July / USA Reading: The Road by Cormac McCarthy

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.