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

121 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 from these stories to any theme. An example of this is the penguin story where the son had a dream about a wind-up penguin which moved without anyone winding it up. Significance? I know not. Let me know if you have found anything.

Thomas

I just finished the novel. I was especially touched by the man’s death and the last few pages. I definitely agree with Nate that a main theme in the novel is to never give up. Even though the man experiences times of doubt, he never allows the boy to feel defeated or hopeless. The man does this in two ways, referring to them as the “good guys” and reminding the boy that they must “carry the fire”. The man accomplishes his goal because the boy decides to continue down the road with the other family where he could have simply given up and died.
On page 279 I was reminded that throughout the novel the man tells the boy that he will never leave him alone. For example, “I will do what I promised, he whispered. No matter what. I will not send you into the darkness alone” (248). This promise is what the boy refers to when his father is dying.

“Just take me with you. Please.
I cant.
Please Papa.
I cant. I cant hold my son dead in my arms. I thought I could but I cant.
You said you wouldnt ever leave me.
I know. I’m sorry. You have my whole heart. You always did. You’re the best guy” (279).

While finishing the novel, I was astonished by the boy’s compassion that never ceased. After having such disturbing experiences, the boy’s kindness and attachment to others is incredible. I know people have been debating McCarthy’s religious beliefs and references to God. I feel this characteristic of the boy represents the belief that God has never ending kindness and the importance of putting others before ourselves. The boy easily forgives and has endless understanding. A relating quote that really stuck out to me is on page 259. “You’re not the one who has to worry about everything. The boy said something but he couldnt understand him. What? he said. He looked up, his wet and grimy face. Yes I am, he said. I am the one”. What do you guys think of this? Is the boy calling himself God?
Another portion of the novel I appreciated was the son never forgetting his father or the fact that they could still communicate to each other. “He tried to talk to God but the best thing was to talk to his father and he did talk to him and he didn’t forget. The woman said that was all right. She said that the breath of God was his breath yet though it pass from man to man through all of time” (286). The bond between the father and son was never broken and the fire was never dropped.

Liz I agree with you. My last post was garbage. Now that I read it over again I see it is factually wrong and doesn’t make sense.

But I still think the boy represents innocence.

He does witnesses horrible things such as the baby roasting over the fire the mutilated people locked in the pantry. But through it all he still keeps his innocence. The man’s role is to protect that innocence. Look at previous posts: they describe how the boy is innocent.

Although I have not read any further in the book since my last post, I have read things in the blog which I have a desire to speak about. This is in response to Stephen, Nabil, and anyone else who took part in the “God” discussion.

Before I begin, I need to lay down a few undeniable truths so that my point makes more sense. And by “undeniable” I suppose I do not mean you could not deny them, but simply that you would be ignorant to do so.

Firstly, the world we live in, and many thoughts, beliefs, et cetera, are affected greatly by the media. Most things we hear about are through that source. I have not been to New York, and yet because of the media, I know that the World Trade Center was hit by two planes. Likewise, I have never conducted a study about health, and I still believe that too much sun can very likely cause skin cancer. Now, even if I disagree with something, the media is still helping with that. For example, in the movie “V for Vendetta” after V tells the country that England is corrupt, everyone begins to see that. Then, when the news tries to cover it up with statements and facts, everyone’s faith in V’s words become stronger just because of the universal belief that the news is now corrupt and fallacious.

Secondly, I would like to place literature in this same category. Especially in the educational institution setting, anything we read has a great affect on our beliefs. For example, few people cared about innocence or the like (probably more so caring about the other end of the spectrum) until Honors English 10 forced us to read “Catcher in the Rye”. I am not demoting this book in any way, for I appreciate it quite a bit, but nevertheless, it affected how we think. Granted, though, I doubt it really affected anyone’s actions, for the school is still lacking innocence as much as it was before that novel. My point here is that anything we read, or anything we watch, has a great deal of an effect on how the audience thinks (whether for the point being made, or against it). I believe these two points can be deemed “undeniable”. Agreed?

Now I will make those points which can be argued. I will try to make them as cohesive as possible, but I cannot promise that they will flow as nicely as I would like. But, here we go.

If I was to ask most people what their “meaning of life” is, some form of the word “happiness” would be their answer. This happiness may be a feeling of completeness or perhaps simply feeling like one did everything desired in his or her lifetime. I believe this point is reasonable.

Now, teenagers have a sense of rebellion embedded within them. This is made manifest by the music, movies, and general culture of any teenage generation, not just our own. I also think that this point is reasonable, although perhaps not applicable to everyone.

Since the Puritans, there has been a rebellion against religion in the United States. With, for example, the story in “The Crucible”, the rebellion was simply created because a few teenage girls were bored and did not believe that the Christian life they had was exciting nor fun enough. I believe this trend has continued on to today where the number of teenagers who would admit any form of religious affiliation has reached an all time low.

It is true that ancient and even modern cultures have created religions to explain the question of “why are we here”, for that is human nature. However, they did not really have a form of science; therefore, the only possible answer could be a form of religious creature who is all powerful. This has been explained in an above post. Now, since the creation of modern science, I believe it is safe to say that these questions which were formerly answered by religions have been taken over by science to be answered. Thus, theories such as macro-evolution, the Big-Bang, et cetera, have been created to explain what religions have explained earlier.

One thing I would like to point out now, though, is a weak point in science as a religion (which, essentially, is what is has become). Einstein once said, “if the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts”. This is quite manifest in today’s scientific world, where just about every theory has facts against and for it. Only by looking at a few facts and ignoring others can any theory truly be made. Evolution, for example, is proved a number of ways, one example is by the undeniable existence of micro-evolution (which, by the way, is the only type of evolution which Darwin truly believed in, the theory of macro-evolution was really put forth into the world by his assistant, Thomas Huxley). However, it can also be proved false by the fact that the creature between ape and man is not existent, whereas the proposed ancestor and offspring do. The middle link is missing. Only by ignoring that can macro-evolution really become a theory.

Another thing I would like to point out here is the fact that those scientists who speak against religion, namely Christianity, do so with specific facts. Those who look at everything (Stephen, an example of this is that book online you were telling me about) figure out that there has to be a God. Furthermore, many who take time to study religion find that the Christian Bible is the most reliable and believable religious books, and therefore religion, out there. My point here is that the belief against Christianity (and really any religion) is only believeable when one has tunnel vision and only views specific facts.

One more example of the last point I just made is with the fact that genetic material was created in a pool which scientists believe could have existed at the beginning of time. By shooting electricity in this pool scientists have actually created genetic material, thus proving that evolution exists, right? Well, they conveniently overlook simple numbers, for the odds of this genetic material being created in the first place, and then forming a being are completely illogical when placed within the idea of evolution. This disregards the odds that it would take for “mistakes” to eventually form a creature so complicated as a human being. Mathematically, if macro-evolution did exist, it would take billions, nay, trillions of more years for a human to be formed through mistakes, and yet here we are. And that is only mathematically, that disregards many practical facts in the way of mistakes forming a greater being. In general, when one looks at everything as oppose to the specific, they find that the theory is incorrect and illogical. However, with Christianity, further study has only formed Christians out of secularists.

Wrapping this idea up, I suppose my point is that school, the media, et cetera is bombarding us with these specific facts which make us believe that a theory (such as evolution) can be true. It bothers me that everything we come in contact with every day forces us to believe in the fact that religion cannot be true, whereas those who take the time to study it realize that it must be. This book, for example, “The Road” is a work of fiction. The world has not been destroyed, and these two people do not exist except in Cormac McCarthy’s mind. However, in the above blog, this work of fiction (therefore being a lie) is being treated as truth. It is affecting us as much as a list of facts does. In the book it would appear as though God has left the world to suffer and die, and as a result readers are beginning to think that is true in our lives. It just baffles me that a work of fiction can have that great of an effect on anyone. Sure, there are themes and messages there, but the fallacious world should not take the place of our own.

