Create a free edublog to get your own comment avatar (and more!)

118 Comments »

I began reading The Road a few days ago while I was sitting by the pool (yes, I know, I am a nerd), and I have found a few things worth commenting on.

The novel is saturated with memories of the father’s past, a past the son can never understand. For example, the can of soda, the books abandoned on the bookshelf, a child’s bedroom. Each day the father encounters a hint of the past only he knows, and each memory he experiences alone, with no means of sharing the experience with the boy. I feel this explains the differences in behavior between the father and son. The son is more optimistic, and although he is frightened by others on the road, he is ready and willing to help them. He doesn’t feel as much loss as the father, being as he has not known anything else in his life except pain and desolation. The father, on the contrary, is more weary and untrusting. He feels more loss than the boy, realizing that there is nothing left of the world he once knew. There is a passage in which the father realizes this…“The world shrinking down about a raw core of parsible entities. The names of things slowly following those things into oblivion. Colors. The names of birds. Things to eat. Finally the names of things one believed to be true. More fragile than he would have thought” (75). There is no one and nothing left from the world the father once knew.

I have one final curiosity, what happened to the world? They make reference to masks and some sort of disease, and of course the fires and ash, but I have no clear idea of what incident took place. I doubt it has any impact on the book, but I was just curious if anyone else picked up on that.

Excellent observations Natalie-McCarthy never makes clear exactly what destroyed the world. He does hint at it but that’s all.

Do you think it’s important to know or are does this put us in the boy’s shoes. We know this isn’t right but we don’t know why, or really care.

By the way, reading by the pool is not nerdy. It’s decidedly hip.

Peace,
RK

I bought The Road yesterday and began reading it, and despite being only 13 pages in, I feel as if there is one quote that will summarize the entirety of the book. “You forget what you want to remember and you remember what you want to forget,” (12) has already proven to be central to the theme of the book. On numerous occasions the father drifts into past memories of life before the catastrophe.

There is one specific passage that illustrates this theme. On page 13, when the father brings back the memories of his uncle and he going to get firewood, I get the sense that this is the type of experience that he wants to give to his son. He remembers the day and the scene so distinctly, yet there seems to be some kind of pain in this memory, as if he understands that his sons’ experiences will be vastly different. There is something moving about this passage, perhaps the memory that it brings out within each of us of a precious day with a loved one. You get the understanding through this passage that McCarthy is going to delve into our innermost thoughts and memories, reviving them and making them real again.

I thought it was interesting how God is portrayed as the little boy in the novel, rather than as an omnipotent being like in present day monotheism. God and the little boy both advocate generosity and selflessness. This is seen in the novel when a thief steals the man and boy’s cart full of supplies on page 253. Though the thief nearly destroys the livelihood of the boy and man, the boy still becomes very upset when the man punishes the thief, forceing him to give up his clothes. The boy cries, and the man leaves the thief’s clothes in the road for the thief to find instead of taking them away.

“Just help him, Papa. Just help him.
The man looked back up the road.
He was just hungry, Papa. He’s going to die.
He’s going to die anyway.”

Given the situation of the man and boy one would expect the boy to adopt a naturalistic philosophy on life, but he progresses in the opposite direction. The boy acts as the man’s God, making sure the man acts on his morals rather than just to survive. There are many instances of this in the novel. Two that stood out to me were on page 145 when the boy says Grace and on page 170 when the boy gives to a beggar. Religion serves a similiar purpose, reminding people they should act on their morals, regardless of their situation.

There is nothing concrete, but you’re right, that’s probably McCarthy’s intent. Perhaps it doesn’t make any difference what caused the catastrophe. The world and mankind are laid bare regardless. I feel like perhaps McCarthy wants us to sympathize with the boy, to understand how he feels, and keeping us in the dark is one way to do this.

Something else worth discussing is the symbolism in “carrying the fire”. The boy often references that they are the “good guys” because they carry the fire. Obviously the fire is a metaphor for something; I’m thinking the fire of their soul and spirit. Perhaps their capacity to love, to hope, and to believe is still alive. Could carrying the fire symbolism the rebirth of the world? They pass the fire from one generation to the next to ensure the survival of the human race. Or, is the boy the fire and hope for continuing the world? When the man and boy talk it hints at this.
“I want to be with you.
You cant
Please.
You can’t. You have to carry the fire.
I don’t know how to.
Yes you do.
Is it real? The fire?
Yes it is.
Where is it? I don’t know where it is.
Yes you do. It’s inside you. It was always there. I can see it.”

I believe the man is trying to tie fire and strength together for his son, to give his son reason to hope, to continue, and to live.

Hey, is this where I’m supposed to write about The Road for the assignment? Sorry if this is a stupid question, I’ve never blogged before. Is blogged a verb? Going to go look that up now…

Though I haven’t yet read as far as Natalie has, I agree that keeping the cause of the disaster a mystery was McCarthy’s way of making the audience see from the boy’s perspective. The boy doesn’t care about why the apocalypse occurred — he never knew life before it, so to him, the disaster doesn’t matter, but the present does. Survival matters. His father matters. Without the distracting thought of “Why did the apocalypse happen?”, the boy can focus on staying alive.

Also, by not revealing the cause of the disaster, McCarthy makes the post-apocalypse scenario more plausible. If he were to point to a certain cause, one could refute that claim. (”Nah, we wouldn’t end the world in nuclear war. The U.S. keeps tabs on all the nukes in the world.” etc.) We do not know what will cause the end of the world — or if such a disaster will even happen. McCarthy keeps this question unanswered, which makes one ponder if this predicament is possible. What are we doing that might contribute to a global disaster? Perhaps all men should rethink their actions in order to prevent the bleak situation portrayed by The Road — where humans have to trade morality for survival — from taking place.

If you find me incoherent, my automatic defense is that I want sleep.

Your observations are excellent…where to begin?

Adam, your quote: “You forget what you want to remember and you remember what you want to forget,” (12) is incredibly moving. I’m impressed that a young man would notice this as you young people tend to be so in the moment. I can’t forget my mother’s funeral but I there’s so much about my chilrens lives that seems to race by me unnoticed. It fits with the idea of a young boy and an older man as the main characters though.

Bill (Bil):
The boy does seem godly in his charity, but he’s also careless-he leaves the valve for the gas open-how would that fit into your view of the character?

Also, where would that leave the dad? He’s clearly in charge, albeit dying, so what’s his role?

Natalie:

I think the fire is a symbol for the passion to survive and become human again. It’s interesting that McCarthy uses this symbol since the fire also played a major role in the destruction of the world-everything’s ashen, the mother and father “watched the cities burn”-what do you make of this double use of the symbol. Fire isn’t simple. It’s powerful but also dangerous, lie knowledge and passion.

Good Work

I just picked up the book a few hours ago, and already, I have spotted some irony and themes in this book.

“Where all was burnt to ash before them no fires were to be had and the nights were long and dark and cold…Cold to crack the stones. To take your life. He held the boy shivering against him and counted each frail breath in the blackness.” (14). It is interesting that the devastation resulted from an apocalyptic fire, and yet the world is so cold and rainy, that the freezing temperatures alone might kill them both.

Also, the quaint, little conversation between the characters on page 10 and 11, about what the father would do if the son died, exemplifies the extent of the danger. Even the boy, who seems naive of the history of the apocalypse, is completely aware of the vulnerability of their lives. This conversation also hints at the theme, that in total danger, love and commitment can keep one alive. Their companionship is what is leading them down the road.

Well, back to reading, I have to catch up to Bill and Natalie!

I am only about 30 pages into The Road, but I noticed a quote that was very interesting. On page 20 McCarthy writes, “They stood in the rain like farm animals.”

As soon as I read this simile I automatically compared their lives since the disaster to being like animals. First, every day they seem to be going through the same motions. Get up, eat, walk, eat, and sleep. Second, they always seem to be in fear, and have no control over their lives. The father has said many times how easily they could die either by the gangs, or by the cold rain.

This idea is also supported when the father tells us about what life was like directly after the disaster on page 29. The way he tells us, the people who had survived walked around with no purpose, feeling helpless seeming like they were just doing it, and not thinking.

Obviously they are not animals because they still have thoughts and memories. They still have a purpose, to go south and survive. Nonetheless, I find many aspects of their lives comparable.

I’m about a third of the way into The Road and have found a couple things worth mentioning.

My first find was the quote that Adam mentioned, “You forget what you want to remember and you remember what you want to forget,” (12). I agree that it’s a huge theme considering that the man, as Adam said, relapses into many memories. As the man and the boy travel they have their belongings in the cart, but the only real things that the man has is the boy and his memories. These two things together, are what keep the man’s drive strong enough to want to survive.

The quote “The frailty of everything revealed at last. Old and troubling issues resolved into nothingness and night. The last instance of a thing takes the class with it. Turns out the light and is gone. Ever is a long time, but the boy knew what he knew. That ever is no time at all,” (28) is also seemingly siginificant.

