Cormac McCarthy fans: the time to discuss THE ROAD has come again. (open spoilers)

Cafe Society
1

So yesterday morning I read The Road again, and it occurred to me that I’ve never started a thread on it. Obviously that cannot be allowed to continue. I’ll format the OP as a series of questions, partly to give the OP some rough form but mostly because Im as lazy as fuck. Feel free to answer all the questions, some of them, or none of them. I am not the boss of you. You should also feel free to discuss the movie, but I won’t be participating in that part of the discussion because I’ve never seen it and don’t intend to. There will be spoilers, of course, which I for one don’t intend to box.

Here we go:
[ul]
[li] Assuming you’ve read and liked more than one of McCarthy’s novels, how would you rank The Road among them?[/li][li] Assuming you generally like The Road, would you say that your appreciation is because of his stylistic idiosyncrasies (the odd punctuation, the word coinages, et cetera) or in spite of that?[/li][li] Would you say that not naming most of the characters (only one name is ever given in the book, and that is of a minor character) helped you immerse yourself in the book, or was it a distraction?[/li][li] Does the suicide of The Man’s wife strike you as unforgivably immoral, or human and understandable?[/li][li] Did you assume that the cataclysm that brought down civilization (or at least American civilization) was a nuclear war, or something else? Did it bother you that such is never made made clear? If you don’t think it was a nuclear war, what do you think it was?[/li][li] Does the Boy’s rescue by the kindly man and his family after the Man’s death strike you as a deus ex machina? Did it seem out of place with the overall tone of the book?[/li][li] Are there story elements you wish McCarthy had left out? Is there anything you’d want to add?[/li][/ul]

That’s all I’ve got for now.

2

I loved the book. But if I wasn’t a father of a young son, I don’t think it would have resonated with me. His idiosyncrasies did not detract from the book (or add to it), as I hardly even noticed them. If anything I felt that the story was natural and urgent. Names don’t matter in a world lacking in human kindness. The people at the end, bothered me a little, but only because I think that we should have gotten another couple of clues that they were there. How much more of an impact would the Man’s death have been, if he thought that there were people circling him and the boy, just waiting for him to die. Either way, few books have ever moved me like this one did. Movie was OK. Depressing as hell. It seemed to not hit on the little things that brought hope as well as the book.

3

Nice timing, since I finished this last week. It’s the first of McCarthy’s novels I’ve read, and as I mentioned in the “whatcha reading” thread, it will most likely be the last. I have never seen the movie.

I thought the story was very good. The sometimes-strange vocabulary didn’t bother me at all. The lack of quotation marks is the single reason I’ll probably not read his stuff again. Call me petty.

It was not a big distraction, but the connection to characters might have been stronger if they had names. Saying “the man” and “the boy” throughout the entire book was unnecessary.

Somewhat understandable. If she did it because she thought that she would just be dragging the man and the boy down by using resources and that the man was much better equipped to lead the boy to whatever safety might be out there…then I could kind of understand it. But it seemed that her reasons were much more selfish than that, which made it immoral, in my mind.

I did think it was a nuclear war and I thought it was fairly obvoius based on the description of the landscape being covered in ash. I thought there was also some hint of humans having done this to themselves, but I could be wrong.

I think the man knew they were being followed. In that case, why didn’t he tell the boy exactly what he thought? He could have explained that someone will be along soon after he died so the boy wasn’t totally surprised by it.
Cormac left out the boy’s age (or did I miss that?), which would have been nice to know. If the boy was 5 or 6, which is what I’m guessing, then I could understand how he seemed so ill prepared. If he was closer to 10 or 12 then the man probably should have been doing a lot more to prepare him for being alone.
It would have been nice to know if they had some reason to believe that there might be a safe “community” out there somewhere. Or if it was possible that life was going on like normal on the other side of the world.

4

I don’t think that’s petty. Though I like the novel, the lack of quotation marks, in tandem with his refusal to attribute exactly who is talking except in the first line of an exchange, is the very opposite of artful and transparent. It makes the story harder to follow; it calls attention to itself. In a couple of long exchanges between the Boy and the Man, it’s difficult of tell which is talking. This is partly the case because their mode of speaking is very similar. That’s either due to a lack of skill, laziness, or stubbornness on McCarthy’s part.

