though it may be that too. It's the hope we all have for our children. Like I said I think McCarthy is trying to be archetypical. The father represents fatherhood and the hopes we have for our children.


I'm not sure that the respective points of view of the man and the woman in The Road could be considered as archetypical. For aren't there in reality more men who commit suicide than women? More men who turn their backs on their families?
Well this is McCarthy's view of archetypes, not whether it represents reality.


At the end of the story there's a woman who talks to the boy about God. What do you think McCarthy is saying about religion? Is the author himself a Christian, a believer?
I don't know anything about McCarthy's beliefs. I don't know if the religious themes are Christian. But there are strong religious themes in the book. That too is shaved down to its bare essence, a fundemental God outside of cultural religion.

[DapperDrake]

I don't know anything about McCarthy's beliefs. I don't know if the religious themes are Christian. But there are strong religious themes in the book. That too is shaved down to its bare essence, a fundemental God outside of cultural religion.

Yes, the "God" is basically just humanity and morality. I think McCarthy shows us that religion becomes a relevant force outside the structure of civilisation, with no secular law and no society to speak of.

[lugdunum]

I don't know anything about McCarthy's beliefs. I don't know if the religious themes are Christian. But there are strong religious themes in the book. That too is shaved down to its bare essence, a fundemental God outside of cultural religion.

I agree with you Virgil. I think religion is clearly present in the book. There are many references to God but it doesn't say which one nor does it give details so I would tend to think that it's God as an omnipresent force. I don't have the book with me now but I remember at least one sentence where God is quoted:


If he is not the word of God God never spoke.

As for references to Christian religion, I read somewhere that even though McCarthy was raised as a Roman Catholic, as a writer he is atheist. So I don't know if there are any Christian references. Have you seen any Bouquin?

The only one I can think of (and I think that it is maybe reaching quite far) is the reference to a fish (early symbol of Christ if I'm not mistaken) in the last paragraph. What do you think?

Personally, I'm not convinced but would be happy to know your opinions.

[bouquin]

And it is curious they are always referred to by ‘man’ and ‘boy’.






I find it very clever actually. The novel is set in America but since there are no actual names given to the characters and places, one may very well imagine the story to happen in any place and to anybody on Earth. I think this method gives more dimension to the story, that if a kind of apocalyptic destruction that's described in The Road occurs it could/would affect not only one corner of the globe but rather the whole planet itself.

That said, there's a passage in the book that I found quite interesting. On page 204 the man finds on the ground a coin with a Spanish inscription. Has he, with his son, gone all the way south to Mexico perhaps?

[Jozanny]

I haven't finished. I'm about half way, and I must say at this point I can't put the book down. I'm glued in. ;)

Second thing I wish to point out is the style, especially the short clumps of paragraphs. I was going to say that the paragraphs are fragmented, but fragmented tends to imply a disconnect in some fashion, say like William Faulkner does in many places. I don't find that there is a disconnect from one passage to the next, they are just chopped apart.

As a creative writing technique, double spaced paragraphs are called caesura, and I sense you are looking for a word about what this does for the father's narrative voice. I would not say the short block paragraphs fragment, so much as deliberately break the potential monotony the reader might experience.

I am only in the first 25 pages, so I am bringing up old stuff, but I wanted to focus on what the father thinks to himself:


He knew only that the child was his warrant. He said: If he is not the word of God God never spoke.

I know another poster brought this up, but I find it an interesting note to drop in an opening of a story which opens in medias res. I looked up the word warrant, since I figured McCarthy didn't mean arrest warrant, and maybe this definition is most applicable: "Justification for an action or a belief; grounds".

I am too early into the book to know how ironic McCarthy is being here, but I think the way he wrote it meant the reader was supposed to pay attention.

One minor question in my mind is how much research Cormac did on nuclear fallout. It may not suit his minimalism, but I have trouble believing the boy managed to escape radiation sickness--even if the bombs hit just after his birth--but again, this is minor. I think this is a prose poem of sorts, as opposed to a novel, or at the very least meant to be taken as fabulist.

[DapperDrake]

I looked up the word warrant, since I figured McCarthy didn't mean arrest warrant, and maybe this definition is most applicable: "Justification for an action or a belief; grounds".

I am too early into the book to know how ironic McCarthy is being here, but I think the way he wrote it meant the reader was supposed to pay attention.

One minor question in my mind is how much research Cormac did on nuclear fallout. It may not suit his minimalism, but I have trouble believing the boy managed to escape radiation sickness--even if the bombs hit just after his birth--but again, this is minor. I think this is a prose poem of sorts, as opposed to a novel, or at the very least meant to be taken as fabulist.


Yes the nature of the apocalypse did bug me quite a bit as I probably revealed in my rant back there :) as has been pointed out though we don't know for sure that it is nuclear. and yes I also felt it was more poetry than story telling, McCarthy uses this apocalypse with a great deal of artistic licence, he doesn't directly tell us what it is so that he can get away with inventing the details to suit his purpose.

[Virgil]

and yes I also felt it was more poetry than story telling, McCarthy uses this apocalypse with a great deal of artistic licence, he doesn't directly tell us what it is so that he can get away with inventing the details to suit his purpose.
Why does it bug you that it's poetic? Poetic and story telling are not mutually exclusive. May I mention that Homer, Virgil, the Beowulf author, Dante, Milton, and really so many more used poetry to tell their stories? Actually it's the height of literature to combine poetry and narrative.

[bouquin]

I agree with you Virgil. I think religion is clearly present in the book. There are many references to God but it doesn't say which one nor does it give details so I would tend to think that it's God as an omnipresent force. I don't have the book with me now but I remember at least one sentence where God is quoted:



As for references to Christian religion, I read somewhere that even though McCarthy was raised as a Roman Catholic, as a writer he is atheist. So I don't know if there are any Christian references. Have you seen any Bouquin?

The only one I can think of (and I think that it is maybe reaching quite far) is the reference to a fish (early symbol of Christ if I'm not mistaken) in the last paragraph. What do you think?

Personally, I'm not convinced but would be happy to know your opinions.





I do not know if the 'God' that is mentioned in the book is the Christian God. Perhaps it just again a 'poetic way' of referring to morality and human goodness. But if that be the case, how come the boy tries to talk to God? (second to the last paragraph). But then he finds that the best thing was to talk to his father... This seems to give the idea that the 'God' here is really somebody or a spirit out there that the boy can talk to (it's just that he prefers to communicate with the spirit/person/memory of his dad) and not goodness and mercy which one rather lives and shows and not talk to. Or perhaps 'talk to God' here is meant to be poetry again.

[Agatha]

I do not know if the 'God' that is mentioned in the book is the Christian God. Perhaps it just again a 'poetic way' of referring to morality and human goodness. But if that be the case, how come the boy tries to talk to God? (second to the last paragraph). But then he finds that the best thing was to talk to his father... This seems to give the idea that the 'God' here is really somebody or a spirit out there that the boy can talk to (it's just that he prefers to communicate with the spirit/person/memory of his dad) and not goodness and mercy which one rather lives and shows and not talk to. Or perhaps 'talk to God' here is meant to be poetry again.
I got the impression that the 'God' isn't the Christian God. For me all mentions of 'God' reffer to pure faith, not to the one concrete religion. And 'talk to God' hasn't for me a literal meaning.

[bouquin]

In the context of the novel what is your interpretation of the phrase talk to God?

[lugdunum]

I got the impression that the 'God' isn't the Christian God. For me all mentions of 'God' reffer to pure faith, not to the one concrete religion.


DapperDrake
Perhaps it just again a 'poetic way' of referring to morality and human goodness.

Yes I agree with both of you. I think that God here is meant more as an image of hope or goodness and not in the God of any specific religion.

That the child should believe in a God could mean that he still has faith/hope.
On the contrary the old man Ely has lost hope and doesn't believe in God. I like the sentence he says:

There is no God and we are his prophets



Virgil
Actually it's the height of literature to combine poetry and narrative.

As far as poetry is concerned (and here I must admit that I am poetry ignorant) I always associate poetry with beauty and I really like the fact that he uses poetry to tell such an apocalyptic story.

The contrast betwen these 2 concepts makes the book even more powerful.