The first part about frailty I believe is referring to the world in general. I think the author’s intent, perhaps, was to make us realize what kind of a world we have lived in for so long. The world didn’t just become frail because of this catastrophe, it’s always been frail, but it took a huge catastrophe to make us realize how frail it really is. “Old and troubling issues…” is referring to some of the memories that the man is left with, such as his wife. His last memory of her is her leaving, telling him to tell her son that she’d said ‘good-bye’ and then she’s out the door. Multiple times the man has memories of her and one specific incident he is troubled because he shouldn’t have let her leave. “Ever is a long…” is another potential theme within the book. At this point, time isn’t relevant. Time is turned into night and day and winter, summer, spring, fall. A few pages before this quote the quote “It’s because I won’t ever get to drink another one, isn’t it?” (25) is a pre-image of ever. At this point, ever is a long, long time, but then ever is no time.

After finishing The Road, I am able to see the use of fire as a double symbol. It is portrayed as both a power of death and of rebirth. It is ironic, much like the fact that the world has been destroyed by fire, but at the same time the man and the boy come close to freezing to death (as Liz pointed out).

I find myself wondering about the double use of the symbol. I agree that fire is powerful. It has the potential to be both constructive and destructive. Fire is a great tool, when used for warmth and light, but fire can quickly become dangerous. Fire can destroy homes, families, and other things one holds dear. The outcome is dependant on the wielder of the fire. In some hands (the good guys), fire can represent hope, survival, and new life. However, place the fire in other hands, (the bad guys) and fire becomes a destructive force, leaving behind little to salvage in its wake. This is true for any type of power given to mankind; some will choose to abuse the power. When God gave mankind fire, he gave them the potential for great construction, along with the potential for great destruction. Any time that power is placed in the hand of man this potential exists. If fire is the symbol for passion and the will to survive, then it can either steadily grow and bring life and hope back to Erath again, or it can destroy the little left that exists.

Not having ever heard of the book or even taken a glance at the back cover for a little pretense, I dove straight into page one of Cormack McCarthy’s, The Road, and now find myself wondering what’s next somewhere around page twenty-two. I didn’t know what I was in for. Being a quick read, McCarthy already locked me in his ninety mile per hour joyride through a seemingly hopeless post-apocalyptic United States, and has me hungry and pawing for more. The Road is already riddled with memorable quotes, an utter sense of depression, and one universal question, what happened? The bleak dialogue screams hopelessness, and the thoughts of the father scream it even louder. This book is already so depressing I can actually feel their ravaged faces and heavy hearts taking form in my own flesh. What’s also sad is the fathers uncanny lack of optimism. I mean, he won’t even allow himself to have good dreams, “The right dreams for a man in peril were dreams of peril and all else was the call of languor and death.”, page 19. It’s evident that there’s a reason behind all this heart-sickening despair, and I personally cannot wait to discover what it may be.

I am currently about a third of the way through the novel and as I continue to read I find myself increasingly appreciating the author’s distinctive style. McCarthy’s parataxic language and lack of some basic punctuation truly allows the reader to focus more on the essential composition and themes of the story.

Speaking of themes (corny transition, I know), there is one symbol which I find wholly sums up the thoughts and attitude of the boy. On page 36, the child shares a nightmare he had in which a wind-up toy came around the corner of the house where the man used to live. The boy was utterly frightened and went on to share, “The winder wasn’t turning” (37). I find this very symbolic of the boy’s fear of those things which he has no control over. With winding toys, one has direct power over the actions of the toy, yet the idea that the winder was not turning in the dream illustrates the loss of power the child is experiencing. Throughout the story, the boy’s fear is demonstrated through his desperate attachment to his father’s side, yet this dream can be representative of a lack of trust in the system. The child had begun to feel that even his father might not be able to protect him at all times, while all he yearns for is a simplified, safe lifestyle.

The symbol of the winding toy recurs later in the novel, when the father and son watch the “army” of bandits march on through the road. “They clanked past, marching with a swaying gait like wind-up toys” (91). Although it is possible that the description of the bandits as wind-up toys was put in place to represent the robotic element of the group, I find it appealing that McCarthy chose this description after earlier representing wind-up toys as negative objects which have lost their ability to be controlled.

I think the boy’s obvious weakness adds to his character. It puts him in need of protection. If the boy were able to take care of himself, he wouldn’t need his Papa. The dad protects the boy because he believes his God-like values are important; also values the man does not possess. The boy’s innocence/moral conduct is “the fire” that is referred to throughout the novel.

The dad and boy have a symbiotic relationship. Each has something the other needs to survive- the boy possesses a reason to survive, and the man possesses the means and knowledge to survive. By working together they both survive. Even though the man dies, another man takes over his role, keeping the symbiotic relationship intact. Natalie’s comment describes the importance of the fire very well. I think the man agrees with Natalie, choosing to protect the boy because he sees the boy as the fire’s carrier.

In fact the boy is compared to the Holy Grail on page 75: “He sat beside him and stroked his pale and tangled hair. Golden chalice, good to a house of God.” The boy’s journey is similar to that of the Holy Grail. He is protected for his innocence, even though he is physically helpless and a detriment to survival. After the man dies, another takes over, similar to the way the Grail is said to be passed on when its protector dies.

And yes, Bil has read The Da Vinci Code.

I am half way through the book and I found something interesting that is worth noting.

When I first started reading I was confused because I was not sure why the exact cause of the disaster was not being revealed. I understood that the cause was a fire but exactly how that fire manifested, I was not sure but wanted to know.

This is when I realized that this may have been McCarthy’s plan for the reader. As May mentioned before, I also think that by not revealing the mystery, the reader is forced to see from the boy’s perspective.

The gravity of the situation is brought forth by the boy’s innocent view that surprisingly was not entirely lost by the crudeness of the situation. As his father continues to remember many memories, McCarthy notes the boy’s reaction as speechless because the boy doesn’t know what to think of a world he doesn’t remember. As the boy’s father remembers details about the place where he grew up (on page 25-26), McCarthy says that the boy “Watched shapes claiming him he could not see.” Because this is the only world that the boy knows, he doesn’t understand why his father is put of by it. Thus, he wants to share food with others on the road, and help out those in need—like the man his father said was struck by lightning—and this is what amazes his father. I think this is why the father compares his boy to god because even in the darkness, his boy brings forth light with his morals.

In the very beginning of the book, the father says “He knew only that the child was his warrant. He said: If he is not the word of God God never spoke.” This quote truly moved me in the beginning and now I think understand the reason why.

Having finished The Road, I must admire the optimism of the boy in spite of having witnessed many human-made horrors: the chained catamites, the victims of gradual cannibalism hidden in a basement, the infant roasting over a fire, the men willing to kill him for arbitrary reasons. In all instances he is confused as to why men would do such terrible things. The boy is of an impressionable age, where his mind absorbs all that it perceives. The man realizes this and so tries to teach him both skills to survive and virtues to enforce his innate idealism. “He told the boy stories. Old stories of courage and justice as he remembered them” (41). This, however, cannot shield the boy from horrific sights.

Beholding traumatic scenes repeatedly can scar a child forever. Murderers and criminals are made from children with violent backgrounds — children who witness or are victim to abuse, etc. So one would not be surprised if the boy were to become as savage as the people who commit the brutish acts he sees. Still, the boy remains compassionate: he wants to help people, even those who have hurt him (like the man who stole the cart); he is unnerved whenever his father is anything less than kind to another human. The father has a heart hardened by the harshness of the world, while the boy’s spirit is raw and bare. The man is focused on survival, while the boy cares more to help others (like the nameless boy he sees), even if it entails death.
“Do you want to die? Is that what you want?
I dont care, the boy said, sobbing. I dont care” (85).

The boy’s understanding of humanity is inchoate but admirable. As I read further into the book, I began to sympathize with the father’s choices, seeing them as necessary for survival, though not necessarily compassionate. For example, I felt that threatening the thief until he returned the cart was justified, because the cart was theirs and they needed it to survive. I was moved, then, by the boy’s concern for the thief. The boy is occupied with anxiety for the thief long after he stops weeping for him. “After a while the boy said: but we did kill him” (260). I, like the father, did not see the thief as a person worthy of such love and was impressed by the boy’s unconditional compassion. It made me realize that despite trying to be good, humans must continuously seek to better themselves to counteract the callusing effect of living in a world full of hateful thoughts, words, and actions.

As I continue throughout The Road, I have noticed a couple stylistic oddities in McCarthy’s writing. Firstly, he doesn’t use quotation marks when people are speaking. I don’t think that this is very important, but rather just his way of seeing things. Secondly, when he describes an object that he establishes in a previous sentence, he uses choppy sentence fragments. I think this is important because it shows the randomness of the world around the two travelers. There is very little planning, and the man acts on whatever comes to his head. The descriptions are often random with seemingly little relevance, and the man often acts based upon random thoughts and impulses.

As far as why McCarthy doesn’t show the source of the apocalypse, I think that he chooses to omit this because it doesn’t matter. People often dwell on how they got in a certain predicament, and this takes the focus away from how they can get out of the situation. If McCarthy were to show the apocalypse, then it would distract the reader from the situation at hand and the true purpose of the novel.