I have a problem with the vocabulary as well. Words like candlecolored, oillamp, and seabag draw attention to themselves and briefly take the reader out of the story. There’s a point to making up words in science fiction and fantasy, where often the intent to is show the alienness of a people or society; but here it’s just jarring. The brilliance of the plot makes up for it, but it’s still annoying.

5

At least he didn’t torture me with Spanish in this one. I love McCarthy’s work; he is a wonderful writer. Currently finishing the last book of the Border Trilogy. But he does so annoy by writing an English novel with extensive dialogue in Spanish. Not the odd line here or there, but stuff with important plot points, indecipherable to someone (like me) whose Spanish is limited to items on the Taco Bell menu. Why would anyone assume the average reader of English is bilingual? Rarely is it clear from context either.

But I digress. I enjoyed The Road a lot. I didn’t consider the ending deus ex machina–at least it didn’t strike me that way when I read it–because of the themes he explored. Specifically, the horrifying depths and selfless good humans are capable of, sometimes even the same human. The boy is saved, at least momentarily, by the kindness of a strange man, but the salvation is still precarious and possibly temporary. Such is the world, and I believe McCarthy is asserting that even in that world that possibility makes it worth fighting and living.

I think the wife’s suicide is immoral but understandable. She abandoned her boy. However horrifying life had become for her, she was leaving her boy (yes, with his father) to deal with it. But McCarthy created a world so bleak, it’s difficult to judge her harshly for it.

I didn’t know if the Armageddon was the result of nukes. In fact, I assumed something that so thoroughly and almost completely eradicated animal life was something more than that. But the catastrophe was definitely man-made. I think it was effective that he didn’t explain it. The specific cause wasn’t important.

I loved this exchange after the father is angered by what he perceived as his son’s judgmental reaction–so poignant.

It was so sad, such a simple expression of the great weight the boy carried. Loved the book.

6

I read this a couple of years ago on planes and in airports flying home from a funeral. Easily the most moving (and depressing) book I have ever read - although I’m sure that was assisted by the fact that I have a young son of my own, and had just attended my grandfather’s funeral.

I can no longer remember a lot of the details, but I figured the apocalypse was some kind of man-made disaster. I just remember the feeling of hopelessness. I don’t recall even noticing the made-up words or being bothered by the unconventional puncuation after the first few pages. However the family at the end did seem to come out of nowhere and made me question why The Man had been so wrong about no help being out there.

I tried reading another McCormack novel much later, I don’t remember which one, and couldn’t get into it after the first 15-20 pages.

7

I thought it was the result of a comet or asteroid.

For me the most terrifying section of the book was when they found people being held captive in that house’s cellar. That and their escape from that house.

8

It did strike me as such when I read it. I haven’t read any other McCarthy, but The Road was such unrelenting darkness, it seemed a cop out to save the kid in the end. Especially after repeating how everything was dying, and there wasn’t any hope.

9

I’ve always assumed that as well, though my reasoning is spotty. In the brief flashback to when the Event begins, the Woman asks the Man what is happening, and he doesn’t know. (And obviously she doesn’t.) If it had been a nuclear war, I should think there’d be more general knowledge of a buildup in hostilities. Plus the Man is clearly knowledgeable (I think the raider who thought he was a doctor was spot-on), and though he worries about many things, radiation isn’t one of them. So a planet-cracker asteroid – or maybe a volcano like at Toba – seemed most likely.

Apart from my general boycott of movies based on books I love, that’s another reason I don’t ever intend to see the movie. I don’t need that in my head.

I really need that. I refuse to read fiction in which evil or entropy is the ultimate winner. There’s enough of that in the news.

10

I agree, I don’t like to torture myself with depressing fiction when there’s enough of that in life, but the happy ending came as such a curveball to me, after all that unrelenting bleakness leading up to it, I couldn’t help but take it cynically.

11

Could be. From the writer of the screenplay:

12

This is one of my favorite movies, and shortly after it came out, I tried to read the book, but didn’t get far. I didn’t enjoy the style of McCarthy’s writing. The movie, though, is great.

Here’s what I remember from the book: the world, post-disaster, is described as a “shrouded earth.” This would suggest a big cloud of dust/ash, which could be either nuclear war, comet impact or volcanic eruption.