[Jozanny]

I dunno, I made it past the meeting with Ely this morning, and if Virgil sees allusions to Robinson Crusoe, I think McCarthy is playing with post-apocalyptic movie tropes. The Day After comes to mind. Night of The Living Dead. Even an honorary nod to 28 Days Later. Maybe he is toying with a bit of Stephen King as well (The Stand), which is very much crucificixion and resurrection themed--McCarthy making a point to downplay this--and a bit of Dumas? The bunker reminds me of the Count's cave, which also very nearly stretches credulity

Yet I am not entirely satisfied, and in comparing this to Doris Lessing's Memoirs of A Survivor, Ms. Lessing's tale is even more ellusive as to what causes her dystopian decline, yet it is a more frightening tale to my mind, more relevant to our early 21st century crisises.

Despite McCarthy's skill, the consistently deadpan tone is a tad monotonous, and I still don't think it is grounded enough. We could have been given a few more cues about the unraveling.

What I do like is what McCarthy does to enforce the metalic sterility of this world. The translucent beast in the father's dream, the cart, which makes me think of metal, the gas station, the ash, the snow, the blackness-- in a way this is a way of living life continually blinded, not being able to see through obscurity.

The cannibalism makes me shrug though. Doesn't reach me.

[Virgil]

The allusion to Robinson Crusoe deals with the abilty to improvise and survive.

I think the wife actually mentions the living dead allusion.

[Jozanny]

The allusion to Robinson Crusoe deals with the abilty to improvise and survive.

Not disagreeing. I just don't remember much about the classic, and I am googling now to refresh and draw any further comparisons.


I think the wife actually mentions the living dead allusion.

Yes, I think some dialogue before the "coldness gift" but don't feel like skimming back to get it. :p

[DapperDrake]

Why does it bug you that it's poetic? Poetic and story telling are not mutually exclusive. May I mention that Homer, Virgil, the Beowulf author, Dante, Milton, and really so many more used poetry to tell their stories? Actually it's the height of literature to combine poetry and narrative.

I don't think it does bug me that its poetic, I think that's one of the things I do like about it in fact. don't get me wrong I think its a good book technically I just don't much like it.
What does bug me, and I've said it a couple of times now is the unrealism of the apocalypse with no justification, I realise that's an integral part of the way the story is written and I'm not saying it should of been done differently... it just bugs me.

[bouquin]

We hear stories of shipwreck or other extreme situations where people have to make a choice. To survive they must become cannibals. It is very hard to think of. I know that it is a common practice among some cultures to eat their dead. It’s not part of my culture and so it certainly sounds horrific.

Some of the people in this story lost all humanity. They lived to satisfy their own needs or wants if possible. In that respect the world may be more like the book than the landscape suggest. I feel that it would be better to be dead than to loose one‘s humanity. I suppose that either way it is really death. Is humanity something that can be regained once it has been lost? I don’t think so. I think it would be hard to live with the monsters of one’s past if humanity returned.






Maybe that was what the boy's mother felt, that mankind has lost all sense of humanity. She said that they were 'the walking dead in a horror film.' That's why she gave up.

[Jozanny]

I am not saying I don't like the book, though I suppose I will debate selling it back to someone on Amazon, but if this is Cormac's version of post-apocalyptic allegory, I don't have much idea what for. He has offered nothing new but for making the fall of civilization seem as routine as cultivating land for new crops. The boy's compassion would have killed him had the father not sustained the strength to fight for their survival as long as he did. The line between the father, son, maybe the mother to some degree, and the human flesh eaters seems a thin one to me.

And yes, the fish is one of the more intricate Christian symbols, but I think Cormac means to say that the life force itself is a mystery beyond the encompass of any knowledge.

I also think that yes, he was writing this against type as well as alluding to type, and what I mean by that is this is a quiet dystopia. King's The Stand and the other narratives mentioned are nearly manic with hysteria. Cormac's minimalism cuts across that grain with some effectiveness.

I also noticed that the bleakness begins to subtly recede once daddy finds the ship. We have brown and brass tones of the sextant, the man's gray and yellow parka, the patterns on the fish.

Good book, but disappointing to me. I expected more and figure I should put Blood Meridian away for a year or two til I get over McCarthy's latest rise in public consciousness.

[lugdunum]

I also noticed that the bleakness begins to subtly recede once daddy finds the ship. We have brown and brass tones of the sextant, the man's gray and yellow parka, the patterns on the fish.

You're right, good point:) :thumbs_up .

It's like at the begininning the tones are greyish, metallic and foggy creating an oppressive and suffocating atmosphere.

Then when they get to the sea you can almost imagine the scenes as when your shooting with your camera set on the sepia mode.

And then at the end, the last paragraph, is green and fresh. Makes you want to fill your lungs with some fresh air.

[lugdunum]

First of all, please excuse the length of what follows...

I've just watched the interview of McCarthy by Oprah
//http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNuc3sxzlyQ&feature=related

and got a few answers:

1/ God
This thing we were talking about before of whether when he made reference to praying it was meant as praying to a particular God.
and he says (6')

Sometimes it's good to pray. I don't think you need to have a clear idea of who or what God is in order to pray

Which would match with what someone had suggested that in the book, praying is more an image of pure faith.

2/ Luck
When I read the book, I made a comment to myself that it was a bit too convenient how every time they ran out of food they would find something to eat (the bunker, the abandoned house, the ship...).
Well the interesting thing here is that throughout the interview, they discuss the fact that MC has had some really bad financial times and he says at least twice that:

when things were truly truly bleek, something totally unforeseen would occur

3/ Style
When asked about this particular style of his with very little punctuation, he says that:

If you write properly you shouldn't have to punctuate.

(Cormac Mc Carthy 5: )

I'm sure that those of you who write will have something to say to this
Agree :nod: or disagree :argue:

[Virgil]

Lug, that was a great post. i had forgotten about the Opra interview. I had come across it and did not have time to play it. Thanks. I will tonight. As to luck and God, I feel they are connected in the novel. I can't help but feel that the luck was through the hand of God. This brings to mind another allusion I had not thought of before, and that is the Biblical wiping out of the earth with Noah and the new covenant. There is a sort of wiping out of the earth here and a re-establishment of a new order.

As to the writing style, tell that to a grammar teacher and see what she says. :D :D

[Jozanny]

You're right, good point:) :thumbs_up .

It's like at the begininning the tones are greyish, metallic and foggy creating an oppressive and suffocating atmosphere.

Then when they get to the sea you can almost imagine the scenes as when your shooting with your camera set on the sepia mode.

And then at the end, the last paragraph, is green and fresh. Makes you want to fill your lungs with some fresh air.

Well, after giving it more consideration, I am going to keep the text and reread at a more leisurely pace. Later. For now it goes in the bookcase. I cannot give it the highest rating because I have read too many end-of-species and post-apocalyptic tales for The Road to really feel fresh, but given this objection, McCarthy does rather pack a full load here, Crusoe and all the rest of it, and Crusoe was a nice catch by Virgil, though I am not sure about which foil is the anti-Friday.

I don't think it was the burnt man, and Ely, well, he was a blind seer of a sort.

I realize McCarthy isn't dead, but I can't help feeling this was a prose-elegy to his son. I have read scholars who argue that Moby Dick is the American prose-epic, so why not consider The Road in the same vein.

I have paused to wonder whether or not McCarthy read Lessing's Memoirs of A Survivor. Not because he references it, but because in her tale, it is the feminine journey of two characters which contains the regenerating principle for humanity's future, and it almosts seems as if Cormac deliberately annexes my gender from that role in this tale. It is the male-to-male bond which is the nurturing force for any remnant of hope.

If I can still post in this thread when I decide to reread,{{{:idea: }}} perhaps I will have some additional insights, or change my mind.

[Virgil]

Joz, I don't know Lessing at all I'm afraid, but if there are parallels and contrasts and McCarthy even remotely alludes to it one would have to assume he read it. From what I read on line about Lessing's novel, one can't help but feel that McCarthy is tied in some fashion to it, either as a parallel or as contrast or both.

[Jozanny]

Joz, I don't know Lessing at all I'm afraid, but if there are parallels and contrasts and McCarthy even remotely alludes to it one would have to assume he read it. From what I read on line about Lessing's novel, one can't help but feel that McCarthy is tied in some fashion to it, either as a parallel or as contrast or both.