Nabil, you call God a “reason for man to live”. I suppose that can be true, but I do not think the noun “God” is identical to the noun “reason”. I think that God creates a reason to live, but not that God is actually that reason. Stephen, you call God a “driving force”, which also is true, but not that God is actually just a force, but that God is a being who can create that force. As a human I can create a force by pressing down on something, so why can’t God create a force through similar means? God isn’t really a force, but He can create one.

I suppose the blog conversation I was reading just bothered me since the only ideas being thrown around are the “New Age” ideas which have just recently come up, and older (and more completely tested) ideas where being disregarded. My request, then, is simply as you are reading any work of fiction, realize that it is fiction and do not take it as truth (as I have often seen people do).

Lastly, during these four books of summer reading (all 200 pages or more) I would like to place one more out there for people to read. It is called “More Than a Carpenter” by Josh McDowell. It is a man who hated Christianity and the idea of religion who then was challenged to find the proof that Christianity was not true. He then left his college for a while, traveled to Europe, and studied extensively on the subject, only to find that it is illogical to say that it isn’t true. This is a work of nonfiction, therefore there is more truth to it than a work of fiction. As you read for school or just in general, perhaps this small 120 page easy read will show the other side of the story, since I fear that is being lost in these New Age ideas and theories. Give it a try, at the very least it could boost your own argument to prove it wrong. Let me know if you would want to borrow it, for I have a copy I could lend out.

Thomas

Mr. Kreinbring-

I posted a blog a couple of days ago and it vanished. Was it deemed inappropriate?

Having finished The Road about a week ago, I have been pondering the overall theme of the novel and taking into account the above entries. The theme on which Nate and Dana concur is to never give up, which I feel is accurate, but deserves to be expanded on. There are three elaborations of “never give up” which I have determined enclose the somewhat varied themes in the novel. The first is never giving up one’s own morals, the second is never giving up on relationships, and the third focuses on the straight-forward perseverance through their tough physical journey.

The idea of never giving up on relationships is the sole piece which held together the characters in the novel. The trust laid out in the open between the father and son ended up impacting all the decisions they made. As discussed by some other students previously, the boy made sure his father’s actions were within a solid range of moral boundaries. Despite the father’s occasional frustration with his son’s gentle attitude, the son’s presence alone was enough to keep the man moving in the right direction: both physically and with his moral decisions. Right up until the end of the novel, the boy would not betray his morals, even if it meant he would live without being under any man’s guidance. The nobility of such a young person is one of the strongest tools McCarthy uses to portray that we can all be better people if we “never give up.”

Sorry for starting the posts so late. I am not usually like this. However this is the first time I have had access to a computer since school got out for various reasons. I’ll write about the first third of the book today, and later, I will write on other parts.

In the very beginning we are introduced to a world that is very different than ours. In so many words the world has ended. We follow a young boy and an older man throughout this story. Within the first few pages it becomes apparent that they mean a lot to each other. On page 5 I came across a quote that sums this up quite nicely. “…each the other’s world entire.” This quote has a different meaning for each one. For the young boy, the old man is the only thing he has ever known. For the old man, the young boy is literally the olny thing he has left to hold onto.

I would also like to point out the contrast from the past to the present. In the man’s memories everything is colorful. This gives the feeling of joy and tranquility. The descriptions given about the present show a world that is covered in black and gray ash. This gives the feeling of no hope and despair.

There is also images of fire and gruesome deaths caused by others. I agree with Liz Silverman in that there is repentence and punishment. The fire seems to be purging the land so to speak, the ash may be a symbol of repentence, and then the punishment is apparent in the gruesome images presented to us. This leads me to wonder whether the world has turned into some form of purgatory.

One last thing I would like to point out in this entry is the possible forshadowing of him killing the boy. Multiple times he asks himself if he will have the strength to do what is right. I can’t help but wonder if he means to put the boy out of his misery. To euthanize him if you will.

That’s all for now….more to come either later today or tomorrow.

I have to admit, shortly after starting this novel, I had already decided that it was going to be just another boring summer read. Summarizing the lives of two people, talking about stuff I didn’t care about, and going through things I wouldn’t care to know. However, after getting through the first few pages, after the plot started to unfold, I realized that this book would be probably one of the most touching books I will ever read. The lessons and values showed in this book are some of the hardest values to find in a person. I believe that the main theme, or maybe the main symbol in this book is true love. Having a love for someone else meaning you would put them before you in any circumstance. The man truly loved his son. Most parents would say that they would sacrifice themselves for their children, but I think that few of them would put action to their words. The man in The Road showed in almost every page that he would do those words justice, and at the end of the novel, he puts those words to action. The man’s dialogue on page 279 [probably the most referenced dialogue in this blog, and also I believe the most touching] nearly brought me to tears.

“Just take me with you. Please.
I cant.
Please Papa.
I cant. I cant hold my son dead in my arms. I thought I could but I cant.
You said you wouldnt ever leave me.
I know. I’m sorry. You have my whole heart. ”

This is proof enough that the man sacrificed himself, and all of his fears, to sustain his sons life. Him and his son had been together through the entire novel, working as a team to keep each other strong. I can’t imagine how difficult it must have been for the man to tell his son to go on without him, but it became clear that he no longer was trying to save his life, he wanted nothing but the son to live on.

I do have one question though, to anyone who happens to read this. I was left a little bit confused by a passage on page 87. In the middle of the page it suddenly switches to first person and he (the man) talks about the dog they saw on the road, and the son as he watches it. I was just confused as to why it switched to first person and what the purpose was? I read it over and over and still couldn’t make sense of it.

I figured I should write a post on the second third of the book, although this seems rather pointless since most everyone has finished the book and are no longer referring to this blog. However, seeing as I wrote this post a few weeks ago, I don’t want my effort to go to waste.

I found that the second part of the story is filled with many different kinds of emotions. At the very beginning there is despair. The old man is sure they are dying. Then they find a bunker with a store of food. Even with this find there is still a sense of despair. For example, the man talks about finding gun shells but not a gun itself. Without the gun these shells are useless. This makes me wonder if this illustrates their situation. That no matter how many bullets (food and supplies) they find they will never find a gun (salvation).

Also the character Ely, an old man found on the road, is an interesting character. He appears to have lost hope, but not the will to live. It makes me wonder how one could go on without any hope. We tend to think that hope and the will to survive go hand in hand. Even when the boy gives Ely food to take with him he refuses to thank the boy saying only that he would not have done the same thing. Has this world fallen into such despair that there is no kindness most men?

At the very end of this section the boy and the man come across bodies in the tar that have been burned. The boy asks the man “why didn’t they leave the road?”. The man’s answer to this illustrates what seems to be the main point of this book…”They couldn’t.Everything was on fire”. The present world appears to be on fire, and while the boy and the man are trying to escape the can’t. The fire is everywhere. In the end they can never escape the fire and they will die because they cannot leave the road that is Earth.

I agree with the above posts in that the theme of the novel is to nevr give up. Throughout the whol story I questioned whether or not the boy would die. It was pretty obvious that the man was going to die. I mean coughing up blood is never a good sign.

The man’s death was touching in that he was insistant that the boy go on without him. I liked that the fire the boy constantly talked about was actually inside of them. It was a symbolic fire and not a literal one. I feel that the fire meant the will to survive and stick to ones morals. This is why the bad people did not carry the fire.

I have mixed feelings about the other family finding the boy. On the one hand it ties up the book nicely, on the other I feel that it would have been beautiful if the boy carried on without his father and took off down the road alone.