Much like the first one hundred days of a president’s term, a novel can begin to be understood in the first hundred pages. In agreement with Adam’s comments, McCarthy establishes his linguistic artistry and style through the beginning portions of the journey. He writes through the abstract with a disregard for normal rules of writing and grammar. McCarthy’s characters first jumped out at me. McCarthy does not use names for his characters or other traditional qualifiers, but rather uses the characters’ personalities and interactions to establish their roles throughout the novel. Also stylistically, McCarthy’s manipulation of grammar and lack of clear organization define the path of the novel. This method helps establish the bewilderment of the characters. McCarthy’s abstract style accents the absence of vision and purpose for the characters during their journey. McCarthy’s style encourages insecurity which is similar to the insecurity of the characters; their mission is without hope, purely an exercise to stay alive.
Thematically, McCarthy’s novel discusses the foundations of the human purpose. Throughout their journey, the characters of the novel are forced to question, “Are we going to die?” However, the importance of this comment lies in the complacency with which they answer. The boy, especially, has reached a point of false satisfaction. The characters have nothing to live for except one another. As the pair struggle against the elements and starvation, the boy begins to contemplate what is the value of continuing to push on. The boy has no will to live. His life lacks purpose and thus his will to live is wavering. This is similar to our own lives. As we progress through our own journey, our own road, we advance due to our goal or end product that we can envision. However, an absence of such motivation would ultimately kill the will to live. This is what I believe McCarthy is suggesting. McCarthy uses his abstract style and flashback techniques to portray this idea. As the man flashes back to his arguments with his wife, the wife explains, “there is no stand to take…my only hope is for eternal nothingness and I hope it with all my heart.” (57) Before ending her life, the man’s wife has nothing to live for. Her lack of hope for a better life is only perpetuated by her desire for peace, for death. This is a morbid topic that many authors shy away from; however, McCarthy uses this theme to illustrate the importance of purpose in one’s life.

I took an avid interest in a comment Bill made a while ago, and finally found some time to write on it. Bill noted that God is portrayed as the little boy in the novel. It was countered that though the boy acts godly, he is careless, and does things such as leave the valve off the gas. In addition to Bill’s response to this (which I agree with) I would like to add what my first thoughts on the subject were.

The first thought that came to mind was about the boy. If a character that symbolizes God and hope can make such mistakes, then it goes to say that God is possible of making such mistakes too. I thought the novel was attempting to illustrate that nobody, not even God, is perfect. After passing over the thought a second time however I came to another conclusion. The boy’s mistakes do not indicate a weakness in him. The boy is portrayed as God, and mistakes, such as leaving the valve off the gas, simply indicate the world’s overdependence on God. The man knows he is partially to blame for the incident. The boy doesn’t know any better, and it was the man’s duty to ensure this got done. There is a quote on page 176…
“After a while the boy said: I forgot to turn off the valve didn’t I?
It’s not your fault. I should have checked.
The boy set his plate down on the tarp. He looked away.
It’s not your fault. You have to turn off both valves. The threads were supposed to be sealed with Teflon tape or it would leak and I didn’t do it. It’s my fault. I didn’t tell you.
There wasn’t any tape though, was there?
It’s not your fault.”
The man knew this was his job, his duty. It is a metaphor for the overdependence we place on God (or other people) today. We expect God to do everything for us, we ask for help, but often times don’t do our own part. We have to meet God halfway; we are not incapable of helping ourselves. The boy can not do everything, and the father needs to do his part to ensure their survival too.

On a side note, I am finding a lot of religious themes (including the one above) in the novel. Does anyone know if McCarthy is religious?

In response to Adam,
Though I never thought of it that way, I agree that by not mentioning the cause of the apocalyptic fire, the reader is forced not to dwell on the past of the story and stay in tuned with what McCarthy is describing at that point.

I also think that this is the basic theme that the quote “You forget what you want to remember and you remember what you want to forget,” portrays. (12) I realized that most people will never forget, and always remember the mistakes made during their lifetime. Thus, by remembering those mistakes and never being able to forget them, one can insure not to make those same mistakes in the future. This explains the latter part of that quote. This can also relate to the cliché—you can’t learn until you make mistakes. Furthermore, people always want to remember the good times but sometimes one forgets them. This, I think, is the body’s defense against living in the past. “Good times do not teach lessons like mistakes can and by forgetting what you want to remember—the good times—you are forced to focus on the present and future, and not dwell on the past.

Also, as I read on, the symbolism of fire becomes more and more apparent, as Natalie noted. Through McCarthy’s descriptions one immediately understands that fire symbolizes life and the will to live. This symbolism is apparent on a myriad of pages…
“…We’re carrying the fire.” (129) –the boy and his father are conversing-
“Are you carrying the fire.” (283) –the boy and the “good guys” are conversing-
However, the word “fire” is a paradox in McCarthy’s novel because it has contradictory symbolisms. As noted above, the word symbolizes life and the will to live but it also symbolizes destruction—the apocalypse, and death—when the man is lit on fire with the flare from the fire pistol. Thus, ultimately I think fire symbolizes rebirth by encompassing the entirety of is different meanings ….the novel begins with destruction and devastation…then it is composed of compassion, love, life, survival…then it end in the fathers death…finally the boy goes on with the “good guys.”

As I near the end of the novel, I am finding very interesting continuations of Nate’s initial comparison between the animals and those people living within McCarthy’s work. In total, I have found two distinct characteristics of animals, as mentioned in the novel, which relate why the father and son are symbolically attached to animals.

The first symbolic comparison lies in the direct fact that the father and son are hunted and helpless, as are animals. McCarthy depicts, “two hunted animals trembling like ground foxes in their cover” (130). The characters have no escape from the constant predators, forcing them to take on animalistic habits. When the pair was providing aid to the elderly man, “…looked like someone trying to feed a vulture broken in the road” (163). The helplessness of all those living in the novel’s era creates an undeniable relation to an animal’s inability to constantly protect themselves.

The second, less literal animal comparison occurs when the son inquires on his restrictions. The pair discusses,
“We’re not going as the crow flies.
Because crows don’t have to follow roads?
Yes.
They can go wherever they want.
Yes.
After a while the boy said: There’s not any crows are there?
No” (158).
The crows here represent the freedom which is completely excluded from McCarthy’s world. The idea is based on the fact that the birds were once able to do as they please, to have no boundaries, as the father was once able to experience in his life before the apocalypse. The loss of the animals, such as the liberated crows, is a reminder to our protagonist of the extinction of his personal freedom.

I found Natalie’s last comment very thought provoking…

I agree with what she says. Going further on her idea I think God gives man one thing and one thing only: a reason to live.

I found a passage on page 172 that caught my attention:

“Where men can’t live gods fare no better”

This quote, said by the old man the man and boy meets along the road, hints that gods cannot survive without men. This supports the implication of Natalie’s view that man cannot rely on God to solve his problems.

In The Road the boy is the man’s God. The man’s reason to live is to protect the boy from harm. Throughout the book it is made clear the boy is flawed and a detriment to survival. He leaves the gas valve open and is scared to explore houses; houses in which the man often finds clothing and food.

BUT, as Natalie said, God does not solve our problems for us. Therefore his role is only to give us a reason to live. Problems arise in the novel when the man assumes the boy can help him to survive. This is where the gas valve incident comes into context. It was the man’s responsibility, not the boy’s. I like how Natalie phrased this relationship: we must meet God halfway. God gives us a reason to live, and we, if we are to continue to receive this blessing, must solve all of our own problems.

And I also noticed many religious references in the book. I noticed the boy saying Grace on page 146 and the Holy Grail Reference on 75. Has anyone found any others?

In response to Natalie’s question, I don’t think that McCarthy is religious. In his interview with Oprah he tries to avoid the question regarding his belief in god. He says that he has not figured all that out yet. I think this aspect of McCarthy’s personality was portrayed in his writing. Specifically, I think it was stylistically portrayed in the father’s character. Though I agree with Bill and Natalie that religion and faith are involved in novel, I think that it is not constant—that is the man’s faith in god. In the beginning the man portrays his son as a god because his son embodies the reasons for which one would believe in god. To the father, his son is his reason for living, surviving, and the only faith he has left in the face of utter destruction.

Though this metaphor is made, the father gives no sign to the reader that he believe is some sort of eternal being—such as god. I believe that this is where McCarthy’s own personality intermingled with that of the father’s character. On page 230 the father says…“That good luck might be no such thing.” Those who believe in good luck or luck at all believe that some unknown force will suddenly come and make an impact on their lives. Thus, by not believing in luck, I believe that the father does not believe in this force and thus does not believe in god in the form known to us today.

However, as I mentioned earlier, the father’s faith in god changes as the novel progresses. At first, in the wake of devastation the man has little faith in an almightily being but as he is on his death bed, his faith rises from the ashes—quite literally. The man says to the boy “You need to keep going. You dont know what might be down the road. We were always lucky. You’ll be lucky again. You’ll see. Just go.” (278) The father’s faith has now re-emerged from the ashes. I think this is because the father wants to believe that his son will be ok, and not having family or friends left to take care of his son in this desolate world he must rely on an almighty being and have faith. To believe in faith is to believe in luck.

This aspect of the father’s character, I believe, may portray the feelings of McCarthy on this topic. Thus, this trait of the father’s character shows that stylistically, McCarthy has fused his personality and beliefs with that of his characters. It is common among writers to draw from their beliefs, morals, and personal experiences and fuse it with their fictional characters, and I think the father in The Road is an added example to that style of writing.

Hello everyone, so i have made a nice dent in The Road and have found it to be quite interesting. I have really enjoyed it so far. I am just confused on a couple of things.