She was awarded the Nobel in 07, and I should read many more of her titles than I have, but I think she is one of the greatest women writers alive. I remember she joked with a reporter that the committee probably awarded the prize to her because they were afraid she'd *pop off*. She is old white colonial British Africa, and I think that has much to do with her less than species-optimistic view of the human condition:


http://www.dorislessing.org/thememoirs.html

I tried to reread Memoirs again right after 9/11, and I got really frightened, cried, and tossed my old paperback copy against the wall. Silly, given how old the title is, but it seemed oh so starkly prophetic.:(

[bouquin]

I find McCarthy brilliant in how he sets the setting of the story. His description is great, although I find myself lost sometimes and forced to re-read certain parts more than once (it's probably my problem though). I'm still in the beginning of the book, so I'll probably have more comments when I've read more. But so far it's good.




To be honest, I got kind of tired after a while having to read over and over and over again how it was cold and everything was covered with snow and ash!

[Nossa]

To be honest, I got kind of tired after a while having to read over and over and over again how it was cold and everything was covered with snow and ash!

You're partially correct. But this is just a part of the story's setting, the 'end of the world' atmosphere that took over from the start can't change, and so he's forced to keep almost the same description throughout the entire novel. I think what's really interesting is that nothing really happens. Meaning that, for most of the first 70 pages or so, nothing happened except for the people they met and the man the father killed. Other than that, it's just them, walking in the snow and seeking refuge. What's interesting, as I was saying, is that I always felt compelled to come back and finish it. I mean, I did get bored after a while, but even when I put down the book for a while, I felt that I always wanted to know how it's gonna end and what will happen. I'm not done with the book yet, I'm a very slow reader, but I'm looking forward to finishing it.

I have a comment on the idea of punctuation in the novel. I've had a hard time reading the story at first cuz of the lack of commas in particular. It sounds funny, I know, but I had to re-read many parts cuz they simply didn't make sense to my little brain from a first read. I think that even in poetry we use punctuation. I know I do (not that I'm that good, but that's how I see it). I think the style was a bit difficult, but McCarthy made it up with his brilliant choice of words, metaphors and overall description.

[Virgil]

Nossa, a lot of contemporary writers and poets are reducing punctuation down to bare minimum if at all. I don't know if this is a fad or something that will stick, but it makes them look modern. Actually in this novel the lack of punctuation kind of aesthetically matches the situation and setting.

[Agatha]

I have a comment on the idea of punctuation in the novel. I've had a hard time reading the story at first cuz of the lack of commas in particular. It sounds funny, I know, but I had to re-read many parts cuz they simply didn't make sense to my little brain from a first read. I think that even in poetry we use punctuation. I know I do (not that I'm that good, but that's how I see it). I think the style was a bit difficult, but McCarthy made it up with his brilliant choice of words, metaphors and overall description.
Yes, I know what you meant. I've had a simliar problem. Especially the dialouges seemed hard to me, because while I was reading a conversation between the father and the boy I didn't know who is saying concrete sentence. And I had to re-read a lot of parts. But I don't think that it was waste of time :) I think that McCarthy's style is tricky. Because at the begining I thought that I'd read this novel quickly, beacuse of the short, simple sentences etc. But then I've changed my mind :)

[Virgil]

I have to admit I had no problem with the language and style and diction. Now I also want to say that this is very American english, and not just American but American from I think the south west part of the US. Are the people who had some trouble with the language and style have english as not their primary language or are British english and not used to the Americanism? That could be part of the problem. Not only did I not have a problem with the language, but I actually found it easy and natural.

[Jozanny]

I have to admit I had no problem with the language and style and diction. Now I also want to say that this is very American english, and not just American but American from I think the south west part of the US. Are the people who had some trouble with the language and style have english as not their primary language or are British english and not used to the Americanism? That could be part of the problem. Not only did I not have a problem with the language, but I actually found it easy and natural.

The dialogue is in the American idiom. I am from the North east but had no problem with Cormac's staccato. His work has been made into film here, and the team that shot Old Country have made other modern westerns, and that is pretty much how they talk.

Okay
Okay is a kind of Americanism. We lack linguistic complexity.

For me, the lack of quotation marks worked, not just because minimalism has been popularized within the literary genre, but because this is a barren world reflected in a language that has been stripped down to the barest essentials.

[lugdunum]

From my point of view the style was not that difficult to understand, although it's true that to me it was quite unusual.

The only thing I has problems with were dialogs. I had to read some of them (especially the long ones) a few times to figure who'd said what.

But as someone said, it matches the setting.

************************************************** ********


She was awarded the Nobel in 07, and I should read many more of her titles than I have, but I think she is one of the greatest women writers alive. I remember she joked with a reporter that the committee probably awarded the prize to her because they were afraid she'd *pop off*. She is old white colonial British Africa, and I think that has much to do with her less than species-optimistic view of the human condition:

http://www.dorislessing.org/thememoirs.html

Thanks for that interesting link Jozanny. One more author on my reading list. :thumbs_up

[Jozanny]

Thanks for that interesting link Jozanny. One more author on my reading list. :thumbs_up

Great minds think alike!;)

[DapperDrake]

I didn't have any problem with the language or grammar, it was a fairly flowing read for me, I think I was subconsciously punctuating it myself in my mind. So far as it being American, well I did fail too pick up on some things like filling the bath tub etc but beyond that I don't think I missed too much.

I do agree though in a couple of places the dialogue did get a little mixed up but it was only a few places.

[Virgil]

She was awarded the Nobel in 07, and I should read many more of her titles than I have, but I think she is one of the greatest women writers alive. I remember she joked with a reporter that the committee probably awarded the prize to her because they were afraid she'd *pop off*. She is old white colonial British Africa, and I think that has much to do with her less than species-optimistic view of the human condition:


http://www.dorislessing.org/thememoirs.html

I tried to reread Memoirs again right after 9/11, and I got really frightened, cried, and tossed my old paperback copy against the wall. Silly, given how old the title is, but it seemed oh so starkly prophetic.:(
I bought Lessing's book at lunch time today. ;) Not sure when I'll read it.



I do agree though in a couple of places the dialogue did get a little mixed up but it was only a few places.
I supposed you mean you got mixed up, because I don't think McCarthy or the proof readers could have goofed. ;) I didn't find any mix ups. It was tricky in spots but I think I got it.

[motherhubbard]

I really enjoy the dialogue. It felt very natural to me.

[Nossa]

I have to admit I had no problem with the language and style and diction. Now I also want to say that this is very American english, and not just American but American from I think the south west part of the US. Are the people who had some trouble with the language and style have english as not their primary language or are British english and not used to the Americanism? That could be part of the problem. Not only did I not have a problem with the language, but I actually found it easy and natural.

I didn't have a problem with the language, just the style and dialogues. I thought the language was easy, and as I said before McCarthy has a unique way with words and diction.

[bouquin]

You're partially correct. But this is just a part of the story's setting, the 'end of the world' atmosphere that took over from the start can't change, and so he's forced to keep almost the same description throughout the entire novel. I think what's really interesting is that nothing really happens. Meaning that, for most of the first 70 pages or so, nothing happened except for the people they met and the man the father killed. Other than that, it's just them, walking in the snow and seeking refuge. What's interesting, as I was saying, is that I always felt compelled to come back and finish it. I mean, I did get bored after a while, but even when I put down the book for a while, I felt that I always wanted to know how it's gonna end and what will happen. I'm not done with the book yet, I'm a very slow reader, but I'm looking forward to finishing it.

I have a comment on the idea of punctuation in the novel. I've had a hard time reading the story at first cuz of the lack of commas in particular. It sounds funny, I know, but I had to re-read many parts cuz they simply didn't make sense to my little brain from a first read. I think that even in poetry we use punctuation. I know I do (not that I'm that good, but that's how I see it). I think the style was a bit difficult, but McCarthy made it up with his brilliant choice of words, metaphors and overall description.




It's true, nothing much happens to Papa and Boy especially in the early part. They spend their time rummaging through abandoned filling stations, seeking shelter under bridges, and trying to build a fire. Once in a while these activities are punctuated by succinct conversations. Same as you, this apparent monotony and sameness did not prevent me from being curious about what was going to transpire next. Unlike you though, I have finished reading the book. :)

I had no problem with the punctuations. Commas and semi-colons are not my strong suit, anyway. :D

[Virgil]

There are a couple of passages I wanted to discuss before we closed this out. Here's one for now. Please excuse any typos.