I liked the part where the boy has to decide whether to trust the new family or not. The boy asks “How do I know you’re one of the good guys?”. The man replied “You don’t. You’ll have to take a shot”. I feel that this is true in many things. You can never really be sure whether or not something or someone is truely good. You just have to take a shot in the dark and hope things turn out right.

I have one last thought. The road that the boy and the man are travelling on. I originally thought that it represented the earth. I now feel, after finishing the book, that the road is actually the infamous road of life. It has dangers and you can try to hide from it, but good things can come from it too. In the end you just have to take a shot in the dark.

I am very impressed with your comments. Mr. Howard, you might want to avoid phrases like “Undeniable truth.” While much of waht your post said was valid and interesting, but undeniable is over reaching.

The ideas that about religion and god that McCarthy stirs up are all excellent thematic material. Think about how his own abiguity about god in his novel leaves us all room to explore what he may mean. McCarthy seems to be better at providing his readers room to move within those ideas than Miller or old JD do. Crucible, which by the way is about McCarthyism in the ’50’s, has far too many preachy speeches for my taste, and JD is a little obvious.

Thanks for the book recomendation Thomas. I’d add the Gnostic Gospels by Pagels, The Vitas, and, if you really want a challenge,Richard Dawkins The God Delusion…all after you finish the rest of the summer reading of course.

Peace,

RK

Well, Mr. Kreinbring, I suppose every word only gains a definition from the author. Novel to novel, essay to essay, and I suppose comment to comment, a meaning for a specific word or phrase may change based off of the author. This is why, especially in philosophy, the author must place a definition in with any word where there could be an argument on the true meaning.

Therefore, I would like to revise my comment. By saying “undeniable truth” I mean “not denied truth”. Any statement could be denied, for there is always the possibility in the English language to create a negative of a statement. For example, one could say that water is made of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom (which is true) and yet it is possible for one to say that water is not made of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. So even though the truth is undeniable, some can, indeed, deny it.

So, when I say that the two statements I placed above are “undeniable” I really mean that they are “not denied”. I suppose if someone wanted to argue that they are not true, then I will revise it further and take out that phrase; however, since I am relatively certain that everyone believes that both literature and the media has an effect on our thoughts (either towards or against the story, theme, et cetera). So, with this new definition of “undeniable”, at least for the purposes it is used above, I think the phrase works. If I said that everything was undeniable in my comment, though, then I would have to agree that it is inappropriate.

Thomas

Hello everyone! I finished the book a few weeks ago, but haven’t had access to the internet for the past few weeks. Although, no worries, I have been writing my thoughts on paper about different aspects of the book the entire time. And now my internet is back up so I will be posting much more often.
I highlighted so many passages in the novel that it took me a while to sort them all out. Even when I read for pleasure, I have a highlighter handy to mark quotes that stand out. I have been made fun of before for that, but I don’t care. There are so many pink and orange markings in my book that it felt like I had read The Road a second time trying to sort them all out. In this process, a quote on page 169 rose above most others:
“Nobody wants to be here and nobody wants to leave.”
It made me put down the book and think. I believe it captures the oxymoronic essence of human nature. Humans in general cannot ever figure out what we want. During hard times we wish for certain things, but do we really want them? The man and the child struggle for their lives and during that struggle they can’t help but think maybe they would be better off dead. The old man they encounter seems to know everything will be better once everyone’s gone. If he really believes that, why hasn’t he killed himself yet? He doesn’t know what he wants.
This quote also brought to mind another famous saying: “Be careful what you wish for”. People will say they want this or that, but once they get it they realize it isn’t what they wanted at all. We never know what we want until after the fact. Sometimes what we want is even contradictory to what we need. Humans are just very indecisive and ignorant creatures. Although, half of the time we cant help that. It’s just how life works.

I apologize that I am much farther behind than everyone else. After having read a few words here and there from others my ideas have changed a bit. I find this novel quite interesting. I like how McCarthy hides what has happened to America only supplying a few details here and there. It definitely kept me interested and helped it be a little more suspenseful. I can’t imagine how difficult it would be to survive when it is difficult to decide which is worse living at this point or death. They struggle for their lives but what is their motive to keep battling. What is at the end? For them, it is hard to even remember the good parts of life. I particularly found interest in this passage, “That he could not enkindle in the heart of the child what was ashes in his own. Even now some part of him wished they’d never found this refuge. Some part of him always wished it to be over” (154). The struggle has been so difficult and what for? They don’t know what comes in the future and yet they find some inner hope and use each other’s love to keep fighting. It makes you wonder how difficult it would have been if it were only one person. Without the companionship of another it would be much harder to survive. The man fights for the boy’s life. Their love holds them stronger. It is interesting to connect the same thing to society today. It can be used as an example and an explanation for why people do the things they do.

Sorry, for not blogging sooner. I was out of the country and even though I finished The Road about a month ago, this is the first time I have been able to write this.
When I first began reading The Road I immediately knew I was going to enjoy it. Regardless of the plot, theme, etc. the language Cormac McCarthy utilizes from page one, had me wanting to keep reading to see what he would write next. It was refreshing to read this book, with its vivid language, compared to my usual reading material which consists of romance novels and teen series. I, like others who have previously commented, thought the style in which he writes the book, greatly influences the impact it had on me, the reader. At times the intensity of Cormac’s description made me gasp out loud, especially when he depicted the scene with the roasting infant! One of my favorite lines was on page 32.
“Query: How does the never to be differ from what never was?”
This line had me reading it over and over again in an attempt to understand its meaning. I finally concluded that it was most likely addressing that the events that were now happening in the post-apocalyptic world, were not comparable to the world before the catastrophe because now that world no longer existed.
Another aspect I enjoyed about this story is that even though it is thoroughly depressing at points, it ends more or less optimistically. Despite the father dying the boy lives on with a strong chance of surviving since he merges with another group of “good guys.” I like this ending because it makes me pleased that at least the boy is given hope in the last pages, which he struggles with having through other parts of the book.

As i got farther in the novel I appreciated the consistency and the build up of the theme. I agree with many others that the theme could easily be never give up. At times for the boy and his father it was very frustrating. The father continuously instated to the boy “we’re carrying the fire” (129). They are the good guys and they talk about the fire as if it were hope or a sign of the good in people. The boy continues to carry the fire after his father’s death. After many days of travel with his father he learns to bring his own hope to his life. He becomes more independent and is able to make more of an impact on the decisions him and his father made. As their travel goes along the father makes an effort to include him in the decision making to teach him how to be on his own. It is quite apparent from the beginning that the man will die. The boy learned how to survive from him and I liked that he met up with more good guys. It goes to show that you should never give up because even though something terrible happened to the boy by the loss of his father, he still had hope and was found by other good people. Also, the several other times in the book where the boy and father felt like they saw people or that people were near, is an example of foreshadowing of how they will all meet in the end. The theme and the lessons through this novel were very interesting and I enjoyed reading.

After reading this novel, I have learned to appreciate certain things in my life. I am blessed to have plentiful amounts of food, two caring parents, a house to live in, a school to learn from, etc. You never realize how lucky you truly are until you hear about how it could be some other way. How do I know that America won’t burn down tomorrow and I will be left with nothing? This quote relates to that point, “People were always getting ready for tomorrow. I didnt believe in that. Tomorrow wasn’t getting ready for them. It didnt even know they were there” (168). I believe the old man is trying to say that you can never be prepared for what happens next, so why even try. What happens will happen and you can’t really stop it. There is no way to know that your whole entire country will burn down. Although, when a disaster such as that happens the best you can do is have hope and never give up. You can’t do anything to stop it from happening, so you will simply have to learn how to deal with it. The boy and the man deal with little mishaps throughout the whole novel. They overcame each one until the very end. There is no saying how the boys life will end, but he won’t stop. Strength to never give up can take you a long way.

