July / USA Reading: The Road by Cormac McCarthy

[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. 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.

[Virgil]

I'm not really trying to bash it. 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.

Oh I love Philly cheese steaks. Good to know someone thought me young. 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/for...ad.php?t=14853. And you can run through my blog and find all sorts of things: http://www.online-literature.com/for...hp?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 )

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?

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....

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? 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

[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.

[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

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. Good to know someone thought me young. 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/for...ad.php?t=14853. And you can run through my blog and find all sorts of things: http://www.online-literature.com/for...hp?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.

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.