He [the father] watched him [the boy] come through the grass and kneel with the cup of water he'd fetched. There was light all about him. He took the cup and drank and lay back. They had for food a single tin of peaches but he made the boy eat it and he would not take any. I cant, he said. It's all right.
I'll save you half.
Okay. You save it until tomorrow.
He took the cup and moved away and when he moved the light moved with him. He'd wanted to try and make a tent out of the tarp but the man would not let him. He said that he didn't want anything covering him. He lay watching the boy at the fire. He wanted to be able to see. Look around you, he said. There is no prophet in the earth's long chronicle who's not honored here today. Whatever form you spoke of you were right.(page 277 in my Vintage edition)

I think we see here for sure that the boy is regarded as some religious manifestation. Whether that's McCarthy's view or just the father's inside the novel could be in dispute, but the nonetheless the boy carries religious revelation to either the father or in the novel as a whole. We see it in the kneeling, the cup (alluding to a chalice), the light, even a sort of Christian ritual of communion. Even the grass seems to echoe Walt Whitman's Leaves of Grass, which purports a religious charge to nature. But the last three sentences there are eye openers. " Look around you, he said." Who is he talking to there? Himself actually. This is actually a soliloquy. He's asking himself to look around. Then: "There is no prophet in the earth's long chronicle who's not honored here today." Ok, the boy is a stand in for all of history's prophets, and the equivilant. I'm with him there still. One could consider it sacrilidge but given that the earth has been nearly wiped out of people I can see the point. But here then is where I'm confused: "Whatever form you spoke of you were right." What is he refering to? What particularly of the boy talk was he right about? And "form" is a very strange and charged word. I have some thoughts, but let me see what others think. Any thoughts?

[motherhubbard]

But here then is where I'm confused: "Whatever form you spoke of you were right." What is he refering to? What particularly of the boy talk was he right about? And "form" is a very strange and charged word. I have some thoughts, but let me see what others think. Any thoughts?

I think his existence and purpose had become so basic and singular of focus. His reason for living is the boy. His only delight or hope is the boy. As long as such goodness remains on earth hope remains. I think that when he looks at the boy he sees the incarnation of everything good in mankind. I think form is every form of religion. He sees the boy and he knows there is a God. It might be hard to look at anything else in the world and know.

[bouquin]

I have to admit I had no problem with the language and style and diction. Now I also want to say that this is very American english, and not just American but American from I think the south west part of the US. Are the people who had some trouble with the language and style have english as not their primary language or are British english and not used to the Americanism? That could be part of the problem. Not only did I not have a problem with the language, but I actually found it easy and natural.



I myself did not have any trouble although English is not my first language. I was just a little surprised in the beginning at the omission of the apostrophe for the contracted verb in the negative. I agree with the opinion expressed earlier that getting rid of the punctuation marks and the like may be in keeping with the bleak atmosphere that pervades the story and the minimalist approach to its narration. Anyway, we are now in the era of text messaging so we should have no problem figuring out the sense of a sentence even if it's been wiped clean of all commas and apostrophes!

[Jozanny]

2/ Luck
When I read the book, I made a comment to myself that it was a bit too convenient how every time they ran out of food they would find something to eat (the bunker, the abandoned house, the ship...).
Well the interesting thing here is that throughout the interview, they discuss the fact that MC has had some really bad financial times

lug, I wanted to come back to this from the interview one last time: McCarthy's personal circumstances in no way obviates that the bunker and the good house and the ship were a little too convenient, because they were.

This title was my first exposure to McCarthy outside of knowing more than I need to about adapting his material for film, and I remain ambivalent about the book on the whole. Is the boy a new Christ? If so he has some inept moments, letting the valves leak, forgetting the gun, even giving Ely food could be seen as questionable.

It seems to me, in some ways, that this was McCarthy yanking our chains on the cheap: This is a world which died out in sterility awfully fast, with no real cues as to why. Bombs, mega volcanoes? With the cannibals rather briefly referenced. They have a truck, they have captives, and in one additional instance, they pass the father and son with a fleeting vision of what their society might turn into. But if the good guy in the yellow gray parka doesn't eat people, then the planet must having living patches still round and about.

As I wrote once before, if The Road is Cormac's allegory toward his version of salvation, his rationale just isn't good enough. I've read more challenging versions in science fiction which did not need the Christian symbolism crutch, and Lessing's tale, though older, at least challenges contemporary norms.

[Virgil]

I've read more challenging versions in science fiction which did not need the Christian symbolism crutch, and Lessing's tale, though older, at least challenges contemporary norms.
I think you bring up ligitimate points, but on the one I leave quoted I find curious. If McCarthy is a Christian (I don't know one way or the other) and he wishes to see the world in a Christian framework, why is it a crutch? Are you saying that the works of Graham Greene, Evylin Waugh, TS Eliot, Chesterton, CS Lewis, Shirley Jackson, and others not valid or relying on a crutch? Even William Faulkner uses Christian imagery and symblism to develop his themes.

[Jozanny]

I think you bring up ligitimate points, but on the one I leave quoted I find curious. If McCarthy is a Christian (I don't know one way or the other) and he wishes to see the world in a Christian framework, why is it a crutch? Are you saying that the works of Graham Greene, Evylin Waugh, TS Eliot, Chesterton, CS Lewis, Shirley Jackson, and others not valid or relying on a crutch? Even William Faulkner uses Christian imagery and symblism to develop his themes.

For the purpose of reading the book itself it is a crutch badly used, in my estimation. The ambiguity is more about McCarthy not playing with a full deck, it seems to me. Waugh respects Catholicism even if he will take his digs on what it does to a woman like Julia. As a reader I have a framework.

McCarthy seems to say "screw scaffolding, this way no one can pick on me."

Daddy seems reasonably educated, yet he recalls bits and pieces of the pre-apocalyptic past without having the slightest idea of what created his current apocalyptic evironment--all we know is the power went out. And that the boy is his warrant, then to Ely, possibly god. I mean, come on already.

McCarthy isn't even challenging himself by offering the possibility that hope can take a different, maybe more interesting form.

Yes, I still think it is a good book, but I think his tropes come on the cheap, because he is McCarthy and maybe he didn't want to push himself a little harder. Been known to happen.:crash:

[Virgil]

I agree the tropes are simple, but then everything is simple. It's as if McCarthy reduced everything to bare essence. It is not a sophisticated novel, but it wasn't intended to be. Neither is Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea, which stylistically this inherents something.


Daddy seems reasonably educated, yet he recalls bits and pieces of the pre-apocalyptic past without having the slightest idea of what created his current apocalyptic evironment--all we know is the power went out. And that the boy is his warrant, then to Ely, possibly god. I mean, come on already.

First I didn't see anywhere that he didn't recall the cause. Perhaps I missed that memory lapse, I don't know. I believe McCarthy purposely keeps it from us. And quite right. If the intent is to reduce everything to bare essence, then whatever may have caused the apocalypse would have thematic implications that McCarthy doesn't want to tinge the story with.

[Jozanny]

Perhaps I should have written "without offering, in his own mind, a sense of what happened"; because he doesn't; daddy does cue the reader in on some flashbacks, like the scavengers after the markets ran out of food, and cues us in on how the boy was born, but we simply have to accept the extent of the catastrophe as a given. Okay, but even within the text, it is somewhat inconsistent.

Sorry if I read more hyper than usual. I am more hyper than usual, and I am not getting anything done, and I am tired of my world. Tired of this city, pushing back against my landlord, my former employer whom I hate with visceral clench of my stomach, but they are the center for independent living and hey, me them and 20 years nearly of hope and betrayal. I should write the novel; if I did the disability activists would hate me and I don't know that nice folk like MotherHubbard would read it and I can't write the novel now. I have too much on my plate.

I'm going to be 46 years old and I'd like to curse vehemently even in public and I know I can't ;). I should have asked JBI if I could have latched onto his Italy trip, right?

[bouquin]

Between the 2 principal characters (Papa and Boy) which one did you prefer?

[Jozanny]

Between the 2 principal characters (Papa and Boy) which one did you prefer?