So I agree with everyone that the theme could easily be “never give up”, but I also think it could be deeper than that. Throughout the novel they constantly mention “the fire”. There was the fire that caused many peoples deaths, the fires they built to keep themselves warm in the frozen winter, and the fire they carried inside of them. While reading, I wrote notes about the fire, because even in the beginning it came up quite often. Here is what I came up with: The fire caused (or helped cause) the destruction, yet it is what keeps them going and helps them stay warm in the dead of winter. Although, they need to be careful about when and where they build those life saving fires for fear that the bad guys will see the smoke, and know they are there. Throughout their travels the fire is the only color they ever see (besides grey, of course). Lastly, the fire is also what they hold in their hearts.
“And nothing bad is going to happen to us.
That’s right.
Because we’re carrying the fire.
Yes. Because we’re carrying the fire.” (p. 83)
“I don’t know how you made it this far. But you should go with me. You’ll be all right.
How do I know you’re one of the good guys?
You don’t. you’ll have to take a shot.
Are you carrying the fire?
…
Yeah. We are.” (p.283)
What could all this mean? I believe it has so much symbolism, it’s difficult to sum it up in one word. I also find it interesting because the fire caused destruction and that leads us to believe it symbolizes horrible things such as death, but that is quite different than what the fire in their hearts symbolizes. This makes me wonder why McCarthy would use the same object to portray two very different ideas. Death and destruction, yet also compassion. Perhaps McCarthy was trying to convey the idea that throughout death and destruction, and even when the world seems as if it may come to an end, there will be (and always should be) compassion and goodness. I like to believe that this is the true theme, maybe simply because it is less cliché than “never give up”.

After watching the interview, I think we are “creating” more symbolism than we are finding. McCarthy doesn’t seem to be the type to riddle his books with hidden meaning, I think the point of the book was blatantly obvious, now: It wasn’t a cautionary tale, it wasn’t a statement on human nature, it wasn’t even a parable meant to illustrate “never give up”…

It was a story about Father and Son. What better landscape to showcase the paternal protectiveness of the Father, alongside the loving, innocent Son?

I am quite farther in the book than the following comments, I just haven’t had access to a computer in a while. While reading, the passage about the flashback when the man’s wife was still alive really caught my attention. This woman must have been a truly unhappy person. She had a husband and a son who loved her, but she was so pessimistic about the future that she could not stay with her family any longer.

“I’ve taken a new lover. He can give me what you cannot.
Death is not a lover.
oh yes he is.
Please don’t do this.
I’m sorry.
I can’t do this alone”(p.57)

This conversation really caught my eye. I think it is remarkable that someone could be so incapable of finding happiness or any form of joy in their present life that they would contemplate and follow thorough with suicide.

Also, I can only imagine how the husband feels in this situation. When you are married you agree to stay with this person in richer or poorer, in sickness and in health. If your spouse doesn’t want to stay with you it is like the other has failed in their duty to the other. When the wife commits suicide it is not only affecting her life but makes the husband question his success as a person.

After watching the interview between Oprah and Cormac McCarthy I fully agree with Jordan. McCarthy, in the interview spoke about the trip he took with his son to El Paso that sparked the idea of a story of a father and a son in a desolate land. After all of the side thoughts of symbolism, I believe that all McCarthy wanted the story to relay was the companionship of the father and son. i believe that every story can have some in-depth, hidden meaning that is waiting to be deciphered, but I also believe that each story can be created as a simple story. I am sure Shakespeare didn’t think “Romeo and Juliet” , “Macbeth” or “A Mid Summer’s Night Dream” were going to be that read into. Readers tend to think to much of each story, but at the same time, that is what makes reading so healthy and stimulating.

I am nearing the end of this book and have realized something, the father and son are still very much sane. While reading many other novels, you discover that characters with very little human contact show signs of insanity. Throughout The Road, no matter how good or bad the times are, the father is always teaching his son how to behave and act as a gentleman. It is a admirable quality to have. It shows not only class and dignity, but also optimism for the future.

Adam — In response to your post way back, I didn’t pose that question. I, myself, figured that McCarthy’s eccentric punctuation allows him to blend a character’s thoughts into narration, and thus make mixing first person and third person possible.
I still think that not knowing the cause of the apocalypse lets us see from the boy’s perspective. Yes, we are teenagers — in the awkward transition from being a child to being an adult. But like the boy, we are human, we are young. Therefore, we have the potential for the same innocence and kindness within us. (However, our surroundings corrupt us and sometimes kindness isn’t executed.) We, as teenagers, like to think we know everything, but of course we don’t, and that makes us naive. The child is, without a doubt, naive — but still manages to be kind. Aren’t (or weren’t) we like that? If not, wouldn’t we like to be so sweet? We aren’t exactly in the boy’s position, but keeping us ignorant (of the cause of the apocalypse) reminds us of the blind goodness of childhood.

Thomas — Your post was insightful and I enjoyed it.

Megan — I agree. So many things are taken for granted. It is always refreshing to be reminded of what we have.

It’s easy to become entangled in numerous activities, like school, sports, clubs, and just having fun with friends. It’s easy to forget how much we have. It’s easy not to think about how much others would kill for what we would throw away.
The easy way isn’t the right way.
For many people, The Road isn’t fiction. They are desperate just like the father. They constantly search for food, clothes, and shelter, and they fight against the disease(s) raging within their bodies. They must fear crime and savageness of their fellow men.
I found an interesting site, at humanracebook.com. Click “ignore” to the prompt and a fact list will appear. This fact list reminded me that I should be extremely thankful for how fortunate I am to have so many luxuries in my life.

I agree with Jordan about the religious aspect of The Road and the straightforwardness of McCarthy. Looking at small symbols isn’t important — the overall message of the book, and the statement it makes, is.

It’s important to remember that The Road is a work of fiction. It can be interpreted many ways, some of which would sound foolish had they been stated about the real world. Most Americans believe in the almighty Judeo-Christian God. But The Road is a piece of fiction, and in its own universe, the same religious views don’t have to apply. I’m not going to make any statements about God in The Road (as I would like to say I’m smart enough to not discuss religion on the internet, where anyone can see it), but I would just like to issue a reminder to anyone who wants to strictly apply the Judeo-Christian definition of God and religion to a novel.

I started this novel before school got out thinking I was ahead and rather intelligent. When I had to restart the novel because I had felt so good about myself I didn’t touch it for a month and forgot everything I read, I felt quite the opposite. I promise I’ll learn from my mistakes. I’m excited to join everyone on here because I have missed intelligent conversation this summer, but before I join in on some of the enlightening conversations my peers have created I would like to comment on something I noticed from the start of the novel.
When I started reading The Road I was immediately frustrated with some of Cormac McCarthy’s stylistic writing choices. There are no chapters throughout the novel and no quotation marks either; maybe neither of those is necessary, but they are both nice luxuries to have. As I journeyed into the novel I realized that McCarthy left those out for reasons other than laziness and to frustrate the reader. The father and son pair is traveling without a calendar. There are no markers telling them how long it has been or what day of the week it is, they are simply traveling in order to survive. The lack of chapters relays a similar feeling to the reader; that we are traveling without a sense of time or distance. There is nothing that separates one week from the next, and we are along side the father and son throughout this monotonous, miserable existence. We are without what we might have considered necessities in prior existence- such as how in English class we are taught that quotation marks are a must when someone is speaking. In The Road we are following the words on the page without the luxury of chapters or quotations to guide us, and I find the paralleled feeling it gives the reader intriguing.