McCarthy makes it seem like there is no more inhabitants on the Earth. So if this is so, then why is the father so concerned about putting out the fire in the beginning of the story? There must be other inhabitants.

Also on page 10, the father says “He descended into a gryke in the stone and there he crouched coughing and he coughed for a long time. Then he just knelt in the ashes. He raised his face to the paling day. Are you there? he whispered. Will I see you at the last? Have you a neck by which to throttle you? Have you a heart? Damn you eternally have you a soul? oh God, he whispered. Oh God.”

This quote really caught my attention. The father is angry with God. It is easy for men to get angry with God and blame their problems on him. It also seems to be human nature to doubt their faith in God when things go wrong because how could our “mighty father” let anything bad ever happen to his children. In my opinion that is the best way for children to learn, by mistake. That is the way the Native American indians taught their children, for example, not to play with fire.

I would like to respond to May’s comment about how the boy is optimistic even though he has witnessed so many traumatic events. It would be very possible for these events to scar the child forever. Somehow, the boy’s innocence stays pretty well intact, and he still cares about other humans, not just his own survival. As May said, the father is the exact opposite, in that he only cares about their survival, while the boy cares about what happens to others. This was shown when he cried when the father stole the thief’s clothes, and when they left the little boy.

In addition to what May wrote, I feel that this goodness is what kept the father sane, and from becoming a “bad guy”. Many times the son stopped the father from doing something that was bad, or made sure that what they were doing was ok. Like whenever they found food, he would make sure that the owners were dead, so they weren’t stealing the food.

Also, the inexperience of the son’s life added to his goodness. Since he was not alive during the catastrophe that killed most of the world, he is more innocent. The father acknowledged the goodness of the children in this new world when he said, “Goodness will find the little boy. It always has. It will again.” The father knows that even though the world has become mostly evil, children like his son still possess goodness. This is what will keep their world from dying out.

I’m going to apologize in advance for not committing a page and a half to this comment. I really did start off with much more enthusiasm (three pages of notes on thirty pages of book) but as the book progressed, I became increasingly attached to the simple symbolism of the Man and his son, and the role of Man as protector and provider.

((Note: I say “Man” here with a capital M not to indicate “Humankind” but rather, “Male”))

When we examine the relationship of the Man and his Son, it is apparent that each is dependent on the other: the child needs the father for protection, while the father needs the son in many ways. A man without someone to provide for or something to protect, a man without a woman or child, a man who cannot provide…is useless. Psychologically, Man is dependent on having to constantly provide and protect (as has been the role of Man throughout the ages.) Without going ridiculously in depth, I’ll assume that you catch my drift. I’m lazy, and it’s late. Just think of what it means to be a Father.

Besides providing a unique setting to showcase the role of Man (still used in the masculine sense,) the post-apocalyptic nightmare scenario is food for alot of interesting thought about society, law and government, modern life, and the human psyche. While reading this book, I drew comparisons to William Golding’s “Lord of The Flies,” (which I’m sure you all have read,) and “The Inheritors”. In “Lord of The Flies,” the absence of adults (and their systems of law and order) causes a group of children to regress into tribal barbarism. This is easily relateable to the scenario in “The Road” where modern civilization’s institutions of law and order do not survive the catastrophic event, and society fractures into cannibalistic, tribal bloodcults.

In “The Inheritors,” Golding tackles a different, yet similar theme. I am unable to summarize it completely without digressing (it brings up a million other subjects). I highly recommend it to anyone who enjoyed “Lord of The Flies.” It’s relatively short and easy to read.

I’ve managed to type alot more than I wanted to already, but I’ll part with one last question: Did anyone else find the pistol (with two bullets) significant? To me, it adds a whole other dimension to the story: one of the Self’s struggle with an absurd, violent, and pessimistic reality.

I apologize if I ramble on or digress at any given point, it’s late, and I have alot on my mind.

While quickly reading through Nate and Nabil’s comments, I had an interesting thought. While I didn’t really compare the boy to God during my own reading, reading your comments opened an interesting avenue of thought.

What exactly is God? Are we talking the Judeo-Christian version of God, or something else? And would such a God would allow such a catastrophe to happen?

It’s interesting to point out that we if use the Gnostic’s vision of God as an imperfect being, this hellish world seems to make a bit more sense. We aren’t confined to the traditional view of God as omnipotent and omniscient being, which allows us a little bit more leeway when making comparisons to a human being. We can see the purest form of benevolence (innocence) in the Child, and he remains untainted by the evils around him. In this sense, we can say he is “above” evil. The Child displays characteristics of Jesus, who is a typical incarnation of a Gnostic Demiurge (imperfect God character,) as he shows compassion to the thief and is pure and moral. He represents hope for the future, and in some ways, redemption.

And maybe the metaphorical fire he is supposed to carry is also a metaphorical cross? Ha, it’s a bit of a stretch, but it could represent the burden of being thrust into a world created by the sins of his fathers, in which he must trudge on and endure much hardship and suffering to create a better world. In the end, children in general are our saviors. This could be the underlying message behind The Road, seeing as how McCarthy doesn’t strike me as the religious type…

It’s 3:48 in the morning right now, so I’m using that as my excuse for rambling and ranting. Maybe I will actually make a coherent post sometime soon?

To Rachel:
Where are you at in the story? I believe there are clues within the first ten pages as to the existence of other inhabitants. And that’s a very interesting take on that scene where the Man curses the heavens. I don’t think that the Man is necessarily blaming all his problems on God (who else better to blame it on, though? It certainly wasn’t the Man’s fault…) but rather trying to cope with reality.

Let’s start off by looking at the hellish world that the Man has been thrust into: it is devoid of law and order, or any moral code. To me, God represents objective, cosmic law. God doesn’t seem to exist in this new world: the only forms of religion we see are the cannibalistic bloodcults. In this world, God is dead (to quote Nietzsche)

The reality of the new world directly conflicts with the Man’s previous ideas about God, so when he is cursing the heavens, it is a sort of cognitive dissonance: “God exists, God is great and benovelent, but the world we live in is a horrible place.” The Man is coughing up his lung and choking on the foul air, and is becoming increasingly aware of his own mortality. So when he curses God, he is cursing Creator and Destroyer all in one breath.

“THE LORD GIVETH, AND THE LORD TAKETH AWAY”. To quote Isaac Brock, and add something only somewhat relevent, “If God takes Life, He’s an indian giver.”

Rachael - The reason the man and the boy frantically put out the fire before they leave is because it signifies that human beings have been around. The frightening gangs of people also look for the footprints, and about a third of the way through the book, the boy suggests to make several trails to confuse the enemy. It will be much clearer further in the book.

May - In the first one hundred pages or so, the boy does not take the devastation well. On page 66, the “roadrat” holds a knife to the boy’s chest, and the father has to fire the pistol at the roadrat while the boy is in his arms. After the incident, McCarthy describes him as “mute as a stone” (66) For a while, the boy would not talk to his father, even when spoken to. He started to talk only when he noticed a little boy on the road that he wanted to save (84-85). Although I am only half way through the novel, I feel that the boy is never optimistic, and that he is curious instead (He always is asking if it is the good guys or bad guys).

Question for all- on page 87, the author suddenly changes from the third person to the first person, and only in one paragraph. Clearly, the characters aren’t conversing so it should be in the third person. The paragraph starts, “The dog that he remembers followed us for two days. I tried to coax it to come but it would not.” (87). Was that done for a purpose? Or was it an error? I doubt it’s an error.

I also notice that until the boy was threatened on page 66, he seems to question death frequently. Some examples are on page 39, when he asks, “Would you die if you fell?” and on page 55 when the boy tells the father that he wants to be with mom, and therefore be dead. He is in a casual tone, in my opinion, when talking about death. Once threatened, he changes perspective completely.

I’m sorry to say I just purchased the book a few days ago as opposed to immediately after school ended like I intended to do in my planner. Eh, the best laid plans of mice and men -

I enjoyed the style the author used almost immediately. It is solid and firm, but reads almost like a poem - wispy and delicate.
The occasional absence of punctuation add to the book’s inherently simple and human feel.

My first comment was on the Father’s dream on page 4. It is written that the Father encounters a terrifying creature. I immediately took this to be the road, though I’m not sure if my interpretation will evolve. Like the road, the creature is dark and reeks of death. Though the book describes the surroundings as “dead” the Road is living. The Road, in a sense, is the journey and the story.

The first few pages of the book mention the godless wasteland that the Father and the boy are living in. The Father claims the boy is the word of god. To me, the Father views the boy as embodied hope. The boy is the Father’s salvation because it is what constantly keeps him going and sustaining faith in something greater than what his world has to offer.

The boy also serves as the Father’s reminder of all of the lovely things from the past. I believe that even though the Father loved his wife, she came to represent some of the worst traits in man, which is why he tears up her picture and moves on. I see the boy and the wife as contrasting figures - one still curious and ever-wondering about a nearly dead world, one disenchanted and hopeless.

Because the Father lives in such a godless world, and the thought of god and afterlife provide such a sustaining and hopeful factor for many, he needs something that will sustain him. The boy is the Father’s replacement for god.