I liked both, but admired the father's tenacity more I guess, at the end of the day.:alien:

[Virgil]

Sorry if I read more hyper than usual. I am more hyper than usual, and I am not getting anything done, and I am tired of my world. Tired of this city, pushing back against my landlord, my former employer whom I hate with visceral clench of my stomach, but they are the center for independent living and hey, me them and 20 years nearly of hope and betrayal. I should write the novel; if I did the disability activists would hate me and I don't know that nice folk like MotherHubbard would read it and I can't write the novel now. I have too much on my plate.

I'm going to be 46 years old and I'd like to curse vehemently even in public and I know I can't ;). I should have asked JBI if I could have latched onto his Italy trip, right?
That's all right Jozy. I wasn't criticizing. I was just trying to understand and discuss. This novel isn't for everyone. I'm not claiming it's as good as The Sound and the Fury. ;) What city do you live in? I'm 46 myself and one always has that time's winged chariot creeping behind.


Between the 2 principal characters (Papa and Boy) which one did you prefer?
Not sure what you mean by prefer. The novel requires both. If you mean who did I identify with, I would have to say the father.

[bouquin]

I agree that the novel requires both Papa and Boy, otherwise it would not be the same story. Which character did you like better ... or dislike? and why? ("Identify with" is good, too).

[Jozanny]

That's all right Jozy. I wasn't criticizing. I was just trying to understand and discuss. This novel isn't for everyone. I'm not claiming it's as good as The Sound and the Fury. ;) What city do you live in? I'm 46 myself and one always has that time's winged chariot creeping behind.

I'm not really trying to bash it:lol:. I just haven't really fully digested it yet, but normally wait awhile to reread. The poetry of the prose works really well, at times, but if I could ask McCarthy a question it would be, What does your vision here contribute to the genre?

I'd be really interested to hear his answer.

As to you Virgil, I couldn't really guess your age at first. I thought you must have been young when we debated Cranes, then wasn't sure.

I made my coffee, spilled a little of it, but ate too and calmed down a bit. I typed maybe a full sentence on a memoir I am doing, and guess we are sort of neighbors. I am a Philly gal here. Cheese steaks and all. I don't eat them much anymore.:thumbs_up

[Virgil]

I'm not really trying to bash it:lol:. I just haven't really fully digested it yet, but normally wait awhile to reread. The poetry of the prose works really well, at times, but if I could ask McCarthy a question it would be, What does your vision here contribute to the genre?

I'd be really interested to hear his answer.

As to you Virgil, I couldn't really guess your age at first. I thought you must have been young when we debated Cranes, then wasn't sure.

I made my coffee, spilled a little of it, but ate too and calmed down a bit. I typed maybe a full sentence on a memoir I am doing, and guess we are sort of neighbors. I am a Philly gal here. Cheese steaks and all. I don't eat them much anymore.:thumbs_up

Oh I love Philly cheese steaks. :D Good to know someone thought me young. :lol: My age I think is in my profile and I tell a little about me in my intro which is on the very first page of here: http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14853. And you can run through my blog and find all sorts of things: http://www.online-literature.com/forums/blogs/viewblog.php?userid=9515. So there, you'll probably know everything about me. ;)

[lugdunum]

There are a couple of passages I wanted to discuss before we closed this out. Here's one for now. Please excuse any typos.

I think we see here for sure that the boy is regarded as some religious manifestation. Whether that's McCarthy's view or just the father's inside the novel could be in dispute, but the nonetheless the boy carries religious revelation to either the father or in the novel as a whole. We see it in the kneeling, the cup (alluding to a chalice), the light, even a sort of Christian ritual of communion.

Actually at one point, the man is looking at the boy and he's describing his hair and it says "a golden chalice" (I can't remember where right now, and I'm at work so I can't take my book out and look for it :p )

As we've said before, religion is present in the book but maybe more as a symbol of faith in general and maybe the reason why there are so many references to the Christian religion instead of others is because McCarthy is more familiar with it. Although it seems like too simple to be the real reason.


But the last three sentences there are eye openers. " Look around you, he said." Who is he talking to there? Himself actually. This is actually a soliloquy. He's asking himself to look around. Then: "There is no prophet in the earth's long chronicle who's not honored here today." Ok, the boy is a stand in for all of history's prophets, and the equivilant. I'm with him there still. One could consider it sacrilidge but given that the earth has been nearly wiped out of people I can see the point. But here then is where I'm confused: "Whatever form you spoke of you were right." What is he refering to? What particularly of the boy talk was he right about? And "form" is a very strange and charged word. I have some thoughts, but let me see what others think. Any thoughts?

:thumbs_up Thanks for this Virgil. I have to confess that I'll pass on that one.
but please please please tell us what your thoughts are.... :banana:

By the way, I wanted to ask those of you who have re-read the book staight after finishing, was your second opinion worse, same, better? Would you change you vote after re-reading it?

[bouquin]

lug, I wanted to come back to this from the interview one last time: McCarthy's personal circumstances in no way obviates that the bunker and the good house and the ship were a little too convenient, because they were.

This title was my first exposure to McCarthy outside of knowing more than I need to about adapting his material for film, and I remain ambivalent about the book on the whole. Is the boy a new Christ? If so he has some inept moments, letting the valves leak, forgetting the gun, even giving Ely food could be seen as questionable.

It seems to me, in some ways, that this was McCarthy yanking our chains on the cheap: This is a world which died out in sterility awfully fast, with no real cues as to why. Bombs, mega volcanoes? With the cannibals rather briefly referenced. They have a truck, they have captives, and in one additional instance, they pass the father and son with a fleeting vision of what their society might turn into. But if the good guy in the yellow gray parka doesn't eat people, then the planet must having living patches still round and about.

As I wrote once before, if The Road is Cormac's allegory toward his version of salvation, his rationale just isn't good enough. I've read more challenging versions in science fiction which did not need the Christian symbolism crutch, and Lessing's tale, though older, at least challenges contemporary norms.




I could not quite believe it when the boy misplaced the gun. It was not very clever of him, to say the least. He knew from day 1 that the gun was an essential tool to their protection and survival, he would see Papa always making sure that it was at arm's reach. Makes me wonder again how old he is and why his survival instincts do not seem to be that sharp given the circumstances that he and Papa are in.

[Virgil]

By the way, I wanted to ask those of you who have re-read the book staight after finishing, was your second opinion worse, same, better? Would you change you vote after re-reading it?
Other than me I'm not sure i know who else is rereading it. I think it was still very good, though not super as after my first read. I guess i could see everything coming, so the suspense was less. But I still pulled for the father to find solutions and survive. Like I mentioned to Jozy above, this is a relative simple story. The power is in the symbolism and language. I still would give it the same vote.


I could not quite believe it when the boy misplaced the gun. It was not very clever of him, to say the least. He knew from day 1 that the gun was an essential tool to their protection and survival, he would see Papa always making sure that it was at arm's reach. Makes me wonder again how old he is and why his survival instincts do not seem to be that sharp given the circumstances that he and Papa are in.
I don't think the boy is to be regarded as a diety. He is not infallible. I don't think the story should be read as allegory. Perhaps the boy comes to be regarded by the father as a prophet, but that doesn't necessarilly mean that McCarthy as author intends it. There is a distinction to be made and that perhaps would alter McCarthy's central theme. I just can't make up my mind as to what McCarthy intends. There is ambiguity. And I believe the ambiguity is on purpose by the author.

[lugdunum]

lug, I wanted to come back to this from the interview one last time: McCarthy's personal circumstances in no way obviates that the bunker and the good house and the ship were a little too convenient, because they were.

Agreed. It doesn't justify the fact that as you say they were a little too convenient.

It's just that maybe since in his personal life some things have been very convenient (like when he says that at one point he was really broke and all of a sudden he received a $20.000 checkfrom some foundatation out of nowhere - how convenient was that??!) What I mean is that for example, I consider I don't knowmyself a very lucky person and sometimes I forget that not everybody is as lucky as I am (which often leads to misjudgments).