One thing I find amazing about this story is how the boy has so much compassion. He has never known what life was like before the disaster. All he has known was grey, ash, death, cannibalism, murder, and so many other horrible things. Yet, he has this compelling need to help everyone he sees. The two encounter numerous needy people on their journey and the boy pleads to help every single one of them.
“He’s been struck by lightning.
Can’t we help him? Papa?
No. we cant help him.” p. 50
“What do you want to do?
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.
He’s so scared, Papa.
The man squatted and looked at him. I’m scared, he said. Do you understand? I’m scared.
The boy didn’t answer. He just sat there with his head bowed, sobbing.
You’re not the one who has to worry about everything.
The boy said something but he couldn’t understand him. What? he said.
He looked up, his wet and grimy face. Yes I am, he said. I am the one.” P.259
You would think after seeing humans eat other humans, and cooked, half eaten babies, that one would despise what the human race has become. Even though the boy has never seen goodness, he has the natural instinct to help people. He knows cannibalism isn’t right. He has morals, unlike many of the other survivors who do anything to stay alive, not caring about anyone else.

So, I realized the boy’s goodness was not necessarily instinct, unlike what I said in my last post. It was most definitely learned from his father. Maybe some part of it was instinct, but the majority was because of the role model he had. Even though his father wouldn’t let him help as many people as he wanted, he learned what was right and good. The boy was often upset with his father for not allowing him to help sometimes, but this also helped to make sure the boy knew what reality was. It was good to help, but you can’t help everyone all the time. It isn’t realistic. But he tells him to help when you can.
“There were times when he sat watching the boy sleep that he would begin to sob uncontrollably but it wasn’t about death. He wasn’t sure what it was about but he thought it was about beauty or about goodness. Things that he’d no longer any way to think about at all. They squatted in a bleak wood and drank ditchwater strained through a rag. He’d seen the boy in a dream laid out upon a coolingboard and woke in horror. What he could not bear in the waking world he could not by night and he sat awake for fear the dream would return.” P. 130
It is inspiring how this father- son bond is so great even through disaster. The father had taught his son so much through the time he was alive, and the boy has learned things from his father that he will never forget. The boy is a very different person from the other survivors because of what his father has done for him.

The boy’s goodness amazed me too, Rebecca, and I agree that he learned a lot of his moral code from his father. In fact, the father amazed me more than the son. He kept on going and striving to survive even though there wasn’t much hope left. He tries to teach his son to never say he wants to die. Throughout the novel I wondered what it was about the man and his son that made them survive when so many others did not. What characteristics did they possess that made them keep their will to survive when all hope was gone? I think the theme of the novel is the answer- the compassion the father holds for the son forces him to go on, even though the thought of death is relieving. He cannot bear for his son to die and he wants to live long enough to show him how to survive.

It seems to me that after the mysterious catastrophe occurred there are three different paths the surviving embarked on. There were the good guys, the bad guys, and the ones who gave up. The father and son were good guys. They did what they could to survive without bringing harm to others or sacrificing their morals. They tried to help those they came across rather than sacrifice them for their own benefit. The father and son come across many of the bad guys. People who lost all morals when disaster struck; killed men and ate children. Then there were those who gave up, like the mother. Without any hope of a brighter future and with death being the blissful answer she took her own life.

Is compassion all that it takes to make men decide to survive and be good guys? If so, what about the mother, was she not as compassionate? The relationship between the man and the son is proved to be more than average. In a heartless world their bond is stronger than any. Cormac McCarthy illustrates in this post apocalyptic setting the power this father-son relationship holds. It gives them life.

After I read the back cover of this book, I instantly related the relationship amongst the father and the son to the relationship I have with my dad. The quote “each the other’s world entire” is certainly a strong quote that I can relate to personally. I believe that I wouldn’t be where I am today without the support and guidance of my family, especially my parents. My family is the most important part of my life and I couldn’t imagine life without my family.

I believe that I have a closer bond with my parents than most others because I am an only child. I really understand the closeness of the relationship between the father and the son. My parents need me to complete their lives just as much as I need them. My parents consider me their first priority over anything in the world which is similar to the father and son in the story. I also can relate to the system of encouragement the father and son have. From time to time, one has to remind the other to keep their spirits up and to remain moving. When you are an only child, there is a great deal of expectations on you to succeed in whatever it may be. I can see that in the expectations the father has for the son in this journey. You are more of an independent person when you are an only child. However, you depend on your parents more and they depend on you more. For example, if I was to graduate from college and was offered a high-quality position at a company in Chicago or Detroit, I would come to a decision independently. No matter what choice I would make, my parents would still support me and would move to Chicago if I chose to accept the job there. We move together as a family and this is also a principle shown in the book. I believe that this story has more personal relevance to me than most others. Being an only child allows me to really appreciate the relationship the father and the son share.

After sorting through all the highlighted quotes in my book, I decided this was most definitely one of my favorites:
“Query: How does the never to be differ from what never was?” p. 32
The “never to be” is obviously hopelessness. It’s about things that will not ever happen later in this life, or ever at all. The “what never was” is more regret. It is about things that maybe should have happened, or things that shouldn’t have, but either way, things that happened in the past that can’t be changed. The difference is that we still have some control over what “the never to be” is, simply because it hasn’t happened yet. But if we view it as “never to be” we are just being hopeless. If we don’t believe we can change something, there is no possibility that it will. We have to believe that there is a chance of change for change to be possible.

I agree with Rebecca that the boy’s caring heart and strong morals were one of the most touching and fascinating aspects of the novel. I do concur that the strength of the father’s constant example, as well as his interaction with boy create the cornerstone for the boy’s moral code. Where my opinion differs is in that I believe the boy did not solely act in following his father’s path or morality, instead he used his own struggles and trying experiences to create his own ethics code. This is demonstrated in times when their virtues differ, and the boy objects to his father’s tactics for dealing with strangers they met along the road. I feel that their diverging senses of morality became an important part of their relationship as well as the entire novel. It seems that without the boy’s innocence, the father’s personal moral code would have been destroyed. I believe that it was this balance that allowed both the two to keep their self-proclaimed title of “good guys”, and the novel to keep its aspect of touching and often relatable compassion.

In regards to Lisa’s most recent comment, I also believe that the relationship between the two was extraordinary. I feel that their contrast in thoughts as well as the compatibility of their individual strengths was the absolute creator of this relationship. I know many have already commented on this, but to me the most amazing part of the father’s being was his constant desire to cultivate his
Son’s thoughts and lifestyle into greatness. This was absolutely remarkable in a world in which it appeared as though his efforts may ultimately be pointless.

I think the book is about showing both sides of humanity’s potential. On one hand you have the people who are cannibals and have degenerated into little better than animals. On the other hand you have people who are just trying to get by and survive. It shows how evil we can be when we give into our darker emotions and thoughts compared to how we can keep going even when things look hopeless.

As referred to in many of the previous comments I agree that the by McCarthy not revealing what exactly caused the apocalypse the reader gains a better sense of what the boy is experiencing throughout the novel. Also I believe that what happened in the past the lead up to the destruction is not relevant to building theme or furthering the plot of the novel. There is in a sense a new beginning for the world and the characters have to move forward in the situation they are in now, McCarthy shows this by creating a great amount of separation between the past and the present through the father’s memories also by depicting the diminish of past commonalities as in the passage “The world shrinking down about the raw core of parsible entities…In time to wink out forever.” (88-89). The irrelevance of the past also adds to the importance of the father and his sons hope for their uncertain future.

The boy as I see it is McCarthy’s way of personifying hope. He is the only reason his father continues to fight on and survive throughout the novel. He is in the book the last person who contains any amount of innocence within himself anymore. He always listens to his father and as his father told him his main grasp onto reality is that they are together “carrying the fire”. It can be argued that carrying the fire is another way of saying carrying the hope for the future of mankind is this desolate world of ash and cannibalism.