There is no fallout or radiation sickness in the story, so I think this rules out nuclear war. I also think it’s probably not possible for nuclear bombs to damage the planet as badly as it is damaged in The Road.

The book, and movie, describe the disaster as “a long shear of light, and then a series of low concussions.” This doesn’t really sound like a volcanic eruption to me. But it does sound like a meteor impact, so I think that is the most likely answer.

A big theme of the story is how helpless mankind is, and the idea of having mankind be powerful enough to truly destroy the earth’s environment isn’t really as helplessness-evoking as the idea of man being totally at the mercy of the universe. It’s like, no matter how powerful we are, an object from outer space could completely annihilate us.

The best parts of the book/movie, though, are the various encounters with cannibals and predators. The “hell house” sequence is one of the best of all time. “They’re taking us to the smokehouse!”

13

I agree with most of this. Also, I think the reason the cause of the disaster is never specified in the book is that, except for the very end, the story is told from the Man’s point of view, and he either doesn’t know or isn’t sure. Also, why would he car, five or six years later? What good will that knowledge be?

Also, I agree with whoever pegged the Boy as being five or six – no more than eight. If he were twelve he’d be, well, less helpless.

That line’s not in the book, so I’ll get all shirty (as per Rhymer protocol) and insist that it doesn’t matter and that anyone who says otherwise is Welsh.

14

It’s been three or four years since I read that, so my recollection of it has been reduced to a haze of images . Still:

  • I thought it was some kind of meteor strike, but recall not being 100% sure even after re-reading.
  • A lot of the writing was beautiful and brilliant, and I was fine with the unusual language. Since I have two boys it was easy to be affected by the relationship between the two of them. The way he describes their journey, and the way they talk back and forth, is a marvel.
  • I was annoyed by McCarthy’s flirtations with religious meaning. He certainly hints at a lot of things, including the boy being some kind of chosen one, but at the time I recall it being too ambiguously framed, in a way I felt was cheating. In fact, somewhere on the internet, probably on another forum, is a rant I wrote about this, and some brief internet debate.
  • Near the end of the book there’s an adventure with a boat whose purpose wasn’t clear to me. It felt like McCarthy was thinking “okay, they’ve reached their goal…now what?”
  • I totally understood why the mom killed herself. They were reduced to a life whose purposes had been stripped down to 1) keeping the kid alive, 2) keeping themselves alive to keep the kid alive, and 3) hi opal. Since death would eventually grab everyone including probably her son, I can understand a certain kind of person bailing.
  • Rescue by the kindly man was inevitable.
15

I hated the movie. Loved the book. I did think the rescue at the end was a giant departure from the rest of the story and sort of ruined it for me. I’m not sure how I would have preferred he end it though.

16

I’m the guy that thought Indy’s securing the Ark for the United States implied that we were destined for victory in World War II (yeah, it is was in this thread).

Am I being too optimistic, thinking that the presence of the dog with the family who rescues The Boy at the end implies that they were the ones who (unknowingly) spooked The Man when the dog started barking as they were hiding in the underground shelter, causing The Man and The Boy to move on - even though they had really hit the jackpot with the cache of food there?

17

One of things that impressed me about the book, versus other post-apocalyptic books/stories/movies, is how few (if any) ‘ain’t it cool’ moments occur.

In most post-apocalyptic work, there are moments where you think (or maybe the work’s creator thinks), ‘ain’t that cool’, the whole world is gone, now I can drive that Ferrari I always wanted! Or, in the case of I am Legend (movie), hunt deer with a cool dog while driving a boss Shelby Mustang.

There is nothing like that in The Road.

18

First of all, I love “after the fall” stories. The Road was recommended to me, and it is one of my favorites. That being said,
[ul]
[li] 1 Assuming you’ve read and liked more than one of McCarthy’s novels, how would you rank The Road among them?[/li][li]2 Assuming you generally like The Road, would you say that your appreciation is because of his stylistic idiosyncrasies (the odd punctuation, the word coinages, et cetera) or in spite of that?[/li][li] 3 Would you say that not naming most of the characters (only one name is ever given in the book, and that is of a minor character) helped you immerse yourself in the book, or was it a distraction?[/li][li] 4 Does the suicide of The Man’s wife strike you as unforgivably immoral, or human and understandable?[/li][li] 5 Did you assume that the cataclysm that brought down civilization (or at least American civilization) was a nuclear war, or something else? Did it bother you that such is never made made clear? If you don’t think it was a nuclear war, what do you think it was?[/li][li]6 Does the Boy’s rescue by the kindly man and his family after the Man’s death strike you as a deus ex machina? Did it seem out of place with the overall tone of the book?[/li][li] 7 Are there story elements you wish McCarthy had left out? Is there anything you’d want to add?[/li][/ul]