I was curious about the ashes, so I looked up some verses in the Bible that recall ashes.
“O daughter of my people, gird on sackcloth, roll in the ashes” (Jer 6:26). Ashes were used to show repentance, and I thought maybe this had something to do with the use of ash covering everything in the story. Earth needed to repent, and repentance should follow punishment. I’ll check out this one a bit more.

There have been quite a few quotes that have stood out to me. “On this road, there are no godspoke men. They are gone and I am left and they have taken with them the world.” This solidifies the fact that god is hope and all hope was taken away when the great atrocity struck.

I also enjoyed the dream the boy was frightened by. The toy that moves all by itself. “The winder wasnt turning”. I took this to mean that even without the people that add deeper meaning - even without life and hope, the world continues to turn. Even though death is prevalant and the surroundings have been reduced to ashes and bones, the world goes on.

More later.

Liz Campo,

Optimism is not synonymous with happiness. One could say that Frida Kahlo was optimistic, but it is impossible to say that she was a happy person all the time. In the instance you gave me, the boy was nearly murdered, and then witnessed his father killing another human in front of him. This is a traumatic experience, and the very best that the boy, at such a young and innocent age, could do is to remain silent and contemplate the ethics behind the murder he had just witnessed. However, this does not shape him into a savage creature — he remains humane, he remains sanguine, he is optimistic. Of course he is curious. He is a boy, and one can argue that all boys trying to learn and stay alive in such a bleak world would be inquisitive. But curiosity and optimism are not mutually exclusive.

May, I understand that the boy remains sane, but I hardly concur with the fact that he is optimistic. I have always related optimism to a disposition to look on the favorable side of an event or issue. The boy is always asking about death, and optimism and death usually don’t go hand in hand. I am not offending the character for being curious instead of optimistic, because death and tragedy is all he knows. I never intended to say that he turned into a savage being by any means. He is a boy who is curious and in fear, not uplifting and joyous. This obviously reflects the contrasts of worlds in the book, because he is frightened for his life and his fathers, rather than enjoying his life, like a normal kid in the abandoned world would be able to do.

Of course, the choice of adjectives is all in opinion, and I like your different take on the work “optimism”. I am just not used to the revised edition.

In the real-life case of Frida Kahlo, tragedy and despair were almost all that she knew after the age of 18. However, she remained strong and she looked forward to what was to come. In her last months it is doubtful that death did not cross her mind several times. She did not let that stop her.
Death can be taken in an optimistic way — since it is inevitable, denying it is foolish. So each person must have his/her own take on it — and looking at it from a factual perspective, not being terrified of it, is the optimistic way to go. Of course the boy is curious about it — every child wonders what death is like, and what it really means. Sometimes he is frightened and alarmed by the terrible things that occur around him (who wouldn’t be bothered by cannibalism?), but that does not stop him from showing superior moral fiber. It’s unlikely that a normal child would be frolicking around a land of death and ashes, since he has to survive. It is very difficult to be happy when you are starving and almost dying of cold. He does not have to be joyous to be optimistic — he just has to remain a good, charitable person even when the world has seemingly let him down.

I am only on page 75 of the novel but already appreciate the author’s style of writing. The elimination of quotation marks and other punctuation allows me to focus in on the meaning behind every word. Being close with my own father, I respect and took interest in the relationship between the man and his son. The father, who holds a negative outlook, seems to only seek the will to live through his son. The man even compares his son to God. “He knew only that the child was his warrant. He said: If he is not the word of God God never spoke” (5). The boy is at a young enough age where he cannot take care of himself and is constantly clinging on to his father. This need gives the man the drive required to keep both of them alive. “The boy was all that stood between him and death” (29). Although the boy needs his father’s care, he also looks out for his father. An example of this is when the boy insists on sharing his hot cocoa with the man. “I have to watch you all the time, the boy said. I know. If you break little promises you’ll break big ones. That’s what you said” (34). I also noticed how whenever scenery is mentioned, the man traces it back to an old memory. The man then looks at his son and seems to almost feel guilty for having a normal childhood and torn up because he can’t provide that for his own son. The boy understands and cooperates day after day as they head south. This moved me. Maybe it’s because I babysit and could never imagine a child collaborating with such a catastrophe. A sentence I found myself reading over several times was, “How does the never to be differ from what never was?” (32). I think the boy acts in such a way because he knows nothing else. His whole life has been spent constantly moving, hiding, and searching for food.
“Old and troubling issues resolved into nothingness and night. The last instance of a thing takes the class with it. Turns out the light and is gone. Look around you“ (28). These words made me think a great deal about how the man’s definition of a problem must have drastically changed since the event that destroyed the world. What used to be a fight with his wife, frustration at work, or paying bills, became finding food, shelter, and protection for his son. It must have been an overwhelming obstacle to face that kind of reality.
When reading everyone’s comments, the symbol of fire is discussed. I find it ironic how the fire that seemed to consume everything is what the man makes at night to survive. I feel the fire also represents the man’s will to keep going each day that is lit by the boy’s innocence.

Excellent discussion APs. Impressive insight and analysis.

Just wanted to chime in and let you know that in the 1,000th issue of Entertainment Weekly (June 27, 2008), The Road was named #1 of the 100 best books of the last 25 years– the “new classics.” As you read this novel, consider if you agree with this esteemed position, and if you think it deserves a spot in the Western literary canon.

See the other 99 new classics at http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20207076_20207387_20207349,00.html

Peace,
J. Allan

As I have finished about two-thirds of the novel, I have been intrigued by the character of the little boy. In a previous comment by Bill, he linked the boy’s character to God. This made me question what McCarthy’s purposes in creating the little boy were. Does McCarthy create the little boy to symbolize God in a barren wasteland where God seems to have turned his back on?
I don’t think so. I think McCarthy uses the boy’s character to represent innocence more than a God-like being. The little boy is the embodiment of the classical child’s character and view of the world. His simplistic interactions with the world around him and constant compassion reflect his youth and ultimately his separation from all the other characters of the novel. In the desolate state of the Earth as depicted throughout The Road, adults are cut-throat. Their focus is on personal survival and they are desensitized by the atrocities of the world around them.
The little boy is different. He sees pain in others and wants to help, not ignore them. When the pair reaches the old man in the road, the boy’s compassion shines through. Although helping the man may seem to be a waste, it is a depiction of the purity of children. A child doesn’t help others for thanks, praise or anything in return. The old man and father don’t understand this because in the journey to adulthood, like most human beings, they have lost the ability comprehend pure kindness. McCarthy uses the boy to show the good in all of us. The boy’s character yearns to help the depressed and carry the fire of good throughout a world of evil.

I just finished reading The Road, and I wanted to go back and comment on a passage I read. On page 137 the father said, “This is what the good guys do. They keep trying. They don’t give up.” I feel that this quote describes their actions throughout the novel.

Many times during their adventure along the road, the boy is motivated by the idea of being the “good guys”. In my opinion this gives him hope, and a reason for going on. Without hope, I feel that the father would have given up very soon in their journey, bringing his son down with him. You can see how important being a “good guy” is to the boy by the repeated times he makes sure that what they are doing is what good guys should do. Such as making sure that they don’t steal food from people who are already alive, and giving the thief back his clothes.

The concept of never giving up was also very prevalent during their travels. The father never knew for sure if the could make it through the day, and yet they never gave up as the boy’s mother did long ago. This saved the life of the boy, and made the end of the father’s life meaningful. That concept is what made this story a story of triumph, not defeat.

Currently on page 238, I find myself concerned for the boy’s safety because the man’s coughing, along with his hope, are getting worse. The man admits on page 230, “There were few nights lying in the dark that he did not envy the dead”. Also, relating back to the man’s cough, he comes to terms with the idea of death several times. One example is on page 237. “He thought about his life but there was no life to think about and after a while he walked back”. Another is on page 238. “Every day is a lie, he said. But you are dying. That is not a lie”.
I’ve also noticed that the boy is slowly growing up and maturing. I think this transformation began with a push from the man. The man begins to ask the boy’s opinion about where they should stay or what food they should eat and the maturity continued from there. For example, on page 201 the boy wants to run ahead of his father and swim by himself. It became even more ironic on page 204 where the father and son seem to switch roles for a moment. “He started to call to the boy where he trudged ahead and then he looked about at the gray country and the gray sky and he dropped the coin and hurried on to catch up”. Despite the boy’s increasing maturity, he still gets frightened and looks to his father for direction. This support and love is commonly shown by the father and son holding hands. I feel McCarthy used this to illustrate that a son never loses the need for a father. A son just grows older and understands the importance of independence and personal strength.
With a short 50 pages left, I’m anxious to see how the novel ends.

gaaaar. I just finished the book a few days ago and I want to rant and rave about what the entire book is about and do a cute little tie-in for the end of the story and talk about deep symbolism embedded in simple actions. However, I will start where I left off.

A passage that struck me was “Evoke the forms. Where you’ve nothing else construct ceremonies out of air and breathe upon them.”
At first I believed that the boy represented God - but based on this passage I don’t think either of the characters truly embodied something divine. I believe they served as each other’s Gods, creating their own simple religion, in a sense based on the love they had for one another as well as what had once been sacred.

One more point I had to bring up was that several times the boy is described as “alien” and the planet earth is shown to have taken on a new meaning. In a sense, the boy and the man are from completely different worlds. The man speaks of old times and strange beautiful circumstances. The boy was born during a chaotic time. The boy was born from the ashes. Perhaps this is why he is looked at as a god by his Father.