I thought McCarthy’s inspirations for this book were very fascinating. As you may know, McCarthy developed the setting based on El Paso, Texas. Overall, the place is fairly empty, and McCarthy imagined what the city could appear to look like in the future. McCarthy was also there with his son. He then developed the plotline in the story based on what would be similar to his course of actions and his son throughout a similar course of events. I believe the journey taken by the father and son in the novel on the east coast was a better alternative than the El Paso area. It made the travel more of a struggle in such aspects as climate, elevations etc., which I thought ultimately developed a better storyline than El Paso could have. I thought the path chosen by McCarthy did resemble what El Paso could look like in the future. One of the great aspects of this book was the well-developed setting. McCarthy allowed us to easily picture these scenes and he was able to do this well because of his personal experience and thoughts of what this land does and will look like in the future.

Evan, I don’t really agree with how you described the people who succumbed to their “evil” impulses. I think they fell well below the animal level. In naturalistic thinking, one may associate animalism with brutality, but one should remember that realistically, animals have feelings and, many times, care for each other. The cannibals are nothing like your friendly dog or the compassionate dolphin. It’s not fair to associate cruelty with creatures.

Although I finished the book, The Road, a couple days ago, I was unable to be near a computer so I wrote my thoughts down as I read, and now am finally able to share them with all of you. I have only read a couple of other responses, and many of you have said you like how Cormac McCarthy leaves details out, so the imagination can fill them in. I on the other hand, find that to be the thing I dislike most about the book. I am one who likes to know exactly what will happen rather than leave it to myself and others to decide. Although by sparing details there is much more room for discussion and argument.

While reading The Road a few quotes popped out to me, the first was on page 34 where McCarthy foreshadows what will occur at the end of the book. The man had just broken a miniscule promise he had made to the boy when the boy scolded the man saying, “If you break little promises you’ll break big ones. That’s what you said.” After reading this I knew that some major promise would be broken, but I was not quite sure what promise that would be. On page 348 the man repeats his most momentous promise to the boy, saying that he will never leave him to go off into the darkness alone. It was at this point that it occurred to me how the book would end. After the man becomes too sick to go on, he is forced to leave the boy to go on by himself, breaking not only his promise to the boy, but breaking the boy’s heart as well.

The thing that interested me most about this book was the boy and his father’s relationship. Although they do not speak to one another very often, and when they do their conversations are short, their love for one another is stronger than any child and parent relationship I’ve ever seen or read about. The father’s love for his son is undying, and I believe it is the sole reason the man fights through this rough time. He wants his son the see the world the way he once saw it. He wants the boy to see that there is good in others, and although the man may have a hard time believing many people are left like them, he knows they’re out there. On page 154 the man expresses how badly he wished he could explain the way the world used to be to the boy, “He could not construct for the child’s pleasure the world he’d lost without constructing the loss as well and he thought perhaps they’d come to warn him. Of what? That he could not enkindle in the heart of the child what was ashes in his own. Even now some part of him wished they’d never found this refuge. Some part of him always wished it to be over.” The man is torn because he wants the boy to know what he once knew of the world, but those memories are quickly fading for the man, along with all the hope he had left in him.

Although a miniscule part of the book, and I do not know the exact page number, because at the time it meant nothing to me, but there was a pregnant woman who they saw walking. Later, they saw some of the cannibals eating a baby, and the boy asked the father where they found the child. It occurred to me, that most likely some of the “bad guys” were probably taking advantage of the beauty of birth, by eating their newborns in order to survive. I think this is when it clicked for me, just how sick and wrong it is to eat another human. Obviously I knew it was wrong and found it disgusting from the beginning, but to trick God by making a baby just to kill and eat it is just nauseating.

On page 274 you can see the transition from the man being to leader to the boy. They had just come upon a river where the bridge is collapsed, and they are stuck.
“What are we going to do Papa? he said.”
“Well what are we, said the boy.”
The first seven times I read this I did not understand what was going on. Finally I realized that the man was saying what the boy would normally say in a situation like this, mimicking him. I believe this is one of the first major signs that the boy is now starting to take charge and care for the man, rather than vise-versa.

I agree with Evan’s observation of the son as a symbol of hope, and feel that this aspect of the novel is more important than most originally recognize. I think that the boy creates this hope through his morals along with his innocence, even in a world of ruins. I believe that the innocence of the boy is what ultimately allows for and even creates the most important themes of novel. Without the boy’s kindly innocence the pair would have been left with no motivation to never give up, the seemingly agreed upon main theme of the novel. Also without the never giving up and innocence the novel would have lost it’s compelling father-son relationship.

I agree with May- naturalism isn’t necessarily evil. Characters in The Road did what they had to do to survive. I’m not saying that cannibalism is a good thing; I’m saying we need to look at the world from the perspective of the characters. If you were faced with the choice of eat other humans or die, which would you choose? I’m sure everyone would say, “die” now, but if he or she were a character in novel the choice would be much harder to make. We lack this perspective because we live in relative comfort- food, water and shelter are provided for us.

Think back to Honors Tragedy: characters such as Creon, Abigail Williams and Stanley Kowalski all behaved in a naturalistic way and were condemned for it. Their goal wasn’t to be nice or moral- their goal was survival, and even though they achieved it through immoral means, they survived. Characters such as Antigone, John Proctor and Blanche all acted morally; and they all were killed for it.

This comment is a little late in the conversation as I had problems posting it last night and I see this morning was unsucessful. I also agree with May and on the topic of the evil people or the bad guys as the boy called them I believe that what sets them apart from the good guys is the fact that the good guys realized that survival is not the ultimate goal but maintaining thier diginity and other qualities that make us human. The boy and his father believed that just surviving was not worth them sacrificing the basic morals, and dignity that make us human and set us apart from the world of raw animal, eat or be eaten survival. When the boy asked his father would we eat the dog…even if we were starving and the father says no (tthe also asks this regaurding to other people) and the father says no shows the differnce in what they value as opposed to what some of the people left on Earth valued.

This comment is a bit late as well, but better late than never.

The writing style puts an emphasis on setting and aesthetics. McCarthy does a wonderful job of painting the picture and putting a monocle on the mind’s eye to sharpen a focus so lacking within literature. His style is unique in that the characters are symbolic and secondary instead of the focal point of the story. But maybe this focus softened and lacking for a reason. I do not enjoy the story. I have an artistic appreciation for it, but I couldn’t follow the writing style and had to stop every ten pages. It came off too poetically written and did not achieve the chief aim of storytelling; telling a story in an engaging manner.

My second comment.

Morality is subjective and though we are an evolved and arguably enlightened species, the world is still dog eat dog. If you can rationalize your actions then they aren’t inherently evil. Nabil is right. The strong survive and the weak perish. Symbiosis is only possible when the conditions allow. If you want to make an omelet then sometimes you have to break some eggs. I’m not saying I condone or condemn cannibalism or humans acting like ravaged animals under any conditions… nor am I saying I do not. My point is simply that McCarthy’s world and our own is free of absolutes.

The man and the boy trek toward the coast, but nothing changes. It was nothing more than a hopeless choice in a hopeless world. We are condemned to bear the irons of our own volition. But without the road and the coast and the trek there would be no story. No life to the characters.

One must imagine Sisyphus happy. At least he’s doing something.

This comment is late too; I’ve been on vacation like crazy and only just got back. But here we go!

The first quote that caught my attention in The Road was on page 5: “If he is not the word of God God never spoke.” This quote speaks so deeply of the father’s love for his son. It expresses how he truely believes that his son is the work of God. This is especially important, since in the world he and his son are living in, there is no longer a lot to believe in. His son is helping him keep his faith, and is giving him a reason to keep fighting to survive. This quote shows what the man truely thinks of his son, and how much he loves him.

I want to add on to my last comment.