  1. Never read anything else of his. Do you recommend?
  2. The odd stylistic arrangement is stilted at first but after a while makes you forget you are reading. It’s one of those books where you blink and look up and wonder where you are.
  3. Definitely immersive.
  4. Yes. I mean, of course it is both - what human gesture can’t be? I felt for her, and I’d not want to be a woman in such an era, but she left the people who needed her behind.
  5. It never mattered to me even a little. If I think about it at all I’d probably think it was a plague. But as I said, I read a lot of these kinds of dystopic/post-apocalyptic stories. I am more concerned with how people cope.
  6. Yes, and if anything that is the one thing that really really bothered me. You said it: it was completely out of character of the tone of the rest of the book. And it’s been a while since I read it, but I felt like there were some Christian allegories (Adam & Eve) shoved in there, and I am sure Christ Himself is sick of Christian allegories.
  7. It is, even though a favorite book, a very difficult book to re-read. Partly because the ending really disappointed me - it’s like the author wasn’t brave enough to go all the way. Partly just because you can’t attain that immersion again like the first time. The second time you just hurt for the man.

ETA: I do not have any children.

19

I’ve read six of McCarthy’s novels: in addition to The Road, I’ve read the Border Trilogy, Blood Meridian, and No Country for Old Men. I’d read at least three of those prior to The Road, so I was prepared for McCarthy’s lack of quotation marks; in the Border Trilogy, in particular, I thought that lack worked very well. (I think if McCarthy wrote about Southern trial lawyers or Bostonian bankers, his style of writing wouldn’t work at all – anyone who’s lived in the American West for a while can “see” his characters speaking like they do in real life, and I think the lack of quotation marks enhances that vision.)

Not knowing the names of the characters didn’t bother me; there were only two major ones, and I thought it gave an “everyman” (and “everyboy”) aspect to the characters. Same thing with the apocalyptic event: I assumed that, because of the lack of radiation, it was natural in nature (e.g., an asteroid/comet/volcano), but not knowing for sure was part of the appeal. It’s a survival story: the cause of the destruction isn’t as important as the reaction to it.

The suicide of the mother was understandable, given the hopelessness of the situation, and it also showed the strength of the Man (not being misogynistic here; the roles could probably have been reversed) in struggling to continue.

I thought stumbling into the huge cache of food and supplies was something of a copout on McCarthy’s part, although I did eventually appreciate what he did with it.

The ending definitely struck me as out of place, given the context of the book’s previous 240 pages, but I’m not sure how I would suggest improving on it – having the boy die too would have been a definite downer, and having him walk off in the sunset alone would have been unrealistic and a cliché as well. I guess McCarthy gave it the best ending he could, but it’s still not a good one. It definitely doesn’t detract from the book as a whole, though – it’s one of my favorite ones.

Overall, it’s a terribly bleak book and even the saving of the boy at the end made me feel like he was just going to continue living on borrowed time. For a very simple premise that had been explored by other authors and filmmakers before, I think McCarthy but his own (very distinctive) spin on it.

Anaamika: I’d recommend Blood Meridian, which was the first of McCarthy’s books for me. Like The Road, it’s not exactly a laff riot, and it is incredibly violent, but I probably would have stopped with McCarthy there if I hadn’t liked it so much. I’ve since re-read it, too. For something a little happier, All the Pretty Horses and its sequels in the Border Trilogy are well worth reading, too.

I’m not a parent, by the way. Barkis is Willin’, your comment about the Spanish in the Border Trilogy is interesting. I know only a little Spanish, and rather than look up the words I didn’t know, I tried to glean what was being said by reading the context around the Spanish – not always successfully, I should add.

20

Never read the book and I’ve only seen the movie once when it was in theaters. I recall the ending being ambiguous, not knowing if the kid was going to be safe, or if that man was going to eat him. Does the kid really get saved in the book? Because I would vastly prefer an ambiguous ending.