More thoughts later.

Nate,
I highlighted the exact passage. I felt that the quote summed up their actions perfectly. Another good quote that goes with this theme is located on page 272. “That hurt didnt it? the boy said.
Yes. It did.
Are you real brave?
Just medium.
What’s the bravest thing you ever did?
He spat into the road a bloody phlegm. Getting up this morning he said.”
Even though he’s close to death and wanted nothing more than to just stay where he is, he gets up and starts the day anyway. It goes right along with the theme that being a “good guy” means never giving up. However, one thing that I did find while reading this book is that the man is not such a good guy in some instances. Although he does preach the necessary things to keep his son alive after he passes, such as never giving up, he always seems to only do things that will keep his son safe and he tends not to care about the well being of anyone else. But his son keeps these ideas in check. On many occasions he persuades his father to do what he feels is the right thing and the thing that a “good guy” would do. Like when the man takes all of the thieves’ clothing and the boy makes him give them back. Not to get too nerdy but I feel that the man is to the boy as Neo is to Mr. Smith. Their values balance each other out. Without the values the man taught the boy, the boy would have died long ago, but without the guilt trips that the boy sent the man on, the man would not really be a so called “good guy”. The two keep each other in a delicate harmony. But I digress; I agree with Nate’s opinion that the quote accurately describes the reoccurring theme of the “good guy” throughout the book.

Let me know what you think about the idea.

After finishing The Road, I was puzzled. As I reflect on McCarthy’s stylistic innovations and interesting format for the book, I feel it added to the novel’s overall mystic effect. The storyline, along with the way it was portrayed, was very abstract and challenged the way I normally read a novel. I determined that I like the more traditional style of writing more; however, McCarthy’s techniques were effective for this particular purpose.
Reflecting on the conclusion of the novel, The Road is reminiscent of a classical tragedy. The characters are doomed from the start and surprisingly the father’s tragic flaw is what makes him great; his desire to live, his will to persevere. In the end the circumstances of the desolate earth overtake the father and his life is over. He wills his son to carry the fire, but what is the fire? This is the question; McCarthy uses this novel to present. I believe McCarthy created the journey of the boy and his father to allow us to question what is our fire. The fire within us all represents our purpose; the reason we were created and ultimately our reason to live. In McCarthy’s novel all the distractions of life have been destroyed. Superficial rewards and materialism no longer exist. The fire the boy and the father carry is not for a selfish goal, but instead is to keep good alive. In a world where evil has engulfed the population, the pair represent the diminishing light of good. Their journey is a mission of virtue, not merely an attempt to survive.
Our fire is ultimately the same as the pair in The Road. Our short-term goals, struggles and short-comings make up our journey toward the completion of our purpose. We are all working toward the same goal. We push ourselves to achieve excellence and make our mark as we carry the fire of virtue. Though we all have the purpose to carry the fire; inevitably, the majority of us fail because of fear. Like the little boy, we are all scared. Afraid we aren’t strong enough to overcome evil. As a species our fear limits our individual progress. Thus, when the boy asked, “What is the bravest thing you ever did,” the man responded, “Getting up this morning.” (272) The hardest part of our journey is pushing on through the struggle everything is against you. Also, like the man in the novel we desire to pass the torch to those that follow after us. The fire we pass is, “the breath of God…it [passes] from man to man through all time.” (286) The man knew in order to achieve his purpose he had to pass the torch to his son. We also must push to succeed and push those that follow to achieve similar success.

There have been a few ideas and beliefs that have been carried throughout this blog that I strongly disagree with. Firstly, I disagree with the idea that God is portrayed in this novel through the boy. Instead, I believe, like Ali, that the boy is used to show innocence in this world that is driven only by the desire to survive. In my opinion, the boy is a character who has not been exposed to the repeated acts of greed and selfishness that we are in this world. We, as infants and toddlers, are exposed to the “us against the world” idea repeatedly, even if only in subtle ways. Thus, by the time we are able to think, comprehend, and reason, we have this mentality engrained in our subconscious. The boy, on the other hand, had not encountered enough people in his early youth to adopt this thought process, therefore maintaining his innocence. A child really develops his or her ideals before he or she is truly able to think. These ideals are impressed by those around the child, and since there were few people ever around the child from the novel, his innocence was never impressed upon by the evils of civilization and society.

Secondly, many people share the idea that we are not aware of the cause of the apocalypse so that we are put in the boy’s perspective. The reality is however, that we could never see from the boy’s angle. We, even if only for 16 or 17 years, have lived in civilization, lived with technology, and can’t realistically fathom a world without these. The boy, however, has never known these luxuries and therefore has a completely different view of the world than we living in the modern era do.

May posed the question as to why on page 87 McCarthy changes to the use of first person. I originally had this question, but I scanned back through the book to see if I could find any more of these such instances, and I discovered that McCarthy goes to first person when the man travels back in his head to earlier times. This paragraph is the man’s recollection of events that define the boy.

Adam, it was I that posed the question on page 87, not May. I like your reasoning, and now that I have finished the book, I see why he darts into his imagination and memories so abruptly.

I will blog later on my reflections on the last part of the book.

Last night I read the discussion between Nate and Bill and I had what I thought was a fantastic view on the whole thing. Then this morning, after reading a few more posts, I realized that Natalie already posted the same idea. I was a little upset to say the least. There went my one original thought among this sea of increasingly deep but equally intimidating ideas. I was going to reply to Mr. Kreinbring’s comment about the boy’s carelessness, but since that’s already been done, I’m going to reply about the man’s role in relation to the boy being God.

If we look at God as being a single being, person, entity, whatever omnipotent force you prefer then I can’t really find a way in which the man fits any role. Unless this journey they’re on is a way for the boy to somehow ascend to godliness. He is learning skills from the man about not being careless while keeping his values of selflessness. But I can’t imagine that McCarthy was writing about ascension. So on to my other thought. If we look at a “God” as not being a single being but instead a force or many forces, then I think it’s plausible to say that the man and the boy together make one Godlike force. When put together, most of the boy’s and the man’s flaws cancel out. An example of this would be the boy’s carelessness and the man’s lack of wanting to help anyone else besides the boy. One may argue that since the man dies at the end that the balance dies and therefore the idea no longer works. I have to disagree. “If I’m not here you can still talk to me. You can talk to me and I’ll talk to you. You’ll see.
Will I hear you?
Yes. You will. You have to make it like talk that you imagine. And you’ll hear me. You have to practice. Just don’t give up.” (297)
The man will still have influence over the boy’s actions even though he is dead. I feel that the boy will think about what the man would do and then weighs that against his own beliefs before he does anything. With the man’s death, the boy becomes the carrier of both their beliefs and this in turn makes him closer to a God.

Now I may be way off here but it’s just a thought.

While reading this novel, it never occured to me that the boy might be a symbol of God or a higher power. However, after reading Adam’s, Stephen’s, and everyone’s posts, it is starting to make a lot more sense. I agree that a Godlike symbol is portrayed in the book, but I believe that is the man who is ‘God’ to the boy. The man symbolizes ‘God’ and the boy symbolizes ‘man in society’. The boy is almost always uncertain of what his father is telling him to do, but he trusts him. When the man opened the safehouse revealing shelter and food, the boy was skeptical but he believed in his father. I think that the man guides his son through life and teaches him the value of having love for yourself - like when he tells his son not to wish himself dead- and having love for someone else key in life. This could also be seen as the role God plays in a persons life. He teaches the importance of love and the value of a life as well.

Cormac McCarthey uses the term ‘carry the fire’ through out the book. “I want to be with you.
You can’t.
Please.
You can’t. You have to carry the fire.
I don’t know how to.
Yes you do.
Is it real? The fire?
Yes it is.” (Page 278)

Later in that dialogue, the man says that the fire is inside the boy. The man shows a deific nature when he points this out to the boy because I think what he is saying is that the boys power and valiance comes from inside of him. The lessons and values the man tries to teach could be compared to lessons and values that are taught in the Bible.

This might be complete moot, don’t laugh at me.

i just finished reading The Road and i have to say the book was very good. I loved how the author made you understand what the father ws feeling and also how he made the boy so blunt. Anything the boy had to say he said it and some of his questions were very mature and straight foward.

I personally was caught into the book at the very beginning. It ws right when your were geting a feel for the father and his hope and faith that as long as he kept going things wold be better for him and his son. When he said
“He knew that only the child was his warrant. He said: If he is not the word of God then God never spoke.” That to me was very striking. To me it showed the passion( if you would say) that he had in his son. It said to me that he had hope in hisself but it was truely his son that gave him the unlimate hope.

Ali: I completely agree with you. What is our fire? is it the legacy that our parents have left for us to continue, or is is our own light that our parents have insteeled in us that once they are gone we must carry on our own?

I overall enjoyed the book and insight that it gave me not just on the theme of the book but also an insight on me. I hope that i dont sound totally crazy but its just what i think and what i got.

This is seriously frustrating. I had a previous comment that was erased after my computer froze that was splendid and lengthy. And so it goes.