Throughout this book, the theme of a father’s love for his son is shown continously and strongly. The son is the man’s only reason for living, as shown on page 20: “The boy was all that stood between him and death.” The boy’s mother has already disposed of herself; the father is adamant that he will not do the same, and he will continue caring for the boy, because the boy is all he has left to believe in. In a world so desolate as the one depicted in The Road, you must have something to believe in, or the sense of terror and loneliness, and the lack of a reason to live will consume you, and you will be lost. The boy is the father’s reason for living. They are “each the other’s world entire” (7). If the boy died, I do not think the father would survive.

Cormac McCarthy puts a strong emphasis on the father’s love for the boy, but he does it in his own unique style. His writing is almost poetic in a sense; he manages to capture some beauty and grace within the lives of the father and his boy in the middle of all of the desolation and destruction. He shows this beauty and grace with the love that flows between them.

Lots of thoughts.

Thought 1:

This is probably one of the greatest books I’ve ever read. The synopsis at first steered me towards the assumption that I would have a hard time being captivated by the plot, and I didn’t want to spend my summer reading books of death and despair. After reading I did some research on Cormac McCarthy and I learned that he grew up during the cold war era, which im going to assume is what inspired him to write this? During that era people lived their everyday lives in fear that a nuclear war could potentially destroy the world. I also admire McCarthy’s analogies to the bible. It shows the true power of the novel, the bible is the ultimate comparison to anything. If you compare a situation, a person, or a quote from the bible to something, it shows the significant importance and strong sense of symbolism. It was hard not to highlight the entire novel; books like this make for the best page-turners.

Thought 2:

I was also very taken with the relationship between the boy and his father. They prove to be the ultimate support system during what I would consider to be the worst possible scenario anyone could ever endure. The boy’s compassion and desire to help other’s was very touching, but it was also the father that acted as the voice of reason to teach his son that people always need help, and you can’t survive if you spend your life helping other’s to survive. As unfortunate as this may be, it’s human nature; you must take care of yourself first, in order to help take care of others. The relationship between the boy and his father is somewhat similar to the relationship between Bil and myself. Bil is always the voice of reasoning in any situation that comes between us. He always brings the harsh realities to the table, where I am always more focused on how it affects everyone but myself. Bil always helps me to realize that in any situation I am involved in I must think of myself first, as selfish as it may seem.

Thought 3:

Going back to the bible, there was one simple quote by the old man stated about God that Bil analyzed in an earlier post.

“Where men can’t live gods fare no better” (172)

Piggybacking off of Bil’s post from a while ago, the meaning behind the quote is that God would not be God without the people that believe in him. He wouldn’t be God if people didn’t make horrible mistakes, but God can’t fix our problems and im sorry if this offends anyone, but god’s forgiveness doesn’t fix our problems or sins, His forgiveness in merely a push towards moving on.

This quote reminded me of the father. Throughout the novel the father’s only inspiration of hope was through his son. The son was a constant reminder to the father to keeping pushing forward. This reminds me of Lord Of The Rings The Fellowship of the Ring, when Lady Galadriel gives Frodo the light of Eärendil to help him “find light in the darkest of places.” The boy’s compassion, hope, and ‘light’, is what makes him a Godly figure to his father.

While working through this book, the reader notices fairly quickly that Cormac McCarthy’s novel lacks most forms of “correct” grammer. He neglects to use commonly accepted dialogue format, and tends to create run-on sentences because he doesn’t use commas. His entire writing style is completely unique.

At first I couldn’t understand why he would write a book like this. I thought it may be to catch the reader’s interest, or to help the book flow better so the reader can get more into the story. But as the story with the father and the boy continued to develope, and their situation and environment became more defined, I realized that neither of those reasons were correct. My theory is that this book was written like this to demonstrate the complete lack of order, ethics, and civilization in the world that the man and his son now live in. Think about it. There are cannibals roaming the Earth. This in itself depicts for the reader just how chaotic and dangerous the world now is. There are no governments or rules; there is no order whatsover. There is only the “bad guys” and the “good guys”; those who have left morals behind, and those who strive to maintain ethics.

Using this technique of leaving behind all order and laws of English when writing, Cormac McCarthy magnifies just how difficult it was for the man to try and teach the boy morals and ethics; indeed, he may have succeeded too well in this particular lesson. The boy has a peculiar obsession with trying to help people, even those who would have left him for dead in a second. This is a dangerous obsession to have in such a world as they were living in, and the man tries to impress upon the boy that people cannot be trusted. The boy is the picture of innocence, and stands out against such a morally degenerated society.

Another aspect of the book that caught my attention was “the fire” that the man and the boy were supposedly carrying. Throughout literature, fire has often been a symbol of illumination, or civilization. I think this stands true for The Road. This idea is supported when the boy asked his dying father where the fire is.

“Is it real? The fire?
Yes it is.
Where is it? I dont know where it is.
Yes you do. It’s inside of you. It was always there. I can see it.” (270).

The fire is the civilization and the morals that the man and the boy are striving to keep alive. Even when the boy has nowhere else to go and will surely die if he does not find help, when a man asks him to come with him, the boy wants to know if he eats people. Even with his father dead and gone, the boy still maintains morals in a hopeless society; that is “carrying the fire.”

Courtney–
In an interview with Oprah, Cormac McCarthy said that his inspiration for The Road came from when he was in El Paso, Texas with his son, and he pictured what the city would look like in the future. He pictured “fires on the hill”? and thought of his son. He returned to the idea when he was in Ireland a few years later. Although considering the amount of despair that consumes this novel (all of it!) I’d hazard a guess that growing up during the cold war probably had an effect on his writing.

Maybe it was the existential tale of two people living a meaningless life, on a path to nowhere. Just a comparison to the everyday absurdities that comprise our totally meaningless lives. Cannibals, ashen landscapes devoid of civilization, and other horrendous atrocities that they are forced to deal with on a daily basis represent the everyday evils that we have become accustomed to. Our moral decay is not dissimilar to the cannibals: we are literally responsible for death and destruction on a daily basis.

Then again, this comparison is most likely unwarranted, as the boy and man showcase modern civilization at its best, against a crude backdrop of degenerate and “immoral” cannibals. Cormac McCarthy doesn’t seem to be the type to write a modern day No Exit. While the quote “Hell is other people!” seems to resound throughout the barren landscape of The Road, I think I’m making a habit of creating symbolism and injecting into The Road. Existential extrapolations aside, The Road was damned entertaining. I liked the dry, matter-of-fact style of writing, which I merely took as McCarthy’s way to keep it real and relatively unpretentious.

Or not. I’ll admit to diving straight into this comment without very much forethought, but maybe first-thought is best thought. Maybe it’s best to immediately journal your thoughts as soon as they appear, before they are lost forever.

Adios,
Jordan

I don’t particularly like when someone says “moral decay”, as if humans were more moral back in the day than it is now, as if we now are some morally deteriorated mutants. Humans never were more “moral” before. They robbed, they raped, they pilfered, they murdered. This has happened throughout history, just as crime occurs now.

If you look at the Old Testament, particularly Leviticus, it tells you a lot of rules that are seemingly irrelevant by contemporary standards, like not to be in public with a woman when she is menstruating, not to eat anything that has cleft hooves, etc. These rules existed because savage people had to be tamed by a ruthless book. (Don’t be offended when I call the Old Testament ruthless, because it’s rather violent when compared to its New counterpart.) A bunch of uncivilized nomads chilling out in the desert is not the same as we are now — we have some standards, at least, so we know that women might exercise a little discretion when on their period, and animals with cleft hooves have to be cleaned well so that they are sanitary. I can’t understand why people today would ever interpret the Old Testament literally, since it was meant to apply to people who didn’t have the same society and technology that we have today. The cannibals from The Road regressed to that primitive level of violence, because they focused on survival and chose to discard the values accumulated by millenniums of civilization. Right now, we would like to think that we’re not even close to that.