Jozanny
Is the boy a new Christ? If so he has some inept moments, letting the valves leak, forgetting the gun, even giving Ely food could be seen as questionable.
With regards, to the boy committing these mistakes


Bouquin

I could not quite believe it when the boy misplaced the gun. It was not very clever of him, to say the least. He knew from day 1 that the gun was an essential tool to their protection and survival, he would see Papa always making sure that it was at arm's reach. Makes me wonder again how old he is and why his survival instincts do not seem to be that sharp given the circumstances that he and Papa are in.

I felt so sorry for the boy when he did all these (thoughtless) actions. After all, he's just a (little?) boy... But then I guess, I'm completely missing the point ;)


Jozanny
Sorry if I read more hyper than usual. I am more hyper than usual, and I am not getting anything done, and I am tired of my world. Tired of this city, pushing back against my landlord, my former employer whom I hate with visceral clench of my stomach, but they are the center for independent living and hey, me them and 20 years nearly of hope and betrayal. I should write the novel; if I did the disability activists would hate me and I don't know that nice folk like MotherHubbard would read it and I can't write the novel now. I have too much on my plate.

I'm going to be 46 years old and I'd like to curse vehemently even in public and I know I can't . I should have asked JBI if I could have latched onto his Italy trip, right?

Well, I sure hope that your day will/has brighten up after the homemade cofe and a little food. :) May I suggest knitting? :lol: I dunno, it seems that it is the latest glamourous thing to do to relax. Haven't tried it myself cuz I'd probably get even more upset if I was having a bad day, but it might work with you :p

[Agatha]

I agree that the novel requires both Papa and Boy, otherwise it would not be the same story. Which character did you like better ... or dislike? and why? ("Identify with" is good, too).

Hmm I couldn't identify with the father, nor with the boy. It was for me hard to become intimate with them at the begining, maybe because we don't know much about them and their dialouges are rather laconic? But I like better father- I was really impressed that he decided to continue his journey when boy's mother left them. And I think that whole situation was harder was father. Because he remembered his former "normal" life, whereas boy didn't remembered anything. Maybe "like" isn't good word, but the father's history and attitiude impressed me more and made me sympathize with him

[Sancho]

Hi you-all,

There ain’t nothing quite like pitching into the fray late, eh?

I read The Road earlier this year and only because my local book vendor shoved into my hand and said, “Sancho, you gotta read this freakin’ book.” So I did.

But I read it reluctantly. I’d read Blood Meridian a few years ago and came away from it feeling like I’d just been to a B-list, Hollywood Slasher flick.

Also earlier this year, I went to see No Country for Old Men. Despite several stand out performances, I came away from it feeling like I’d just been to a B-list, Hollywood Slasher flick. Yet, for my money, the directors get an A+ for creating a late ‘70s West Texas atmosphere. It took me back – I lived there then – in San Angelo. I only have a couple corrections to make: First, guys like Llewellyn (played by Josh Brolin) didn’t wear Levi’s – they wore Wranglers. Second, the boots in El Paso are Lucchese (Loo-Kay-See) – Larry Mahan’s are for New York Cowboys. The Coen Brothers could’ve gotten this right if they would’ve asked me, but they didn’t – so there you go.

Virgil, I’ll have to go with the woman as a realist theory. I think that she was blind and dying (from radiation or whatever) and that she did not desert them, but that he deserted her. She asked him to do-her-in (to take her out of her misery, as I read) but he declined and left her to do-in herself. Then he went on with the boy. Now I’ll play Monday morning psychologist: this is Cormac McCarthy’s soul laid bare. He is an old man with a young son and a young wife and a couple of exes. He had some very lean years while he was in his prime and trying to write for a living but now he’s a rich, old, angry white-man with bones in his wake. He knows that marriages fail but that blood is forever.

And that’s what the book is about.

Oh yes, Jozanny, as a north easterner, it’s no wonder that you had no problem with “Cormac’s staccato.” Cormac (Charles) McCarthy is from Rhode Island. So says Wiki.

[lugdunum]

There are a couple of passages I wanted to discuss before we closed this out. Here's one for now.

Virgil, what was the otehr passage you wanted to discuss?

[Virgil]

Virgil, what was the otehr passage you wanted to discuss?

The concluding passage. I'll type it out tonight when I get home from work. :) So come back tomorrow and comment. :D

[Virgil]

I find the concluding passage mysterius. In musical terms it's a coda and really vaguely connected to the body. But here's the passage.


Once there were brook trout in the streams in the mountains. You could see them standing in the amber current where the white edges of their fins wimpled softly in the flow. They smelled of moss in your hand. Polished and muscular and torsional. On their backs were vermiculate patterns that were maps of the world in its becoming. Maps and mazes. Of a thing which could not be put back. Not be made right again. In the deep glens where they lived all things were older than man and they hummed of mystery.

What is McCarthy suggesting here? Do you thnk he's suggesting that the earth will never recover itself? "Of a thing which could not be put back. Not be made right again." Why does he focus on fishes? Something older than man? Are the fish still alive? He says "once." If not, then is the regenerative process aborted? Will the survivors eventually die and would all of the father's efforts be for nothing, which would make the wife's speech prophetic. Or is the boy prophetic and within the fishes that must still live in the glens some hope for regeneration? And what about the maps and mazes? Recall the pieces of map the father used to try to get them to the south and to the coast? And isn't the process of winding his way along the road a path out of the maze of life? And what does the road symbolize? In a novel of such bare essences, the road, the central configuring element to the novel, must represent something. Any thoughts?

[Agatha]

What is McCarthy suggesting here? Do you thnk he's suggesting that the earth will never recover itself? "Of a thing which could not be put back. Not be made right again."
I think McCarthy is suggesting that the earth never be the same as in past. The earth has a impressed stamp and everything is going to change(for the better... or the worse)

And what does the road symbolize? In a novel of such bare essences, the road, the central configuring element to the novel, must represent something. Any thoughts?
For me road represents a journey which the boy and his father had to go through. While they're travelling, they had to struggle for survive and for hummanity. So the road symbolizes struggling for hummanity and for surive.

Why does he focus on fishes? Something older than man?
I've been wondering about it too. It's another metaphor but what is meaning of this?

[lugdunum]

What is McCarthy suggesting here? Do you thnk he's suggesting that the earth will never recover itself? "Of a thing which could not be put back. Not be made right again."


I think McCarthy is suggesting that the earth never be the same as in past. The earth has a impressed stamp and everything is going to change(for the better... or the worse)

I tend to see this last paragraph (and the end of the book) as a message of hope. I believe that the man with the parka and his family are the "good guys" they have been looking for and that the fire will carry on.

Besides, this book is dedicated to MC's son and I just cannot believe that McCarthy would end it on such a negative and cynical note. The earth might not be the same as before but in a better way.



And what does the road symbolize? In a novel of such bare essences, the road, the central configuring element to the novel, must represent something. Any thoughts?

Could this be a road to redemption for humanity? Ok, I admit that this might be going a bit too far. But the man would be the dead humanity and with him a child representing the "good" side of that humanity: compassion, generosity ... and at the end of the book only the good remains. Just a suggestion, I'm probably being carried away. ;)
Any other thoughts?

[WildCityWoman]

Had this one out of the library and took it back - got into No Country for Old Men . . . really love it.

Almost finished that - I've re-ordered The Road and I'm looking forward to its return.


My trip to the book store was as fatal as usual; I came back with four books when I only went to pick up the one :rolleyes:

Oh well, I'm going to finish the Odyssey then start right on this.

Dapper, did you get involved in the discussion of The Odyssey at Barnes & Noble's forum?

I really enjoyed that - it was my first time for the story and the discussion and all the exchanges of information at B & N made it just that more fun to read.

I just finished up 'No Country For Old Men', so I was already prepared for McCarthy's style - no quotation marks, etc.

It doesn't bother me - his stories read smoothly without it.

................................

We're about halfway through the book, Jeff and I . . . we're both engrossed in the story.

Reading here this morning, I've just come to realize that the boy had never seen another 'little boy' before.

I'm assuming that the child was born after this 'fallout' or whatever happened and that the father kept him indoors and away from everybody?


Oh I love Philly cheese steaks. :D Good to know someone thought me young. :lol: My age I think is in my profile and I tell a little about me in my intro which is on the very first page of here: http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14853. And you can run through my blog and find all sorts of things: http://www.online-literature.com/forums/blogs/viewblog.php?userid=9515. So there, you'll probably know everything about me. ;)

I too am a fan of Philly Cheese Steaks . . . I'm from Toronto, Canada. The best one I've ever had is at Montana's.