In response to Adam’s question, I disagree that the boy represented innocence and not God. The boy is often compared to celestial beings - if not god or the word of god, the man compares him to some alien creature. Though I don’t believe that the boy fully represents God, he represents something just as mysterious and precious to the man. In turn, the man serves as the boy’s protector, creator, provider - and in a sense, they serve as gods to each other.
In terms of innocence, I do not believe the boy represents something that stationary. Throughout the book the boy morphs and, in becoming more self-sufficient, loses a bit of his innocence, even going so far that he embraces death and loses hope at certain points.

I enjoyed McCarthy’s writing style as the book continued. His writing is to-the-point and focuses on actions even more than dialogue. Indeed, this book reinforces the universal truth that “actions speak louder than words.”
During the book, the speech is choppy and simple. Cormac is defined by this book as a writer who makes every word count.

As I read a passage concerning the man’s reminiscing upon the old world ["Things no longer known in the world"] “Flowers for Algernon” came to mind. For those who are unfamiliar, it is about a mentally disabled man who is given the gift of intelligence. He becomes incredibly smart, and then - for no known reason, he begins to lose this knowledge. The earth is put into a similar circumstance. We as human beings have started from nothing and made civilization - embracing art, history, music and love. In the book, the world is reduced to a wasteland where destruction and people that rely on animal instinct are those that reign. Because the main character in “Flowers for Algernon” held knowledge at one point, it made the loss of it even more painful. For the man, he has experienced the earth at it’s finest and it’s worst, which makes him who he is - a man living on memory and the hopes of his son.

The man’s goal is based on this. The man seeks to PRESERVE the ideals and knowledge of the past in his son.
The son’s goal is to CREATE.

The boy is the one who wants to help creatures and people he comes across and give them a reminder of kindness, creating more and more who experience what was once treasured. The man snubs those who beg because his own son is all he cares about. He sees no need to share his knowledge with others besides the one who is his salvation.

On a random note, the little boy who the main boy saw stuck in my mind. The boy eventually forgot the other little boy who he wanted as a friend. The first thing that crossed my mind was “oh, he sees his reflection” as the little boy was described as being the same height as the other boy. I eventually saw the little boy as a fabrication the boy had created as hope during a desperate time.

more later.

Well, I actually went online two days ago to check the summer reading list, saw that the first book and it’s blog entries were due by the end of June and immediately ran out of my house, drove to Barnes and Noble and bought the last copy on the shelf.  That being said, I hope it’s alright that I combine all my quotes and thoughts on one blog entry. Just to comment, I simply love McCarthy’s writing style and although I don’t like summer reading I enjoyed this novel.
One of the things that I enjoyed most about this novel was how it left so much to thought. How it never described what had happened, it only gave reference to a great fire, with ash being laid everywhere.
Fire seemed to be a huge symbol in McCarthy’s story. At first I wasn’t quite sure what it represented, because fire was, or was part of, the cause of everything being destroyed. However, fire also seemed to be a symbol of life. How, throughout the entire novel, the one thing that kept them warm was fire, but also the constant question that the boy made to his father, “Are we carrying the fire?” I didn’t fully understand the meaning of the symbol until the end of the story when the father told his son,
“You have to carry the fire”
“I don’t know how to.”
“Yes you do.”
“Is it real? The fire?”
“Yes it is” (pg 279)
After this part of the story I think that I understood. The fire wasn’t literal. It was a hope, a drive. The belief in the fire was like the belief in God. It’s a symbol used to drive someone to keep going and believe. Also, when the boy asked the man who appeared at the very end of the story,
“So are you?”
“What, carrying the fire?”
“Yes”
“Yeah. We are.”(pg 283-284)
That’s when the thought of the fire being ‘power’ fully drove in.

I also LOVED how the McCarthy never used names. The entire story had no names in it. “When he came back he knelt beside his father and held his cold hand and said his name over and over again.”(pg281) Whenever I hear someone’s name, or read their name in a story, I immediately try to create a visual image in my head fitting for that particular name. In my opinion it gives a more personal feel to the writing especially for the reader. To be completely honest after I thought about this more I realized that the ‘father’ of the story inside my head bore a strange resemblance to my Dad. Just because of how personal it was. I actually had a hard time picturing the boy with golden hair as McCarthy VERY BRIEFLY described on page 152, just because I already had given the boy dark hair in my mind. Maybe it’s because I tried to connect with the novel on a more personal level to attempt to fully enjoy the reading, just my opinion.

I have concluded that the rarity of “good guys” in this novel reflects the human race, because the model of a good guy created by the boy is far too esoteric. The boy questioned his father on several occasions, asking whether or not they are the good guys. A while after they walked away from the thief, leaving him stranded, naked, and defenseless, the father asked the boy to tell a story, and the boy refused, saying, “But in the stories we’re always helping people and we don’t help people.” (268). I feel that the boy states this to question their status as “good guys”. In his eyes, being compassionate and helpful toward any person in need deems one a good guy. He isn’t sure if there is a perfectly good person left, because his father shows compassion only toward his son. While reading, I couldn’t help but speculate the criteria of a good guy in our current world. I don’t believe that a good person has to turn every wrong-doer’s life around. Helping the thief, especially with the father becoming seriously ill, was too much of a burden, and it might have cost all three of their lives. At the end, I feel that the boy apologizes while he sobs next to his father’s corpse, because his father was a good guy, and given the circumstances, he couldn’t have done any better.

Although someone like Mother Theresa has been portrayed as a paradigm of good, every human is capable of goodness. Often it is forgotten to look after yourself and those that are the closest before helping everybody else.

Stephen: I thought your post was interesting- why do you see the boy and man as a God together?

But before we delve deeper into this discussion I think we should define what a God’s role is. This will give a measurable standard to everyone who comments on which to base his or her arguments.

I’ll start:

I believe the word God represents something that gives humanity a reason to live. The word God developed from the first human who asked the question: why are we here? I describe God as “something” because not everyone agrees on who or what God is.

The topic of a God’s role is arguable because it can be supported or refuted by facts; the topic of whom or what a God is cannot be argued because no one has any proof of coming into contact with him (not to say any religion’s image of God is wrong, but for discussion’s sake it needs to be set aside).

Adam: I agree with you that the boy represents innocence. I think the boy’s innocence gives the man a reason to survive, therefore making the boy a God to the man based on my definition above. How do you see the boy in relation to the man?

By the way, my comments were in response to Steven Lovell’s first comment about the good guy theme, obviously.

Just a note for RK, I am done with this novel, and am reading Auto, but I will be in Europe with limited access to computers, since it is a student ambassador trip and we will be on the move constantly. I might not be able to respond on the Auto post for a while…

Have fun in America, everyone.

Bill: I feel that everyone is falling back on the definition of God being humanity’s reason to live purely because it works best with the man and the boy. It seems that everyone agrees that the boy and the man are each other’s reason to live. Therefore we use the reason to live as our definition of God. And although that’s true in some instances, I don’t think everyone feels that way. I know I don’t. I also am having trouble agreeing with your reason for the first humans coming up with God in the first place. The history of religion is one of my favorite topics, such as the fact that there have been hundreds of forms of Jesus in almost every religion with the exact same story as Christianity’s Jesus. But that’s a completely different topic and I’m not going to get into it. What I will say is that it’s clear that the first societies and the first people all created Gods to explain the world around them. Not to explain their own existence, but to help them comprehend the incomprehensible things happing around them.

I guess my definition of God can be most easily described as a driving force. It just guides us. I’m not big on religion and I’ve never really described my idea of God. But I have to admit that I’ve found Rasta to be rather intriguing. You’re not supposed to cut your hair. Crazy.

The definition I was going on was God being a knowledgeable, reasonable and powerful force.

The reason I say the boy and the man together make a god is because of what they do in their travels. The man has extensive knowledge of the past and basically knows everything about what little there is to know about the post apocalyptic world. So that in a sense can be filed under all knowing since there really isn’t much more in the new world to know. The man and the boy together make a reasonable force. The man’s selfishness to his and the boy’s well being is balanced out by the boy’s selflessness. Now let’s say that someone is watching the boy and the man on their travels. Basically the reader but as a real person in the story. They see the man and the boy have clothing, they have supplies, they have food or means of getting it and they have knowledge of everything that they’ve seen on their travels. They give food to a man who has none, giving him life for a few more days and they basically forgive a man for stealing all their things by giving him his clothes back. Now to someone in the post apocalyptic world, all this would seem very Godlike. It would also be clear to someone watching that they have control over the life and death of others. They could’ve let that man starve, they shot and killed the man holding the boy captive and they could’ve killed the man with the bow and arrow. To anyone in this world seeing this it would seem that not only have they amassed large amounts of knowledge but they are kind to innocent people they meet, they are forgiving to people who have wronged them and they have the power to take life. It seems to me that all these things are very much Godlike. But not all of these things would’ve occurred if it weren’t for the boy and the man balancing out each other’s actions. But like I said, it’s just a thought. They just seem to be pretty much as all knowing and all powerful as one can be in such a place.

Not to brown nose or anything, but this posting thing is actually kind of cool. It’s like one of those great conversations you get into sometimes in class but without idiots cutting you off and with actual time to figure out what you want to say.

To Nabil:

I’d like to see your argument about why you believe the boy is solely innocence. It’s undeniably a trait the boy starts with, but is eventually lost and as I stated before, is too stationary. I don’t think the boy as a whole represents innocence embodied.