I agree with Jenny, that The Road is written in a distinctive way. I admit I was somewhat disappointed at first because: the characters are not completely “identified,” there are no chapters throughout the novel, and the dialogue arrangement is unusual. On the other hand, I do realize McCarthy is demonstrating interesting writing capabilities. For example, I think he is trying to paint a picture about the main characters. Although he refers to them as “He” and “the boy,” I can understand that you do not need to know the characters names to develop a connection with them. As I read, I can relate to certain feelings or situations even without knowing a whole lot about the characters. Also, since the characters do not know what month or even what day it is, the lack of chapters in this book adds to the feeling of how their life has been changed. These people lost track of everyday things and are struggling for survival. For me, reading a book without chapters is like I am not keeping track of a usual feature. Finally, I think the dialogue layout represents how the characters have no need to “sweat the small stuff.” They do not have to worry about something such as correct grammar; it is irrelevant. So, the approach of McCarthy with the dialogue is to show that they do not need to keep within the standards of society any longer.

May, I understand that human beings have a long history of being immoral, and I acknowledge that “decay” was probably not the best word to use, considering morals really haven’t “decayed” or “lessened”. Maybe I should have said, “our lack of morals is not dissimilar to the cannibals”?

I do think it’s funny that we call people savages, though. Look at the savagery we are all capable of, and the barbarism we support, before we start throwing the term “savage” around. Sure, ancient civilizations were often misogynistic, “uncivilized”, and cruel, but I think we exaggerate it, and downplay our own cruelty.

Maybe that’s why there are so few “good guys” on the Road: most people lack the integrity to stick to their moral code, when there are no repercussions or punishments.

Yes, Jordan, I think that wording was more fitting to what you meant.

Yes, we do call people savages, without looking at the brutality within us. We are all humans, and thus have the capacity to hurt others, and essentially be “evil”. As a human you know where you are vulnerable and where you can hurt, and if you really wanted to, you could harm them. Of course, there are people who try their best to be considerate and try their best to be good and kind. Then, there are people who hate others, insult others, and purposefully hurt others. (Some people might say something potentially hurtful and not know any better, so we will let them off the hook for now.) We all have the potential to be cruel, especially when we are somehow able to justify harmful words and actions to ourselves and others. (My terrorist could be your freedom fighter… it just depends how you see it.) So it is completely possible for a “normal” human, under certain circumstances, to be willing to hurt and even eat other people. Many of us harbor savage impulses — but since society has repercussions and punishments, as Jordan would say, we don’t always act on them — or we may act on them in subtler ways. Either way, the capacity for cruelty is there.

I think the character Ely displayed interesting viewpoints in his conversations with the man. To me it seemed like he had some wisdom and previous knowledge on: being the last man on earth and death. Ely had an answer for everything and seemed to know what he was talking about. For example on page 143 the man said, “How would you know if you were the last man on earth.” Ely responded with, “I don’t guess you would know it. You’d just be it.” I think this is an interesting thought. You could never really be certain if you were the last man on earth, because it would be impossible to truly know. They also talked about death. Ely says, “Where men can’t live gods fare no better. You’ll see. It’s better to be alone…Things will be better when everybody’s gone” (pg.145). I believe that Ely sees no hope in the future for the desperate remains of the human race. Their struggles are not worth the hassle and death would be the least of their worries in such a devastating world. Ultimately I think this character illustrates several unique opinions on the current issues that survivors are having.

I apologize for the inexcusable lateness of my blog. I could list a number of very lame excuses for my lateness, but I won’t. It is inevitably my fault that this wasn’t posted sooner. I read the book relatively quickly, but only checked up on this site after I finished. I am far too late to join any conversation but I would like to touch upon the thoughts of my peers all the same.
McCarthy sets the tone for his novel by not using quotation marks, as Adam said. The lack of quotation helps portray the lack of enthusiasm. Where the author chooses not to reveal his character’s names, I agree with Ali and think it is important to notice their inner development. They are characterized by their emotion and their thoughts. Dialogue alone would not fully expose their nature.

“And the dreams so rich in color. How else would death call you? Waking in the cold dawn it all turned to ash instantly. Like certain frescoes entombed for centuries suddenly exposed to the day.” (Page 21)
The man’s dream world became a haven where he could evade the elusive gray doom. His mind betrayed him when it escaped to that place. He had only survived because of his drive and will power. What drove him? The boy was his strength; his son drove him to carry on. He believed that there was good in the world worth keeping his son alive for. As some have faith in God, the father needed something to believe in, and his son became that faith.

“So be it. Evoke the forms. Where you’ve nothing else construct ceremonies out of air and breathe upon them.”(Page 74)
I agree with Liz that this quote quotes holds a great importance. She said that it created a religion of love which they followed; something to believe in. God is just what some of us may believe in today, some may believe in nothing. The man believed in the love he had for his son. The epitome of the pair’s survival required this untouchable love. McCarthy proves this faith in love throughout his novel, especially with the obvious compassion shown by the boy.

“Yes you do. You know how to say thank you.
The boy sat staring at his plate. He seemed lost. The man was about to speak when he said: Dear people, thank you for all this food and stuff. We know that you saved it for yourself and we wouldn’t eat it no matter how hungry we were and we’re sorry that you didn’t get to eat it and we hope that you’re safe in heaven with God.
He looked up. Is that okay? he said.
Yes. I think that’s okay.” (Page 146)
All senses fully engrossed in the pair’s conversation, I cried when I finished reading the boy’s prayer. Perhaps it was his innocent appreciation for all of the good things he received. The boy found it unethical to eat someone else’s food when he knew that of all the scrounging survivors, they had stumbled upon an opportunity to pursue their journey.

“In the deep glens where they lived all things were older than man and they hummed of mystery.”(Page 287)
Natalie mentioned the ambiguous catastrophe, and Mr. Kreinbring you stated that this may not matter if we are to receive the world through the boy’s eyes. However, I think it is important to observe that whatever the reason for the chaos, it ties to our world today. The apocalyptic world emphasizes the disturbance between man and nature. Judging by the remains of civilization, we can see that the disruption occurred within the 21st century. I think that by observing our lifestyle today, a connection can be made between the earth’s turmoil and man’s irreverent ways. McCarthy illuminates the potential for society’s demise by self-destruction.

“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.” (28)

This quote caught my eye because by now I had figured out they were making their way through a postapocalyptic world that had perished long ago. It describes in a very haunting way, what the world has become with no one around to remember all that humanity had created. I was able to image the setting the author would be using throughout the book, a vast land full of empty streets, abandoned homes, nothing new being created, anything useful has already been pillaged, and the ever present ash. People who once thought about their future have long ago given that up, and, if they haven’t perished themselves, are simply attempting to survive.

“Are we going to die?
Sometime. Not now.
And we’re still going south.
Yes.
So we’ll be warm.
Yes.
Okay.
Okay what?
Nothing. Just okay.
Go to sleep.
Okay.” (10)

I loved the dialogue in this book. The lack of vocabulary in their speech doesn’t make them sound stupid, but instead that they have learned to speak only when necessary, and say only what they need to, nothing more. However, as the story progresses, it is evident that each generation that will follow in this new world, will forget more and more about the old one, which the father was a part of.

“The names of things slowly following those things into oblivion… Things to eat. Finally the names of things one believed to be true.” (88-89)

This quote elaborates on my last point. Chocolate cake, breath mints, French fries, and many more things are no longer in existence. The names of these things, and the things themselves, will soon be forgotten, as soon as those who were around to remember them have passed away. Who will be around to remember God? The idea of him continuing to watch this pitiful world would almost seem like a joke. All things, except those necessary to survive, will be become a part of a world that will never be again.

Your comment

Name __('(required)')

E-Mail (Required, not published )

Website

Anti-spam word: (Required)*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture.

HTML-Tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>