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.Quote:
Originally Posted by bouquin
Printable View
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by bouquin
In the context of the novel what is your interpretation of the phrase talk to God?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agatha
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.Quote:
DapperDrake
Perhaps it just again a 'poetic way' of referring to morality and human goodness.
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:
Quote:
There is no God and we are his prophets
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.Quote:
Virgil
Actually it's the height of literature to combine poetry and narrative.
The contrast betwen these 2 concepts makes the book even more powerful.
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.
The allusion to Robinson Crusoe deals with the abilty to improvise and survive.
I think the wife actually mentions the living dead allusion.
Not disagreeing. I just don't remember much about the classic, and I am googling now to refresh and draw any further comparisons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Yes, I think some dialogue before the "coldness gift" but don't feel like skimming back to get it. :pQuote:
I think the wife actually mentions the living dead allusion.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by motherhubbard
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.
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.
You're right, good point:) :thumbs_up .Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
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.
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')
Which would match with what someone had suggested that in the book, praying is more an image of pure faith.Quote:
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
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:
3/ StyleQuote:
when things were truly truly bleek, something totally unforeseen would occur
When asked about this particular style of his with very little punctuation, he says that:
(Cormac Mc Carthy 5: )Quote:
If you write properly you shouldn't have to punctuate.
I'm sure that those of you who write will have something to say to this
Agree :nod: or disagree :argue:
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by lugdunum
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.
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
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.:(
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by bouquin
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.
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.
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 :)Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
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.
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.
************************************************** ********
Thanks for that interesting link Jozanny. One more author on my reading list. :thumbs_upQuote:
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
Great minds think alike!;)Quote:
Originally Posted by lugdunum
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.
I bought Lessing's book at lunch time today. ;) Not sure when I'll read it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by DapperDrake
I really enjoy the dialogue. It felt very natural to me.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nossa
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
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. 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?Quote:
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 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
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!
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by lugdunum
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 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
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:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by bouquin
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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).