July / USA Reading: The Road by Cormac McCarthy

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lugdunum

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hira

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.

Quote:

---

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".

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DapperDrake

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

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:

Quote:

---

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

---

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.

Cool Jozanny, hope you'll join in soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lugdunum

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by motherhubbard

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tersely

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bouquin

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DapperDrake

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lugdunum

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by motherhubbard

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by motherhubbard

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. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by motherhubbard

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:

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lugdunum

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.

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by motherhubbard

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)

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/corma...&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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lugdunum

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.



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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bouquin

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hira

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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. ;)

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DapperDrake

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lugdunum

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.