Well, it's the long weekend here in Toronto - Simcoe Day - not to mention the famous 'Carabana Parade'.

America has a long weekend now too? England?

Dunno' . . .

I'll wait to see if there are more posts here after the long weekend . . . in the meantime, I think what I'll do is try to respond to a few of the posts here, all in one.

(I always feel awkward being the one with the last ten posts on a board . . . ha ha! So that's what I'll do.)

[barbara0207]

This thread has run a bit wild, it seems. :p

All the same, I have just finished catching up on the discussion of 'The Road'. As you may know I was offline for five weeks - and I wanted to badly to take part in the discussion. But perhaps it's not too late to have my say.

There were just a few things that bothered me.
1. Missing quotation marks; sure, they're conventional, but that convention is there for a reason. It makes reading easier, and this easy reading does not take your mind off the contents. The constant repetition of the pronoun 'he' (he - he - he - who???) added to the problem. I do understand why there are no names given but the first thing you learn in writing classes is to mind your pronouns.

2. Repetitions, especially of the phrase, 'It was very cold'. It was a summer read, and sometimes I did have difficulty in imagining just how cold it was in the book in the heat of real life. A more vivid description of the cold would have helped.

Sure, all these devices add to the bleakness of the setting but the question is if it is really necessary to make the style that bleak.

But apart from these minor points I agree with the opinion of most posters here that it is a good book. I do, however, not see that this is a dystopian novel. Only the setting in the future and the hostile earth remind one of the genre. By definition, a dystopia is more than that. The dystopian writer's purpose is basically didactic - he or she extrapolates from current trends to issue a warning what the future may look like if these trends are not stopped and/or - by exaggeration - make it clear just how bad these (social, political, environmental) trends are (cf Orwell, Huxley, Atwood and others).

From the blurb I also took 'The Road' to be a dystopia and was looking for the causes of the disaster and a warning to mankind - until I found out there was nothing of the kind there. So at last I could take it for what it is, in my opinion - the (certainly metaphorical) story of the relationship of father and son and its development on the background of a - both physically and socially - bleak and hostile environment. How does this hostility with its cold, starvation, violence and social instability affect this relationship and the characters' humanity? Can people survive in this situation and keep their minds sane and their love and humanity intact? These are the questions the book is about. Many of you have commented on these aspects so I won't repeat them.

When I had noticed all these things I no longer had the problem DapperDrake talked about. The cause of the disaster is not fully explained because it is not necessary to the story. McCarthy just needed this setting - and he doesn't really care how it came about and whether everything is plausible.

I think the themes mentioned above are beautifully depicted, and on rereading the book one of these days I will savour it even more because I won't start with false assumptions.

[Virgil]

Thank you to both of you WildCityWoman (how wild are you? :p;)) and Barbara for your comments. :)

[plainjane]

It's been awhile since I read The Road but I see the lack of punctuation mentioned as a negative thing. For me at least, it was something that pulled me along even more rapidly and I found myself reading at a faster pace not wanting to put the book down even for a moment, as though if I did the prose would run away and I wouldn't be able to catch up.

lugdunum wrote:

Could this be a road to redemption for humanity? Ok, I admit that this might be going a bit too far. But the man would be the dead humanity and with him a child representing the "good" side of that humanity: compassion, generosity ... and at the end of the book only the good remains. Just a suggestion, I'm probably being carried away.
No, I like that. The man was consistent in his teaching the boy survival was the most important thing even to squelching their compassion, but the boy had a deep seated goodness about him that would not give in even to his father. The boy had strength.

[lugdunum]

i do, however, not see that this is a dystopian novel. Only the setting in the future and the hostile earth remind one of the genre. (...)
The cause of the disaster is not fully explained because it is not necessary to the story. McCarthy just needed this setting - and he doesn't really care how it came about and whether everything is plausible.

Good point Barbara. :)


So at last I could take it for what it is, in my opinion - the (certainly metaphorical) story of the relationship of father and son and its development on the background of a - both physically and socially - bleak and hostile environment. How does this hostility with its cold, starvation, violence and social instability affect this relationship and the characters' humanity? Can people survive in this situation and keep their minds sane and their love and humanity intact?

According to McCarthy himself this is what this story is about... the father/son relationship (hence the dedication of the book to his son).


Sancho
Now I’ll play Monday morning psychologist: this is Cormac McCarthy’s soul laid bare. He is an old man with a young son and a young wife and a couple of exes. He had some very lean years while he was in his prime and trying to write for a living but now he’s a rich, old, angry white-man with bones in his wake. He knows that marriages fail but that blood is forever.

Interesting idea Sancho.

[barbara0207]

According to McCarthy himself this is what this story is about... the father/son relationship (hence the dedication of the book to his son).


Thanks for the information, lugdunum. I didn't know that.

[Jozanny]

I have nothing more specific to add about the book, but I don't think I should have read it before exploring Blood Meridian, because The Road simply soured me on McCarthy as a great American author, sorry. To me he fails as a master of minimalist ambiguity.

I've read worse novels, of course--but I expected much more on the basis of this man's reputation, which for me has been damaged. He just didn't do anything interesting with the post-apocalyptic vision so that the story stands out significantly.

If Virgil is right, and McCarthy is *playing off* Doris Lessing, he fails to challenge the vision of her work in any major way, failed to challenge me in any major way, in point of fact.

[Nossa]

I do, however, not see that this is a dystopian novel. Only the setting in the future and the hostile earth remind one of the genre. By definition, a dystopia is more than that. The dystopian writer's purpose is basically didactic - he or she extrapolates from current trends to issue a warning what the future may look like if these trends are not stopped and/or - by exaggeration - make it clear just how bad these (social, political, environmental) trends are (cf Orwell, Huxley, Atwood and others).

From the blurb I also took 'The Road' to be a dystopia and was looking for the causes of the disaster and a warning to mankind - until I found out there was nothing of the kind there...

I totally agree on this. McCarthy didn't even explain what happened to the world. He didn't aim at the causes, but rather at the response of the two charatcers invovled as you stated.

[barbara0207]

I totally agree on this. McCarthy didn't even explain what happened to the world. He didn't aim at the causes, but rather at the response of the two charatcers invovled as you stated.

Thanks for supporting my view, Nossa.

[wilbur lim]

Alack,I don't want to buy books for I have inadequate amount of money.Finding it at the library is troublesome.I am too depressed for not reading the book requested.

[Jozanny]

Although I agree with Barbara on the classic definition of a dystopian tale, I still don't think this absolves McCarthy from a mild case of laziness. No, he did not have to spell out that the US was nuked--this isn't what I mean--but he could have had some tighter control on the back story, how it related to the full blown cannibalism which pushes back against the father and son, why being off road was better, as the boy learns when rescued.

Lessing is just as ambiguous in Survivor, but the difference is, her end of civilization thread is credible; McCarthy's isn't. He has enough in the setting to toy with the reader, but that isn't enough for The Road to transcend anything, to make it a great fiction.

I suppose I am being picky, but if Blood Meridian is now in most critics top one hundred list, McCarthy's love song for his kid might have been just as ambitious.

[Nossa]

No, he did not have to spell out that the US was nuked--this isn't what I mean--but he could have had some tighter control on the back story, how it related to the full blown cannibalism which pushes back against the father and son, why being off road was better, as the boy learns when rescued.

Lessing is just as ambiguous in Survivor, but the difference is, her end of civilization thread is credible; McCarthy's isn't. He has enough in the setting to toy with the reader, but that isn't enough for The Road to transcend anything, to make it a great fiction.


I still think that the story was basically and more importantly about the father and his son and how their love got them so far in a journey that many people wouldn't have survived half of it. I don't know if the story would have been better or worse if McCarthy gave more background information, but I never found myself wondering what happened to the world. That's not the point here. Maybe the 'wretched world' setting is a symbol to any kind of problems and crises one could face in life. I think this story is primarily about the relationship of the father and son. I know there are more interpretations to it, but this is the basic idea as I understood it.

[Jozanny]

Another possibility I mentioned at the very beginning, was that The Road is McCarthy's attempt at epic poetry within a minimalist prose structure. If that's the case then I'll have to revaluate--but as I mentioned way back when, I have kept my copy and I'm not putting it back up for sale.