To Stephen:

Rasta is crazy. And, if you use your ideas concerning God and what makes a God, I think you could say the same thing about any being.
As you said before, “The man and the boy together make a reasonable force.” I don’t think there is anything “God-like” about that, and I know that wasn’t what you were going for. My point is, the man and boy could be any being - the heavenly bit isn’t necessary.

THE POINT IS the man and the boy represent a whole.

However stereotypical it sounds, when a man and a woman love each other they are said to “complete one another” and it doesn’t just apply to romantic love. The boy and the son complete each other perfectly, which is why their relationship is so remarkable and amazing because they’ve come from different worlds and are able to perfectly sustain one another.

The reason I claimed that they are like Gods to each other is because they both worship each other and see the other as ethereal and sometimes, strange. Their worship and respect borders on holiness, which is why I made the comparison.

And Kreinbring:

Yeah, I’m not a suck-up, but I was inspired by Stephens brown-nosing [jk, jk ] to just say that I like this concept. It makes me giddy.

Liz and Stephen: I find it very intriguing how you guys view the boy and man together. I really liked how Stephen explained what the man and boy would look like to an onlooker. It made me understand how they work as a team.

As much as I would like to argue with you guys, I cannot without going into a different topic. We view God in different ways, and if I were to argue, the discussion would boil down to that fundamental disagreement. Regardless I do agree with you Stephen: God was first invented to explain the world around them. In my post I was referring to the creation of God based on my definition. After thinking it over again, I should have phrased that part of my post more accurately.

After reading your(Stephens) post through a couple of times, I feel our definitions intertwine, if only just a little. But first I would like to say your definition is much better than mine. It explains what a God’s role is more thoroughly and is more applicable to situations outside of the novel.

The rest of my post is full of assumptions: feel free to post back and correct me.

I define God as a reason to live and you define him as a force. Maybe the force you describe is the reason I describe. The knowledge, reason and power possessed by the man and boy establishes them as special: it puts the duo a step above everyone else. When an onlooker sees them he or she might think: “Wow look at them, they are a better being than I am. Maybe I should become more like them”. Because the man and boy are more powerful, knowledgeable and able to reason than others around them, they give others a reason to live: to become better human beings. I don’t know if that makes sense. Maybe I’m completely wrong and I misunderstood your post. Please post back and let me know.

Liz:

I believe the boy embodies innocence because he is free of any memories of pre-apocalyptic earth. He wants to help others because he has no knowledge of how hard it is to survive. His thought process is not tainted by memories of how easy life was before the apocalypse; he sees the world as it is, not how it was.

The boy’s innocence can best be compared to Holden Caulfield. Holden didn’t know how to survive on his own; he needed someone to take care of him. Throughout the novel Catcher in the Rye Holden struggles with the concept of acting selfish to survive rather than acting selfless to better the world around him. Holden pays for a prostitute, but he doesn’t want to have sex with her; he only wants to talk to her. The prostitute is confused because she thought Holden wanted sex. She knows the bad things that can happen to people like heartbreak, disappointment and failure. One of those three is probably the reason she is a prostitute. Holden really just company to ease his loneliness. He doesn’t understand the woman is prostituting herself to make money to survive. The boy in The Road has a similar internal struggle. He wants to be a part of his world because he does not know how dangerous is it. He has no memories of pre-apocalyptic earth and therefore does not realize the danger he is in.

As one grows older, one learns that in order to survive one must be selfish. The destruction of the world he knew has taught him this. The boy has experienced no such tragedy yet. He assumes the world is a good place because he has not seen the bad things that can happen.

Nabil [because I like using your whole name. It's a splendid name, and I feel shortening it does it an injustice, y'know?]

The boy is not like Holden Caulfield. Holden is not innocent, but he wants to preserve innocence in others, which he discovers is impossible. [The boy does not seek to preserve. If anything, Holden might be compared to the man in that both of their missions are to preserve] The only reason people associate innocence with Holden is because he pushed to hold onto innocence that didn’t really exist in the first place.

You said “I believe the boy embodies innocence because he is free of any memories of pre-apocalyptic earth.” How is this good? He’s been exposed to cannabalism, he constantly sees dead bodies at every turn, and he has seen raw animal force in a people that were once civilized. This circumstance as opposed to the stereotypical greed and money-grubbing we experience today is much more harmful.
Additionally, pre-apocalyptic earth is preserved in his father. If any child knows anything about what the earth was like, it would be him thanks to his Father’s special teachings that were mentioned and his love of the past.

Also, jumping back to “Catcher”
You said “Holden pays for a prostitute, but he doesn’t want to have sex with her; he only wants to talk to her.” OK -a main point of Catcher in the Rye was that innocence CANNOT be preserved. Because Holden was unable to deal with this and his own maturity, he was in the crazy house for a while. The point is, innocence is stationary. Innocence means not growing up and being ignorant.
The boy doesn’t fully understand what it takes to survive, but he doesn’t insist on giving passer-bys everything that they truly need. He gives them a scrap of food - not too much. Innocence would be “let’s sacrifice everything to the people passing by” or “let’s house those strangers over there.” He has learned better. He is not trusting of strangers anymore because he’s had painful experiences. He’s not an idiot, he comprehends the basics of life and death - not entirely, of course,because he is a child, but he still is knowledgable of the world.

So, even though I believe the boy possesses traits of innocence, one cannot label the boy as representing innocence as a whole because the boy grows and learns.

Oh, and Nabil:

“He assumes the world is a good place because he has not seen the bad things that can happen.”

Only half-eaten babies and a room full of human food. He has also experienced greed in the most primal sense.

Sorry about the extra post, my computer started going on the fritz and I was alarmed and posted.

Liz: Yes. You’re right. I guess reasonable doesn’t really work well for the whole God-like thing. I was being a bit hypocritical by throwing that in there just because I had things to support it. What I was trying to get at is the fact that nobody left really has it in them to give, to share, or to even be kind to others. Anyone who the man and the boy encounter on the road is looking for self sustenance. They don’t try to help others outside of their group. An example is the cannibals that role around and eat or capture everyone they find. Not much there in terms of helping others. Another good example would be the couple that is found in the upstairs apartment after the man is shot. They had no desire to help the man and the boy; they were trying to kill them. So I propose that the ability for the man and the boy to show such acts of kindness can be argued as somewhat divine. Especially to an outsider watching what was happening. I hope that clears things up.

Bill: I agree with the fact that our ideas of God can intertwine. I have no qualms with that. I also agree that someone watching these simple acts of humanity shown by the man and the boy could inspire them or encourage them to keep going.

After finishing The Road, I asked myself, “Why did McCarthy write this novel?” I feel that this is an important question to ask after finishing a novel, especially one of deep meaning such as The Road. And I came to a conclusion that McCarthy wanted to spark the question within all of us, “Why do I live?” We go about life from day to day, going through a routine, doing what we are “supposed” to do, but often without any true meaning. Most of us have goals, for example, my goal is to graduate college, play professional baseball, graduate from law school, and go into patent law. But my career only gives me the tools to provide for myself physically. But what is my purpose? Am I supposed to be doing something amazing with my life, or was I just born to travel through the natural cycle of life without a greater purpose? That is a question I am going to have to ponder, and that, in my eyes, was the purpose of this novel. To bring this question to all of us.

Well, I apologize for being a tad bit behind in the book. I see that this will make it difficult since everyone is ahead of me in the book (I am at page one hundred now…so a third of the way through). However, there are some things I would like to bring up (and since you are all done or close to done with it, perhaps these initial thoughts will spark an idea having to do with the end of the book…motifs for example.

Anyways, my first impression of the book was, unfortunately, rather bad. I disliked the fact that the first thirty or so pages seemed pointless. Perhaps it is a good literary work, I can appreciate that; however, I did not see much advancement with the plot, characters, or theme (other than the initial man loves son, world is ashes, et cetera).

There also seemed to be points in the book (example, page ninety) where the paragraph seemed in the book for the sole purpose of using vocabulary. I believe that things such as that distract from the book and take away from the overall meaning. Enough of my critique, though, and on to themes and such.

One thing I did notice which I analyzed (perhaps too far) is the word “okay”. Over seventy-five percent of the father and son’s conversations end with one of them saying “okay”, and I began to look into that. The word “okay” really means a complete and total submission to the thought laid before one’s self. A conversation does not exist when one says “okay”, for one cannot converse about something which they both agree on. What I see in this world is where the son really has nothing to believe in, since most of the “world” existed before he was born, and was destroyed before also). Therefore, all he has to believe in is what his father tells him; thus, the word “okay” exists as his most prominent way to end a conversation.

In tying this motif into our everyday life, I see the son as a student, and the father as a teacher. The teacher (such as in high school) often says things above the students experience level, and therefore the student can say very little other than “okay”. This idea is still in the incubation period, so it could very easily lead to a dead-end; but I see it as a possible theme from the book. Those of you who have completed the book already, is that the case? Let me know.

One question I find myself continuously having while reading is whether or not the dreams and flashbacks have any purpose to the theme/novel other than to advance the plot. I try to analyze them, but I am having little luck. Perhaps it is McCarthy’s writing style (which I have a little distaste for anyways), but I was just wondering if anyone has found any connection