I am also not rereading it soon, as I have other things I want to get to.

[lugdunum]

I know nothing about Epic Poetry :blush: (except what I've just read on Wiki after reading Jozanny's post ;)) , but would be very interested to know your reasons for saying this, if you can take time to explain (It's never too late to learn :D).

I read The Road "as it came", and really liked it.

I also tend to think that the book was more about the father/son relationship and everything Nossa and Barbara have already said.
I personally didn't pay too much attention too what had happened before the story until I read someone's post on this thread.
But then again, I've only read it once and as Virgil (if I'm not mistaken) said, the second reading was not as good as the first.
Maybe when I do re-read it (and I will), I'll come back to this thread I'll be dissing C. McCarthy and his book :lol: (Although I doubt it). t might be interesting to read other McCarthy book(s) between both readings like Blood Meridian or No Country for old men....

[Nossa]

Here's a link to a little discussion I had with Barbara about The Road. There's also Barbara's thorough review of the book. I hope this is useful to anyone who read/will read the book.

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=615379#post615379

[TheFifthElement]

Well, I read The Road after the group did and love it...

But...

did you know they're making a movie? I think they'll have to flesh it out some but, hmmm, Viggo Mortensen :p

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0898367/

[Joreads]

did you know they're making a movie? I think they'll have to flesh it out some but, hmmm, Viggo Mortensen :p

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0898367/.



I loved the book and I have said this before but it still keeps me up at night. Even if I didn't love the book Viggo is enough of a reason for me to watch it.;)

[Virgil]

Well, I read The Road after the group did and love it...

But...

did you know they're making a movie? I think they'll have to flesh it out some but, hmmm, Viggo Mortensen :p

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0898367/

Yes. Can't wait for it to come out. You didn't vote in the poll Fifth.

[TheFifthElement]

Duly corrected Virgil ;)

Joreads - yes, definitely agree :D

[AbbeFara]

I read The Road about a month back now, I have to say that whilst at first I was skeptical of the authors style, in that I felt it was rather manipulative, these thoughts were quickly dispelled - by the end of the book I was left utterly astounded. I cannot recall a book affecting me so powerfully; there were many passages of stunning brilliance and the intensity of the emotion that the author conveys, to me completely vindicates the usage of an almost snare-like style of stream-of-consciousness writing. What we have here is a first-rate example of the power of premise. Everyone who has read the book will understand what I mean - the lack of narrative depth, the size of the cast of characters; the sheer assaulting pace all serve to display that with a premise as shattering as The Road's, the author can explore themes and ideas with an emotion, an immediacy; an intensity that other perhaps more detailed approaches could never hope to manage.

McCarthy shows an admirable amount of trust for - or familiarity with his audience in that many of the most arresting moments of the novel for me occurred whilst my eye was away from the page; the number of times I sat back for a couple of minutes and just thought 'Jesus!' - reading on and ultimately leaving the passage with a deeper and more meaningful understanding of everything from the origins of religious feeling and the development of tribal/nepotistic tendencies in society, to the growth of many of the forms of domination and prejudice still relevant to us today. At the same time as providing a devastating account of a dystopian future, McCarthy allows us a unique, uncompromising look at our societies' past. In the world he offers us morality means nothing, or at least is speedily degrading as the author shows us, through the painful questions The Boy asks his beloved Father about the methods he uses to survive, and who he hurts in the process.

The implications this book presents are almost unbearably depressing - as is the knowledge that although never in such final and fatal circumstances, humanity has been here before and will inevitably be so again. On the brink of extinction and reduced to our most basic forms, who can question the employment of slaves, the subjugation of the ever-pregnant women or the cannibalism; when day after day the choice is between debasement and death. That the protagonists have so far avoided the methods employed by the more brutal of the characters we encounter, seems to me more down to luck than heroism; in their desperation they hang on to their memories - in clinging to their identity they manage to retain some semblance of morality. What in this broken world does it mean, to call someone brutal? The blurred moral compass and the shifting temporal focus of the books premise, are the ultimate justification for the writers fluid, flowing, relentless style. The lack of punctuation, proper nouns and other linguistic conventions plunge us headlong into the emotional storm that the themes and ideas presented by the novel provoke for us.

He’d had this feeling before, beyond the numbness and the dull despair. The world shrinking down about a raw core of parsible entities. The names of things slowly following those things into oblivion. Colors. The names of birds. Things to eat. Finally the names of things one believed to be true. More fragile than he would have thought. How much was gone already? The sacred idiom shorn of its referents and so of its reality. Drawing down like something trying to preserve heat. In time to wink out forever.

As the book goes on it becomes more and more difficult to ascertain whether The Boy or The Man is talking; who is leading the conversation - who is posing the questions. We can only assume The Boy is growing whilst The Man is deteriorating; McCarthy approaches this theme with such skill, care and affection for his characters that it took my breath away. This is another good example of McCarthy's trusting, evocative style. He expects us to see these developments, appealing to our instincts and humanity rather than relying on traditional descriptive devices to offer the story to us on a silver platter - an approach which is employed masterfully at every level of the novel. Is it the changing relationship between the pair that confuses us or our slow realisation of the fact our normal social conventions and ways of operating just do not apply, or both? Does it matter who is speaking to whom, what their names are or what are their motives in this place? Our innate answers to these questions provide, I think, one of the only sources of hope in the whole book. We are human. Even in the midst of this tempest of a work; within the violence, desperation and animalism we search for understanding and meaning, as do the protagonists. The author touches us thus with an unbelievable agility; that for me is a sign of a master at work.

Similarly, it is difficult to tell where the characters' conversations, authors' narrative or internal thoughts of the protagonists begin and end; the shapeshifting narrative haunts the characters, sliding in and out of view - here comforting us with beautiful interactions between the father and his boy, there stunning us with the primal immediacy of their emotions (and those, of course, of the characters they meet). I remember clearly being blown away by the sequence from where the pair's trolley is stolen by another survivor, up to the boy's bitter interrogation of his father's reaction. McCarthy often dropped my jaw with awesome, wonderfully powerful metaphors; he left me so much food for thought with the thematic implications explored earlier, I felt totally involved in what I was reading - more so than any book I can remember. Truly a unique, cinematic experience. I was delighted when I found out that this book was being adapted to film - If No Country for Old Men is anything to go by, we shouldn't be disappointed.

By then all stores of food had given out and murder was everywhere upon the land. The world soon to be largely populated by men who would eat your children in front of your eyes and the cities themselves held by cores of blackened looters who tunneled among the ruins and crawled from the rubble white of tooth and eye carrying charred and anonymous tins of food in nylon nets like shoppers in the commissaries of hell. The soft black talc blew through the streets like squid ink uncoiling along a sea floor and the cold crept down and the dark came early and the scavengers passing down the steep canyons with their torches trod silky holes in the drifted ash that closed behind them silently as eyes. Out on the roads the pilgrims sank down and fell over and died and the bleak and shrouded earth went trundling past the sun and returned again as trackless and as unremarked as the path of any nameless sisterworld in the ancient dark beyond.

I am getting goosebumps writing about it more than four weeks later. I hope someone reads this and can get what I did from the text, think about religion, think about domination in society and where it came from when you re-read the book. The author added a crippling humanity to these seemingly faceless, cruel and impersonal structures and transformed the way I view society, whilst taking me on an intimate, emotional thrill-ride. McCarthy reminded me that even the worst things in the world (self-deceptive religious feelings, brutal violence, fear of difference) have their roots in an intensely emotional, primal necessity; disarming, dejecting and enlightening me at a stroke. In four words, The Road is: fluid, haunting, evocative and meticulous. In one harrowing evening and night, this book changed many things about the way I see the world, and in this it is a work of sheer genius. I know this review may seem over long and out of step with the thread but this is the first time that I have been driven to write about a book this way (without being told to) and for this, Cormac McCarthy - I salute you!

You said you wouldnt ever leave me.

I know. I’m sorry. You have my whole heart. You always did. You’re the best guy. You always were. If I’m not here you can still talk to me. You can talk to me and I’ll talk to you. You’ll see.

[sadparadise]

Fantastic, dark, bleak and prose that rolls off the tongue. One of my all time favorites!!