The Road...SPOILERS FROM THE GET GO!

I finished the Road this weekend. My wife read it too. I don't think she enjoyed it as much as I did because she's letting some questions bother her that, I feel, aren't really relevant to the story. But the discussion I had with her brought up some good questions to discuss here.

For instance, the reason the world is in the shape it is...this is never explained and this really bothers her. She can't just accept that the world IS in the state that its in and this is the reason for the drama...the vehicle if you will. It doesn't so much matter what caused it. This isn't what the book is about. But to her its a stumbling block. I tried to offer my ideas. My theory is that the world has suffered a natural disaster. This was not a nuclear war situation. The reason I think this is that radiation is never talked about and, early in the book, "the man" says something about wanting to throttle God. If it had been a nuclear war, wouldn't he blame humanity? I think it was a meteor/meteor shower that laid waste to the planet. The description of this post-apocalyptic world makes me think of the scenario that a lot of scientists give us when they're describing the dinosaur extinction.

She also took issue with the fact that these people survived and why more people are not alive during this story. "Why are these people so special? Why aren't there more people? Why are some houses still standing?" Seems like pretty obvious answers to me. First of all, these people aren't "special", which is to say that it isn't like they were "the Chosen" or something. They were just lucky. Secondly, there's lots of ways people and structures can survive something like that. Perhaps the people and structures that did survive were in valleys and/or higher land levels and the shock waves missed them. The reason that most people are dead? Well...a natural disaster like that would kill A LOT of people. The initial impact of the asteroids, the tsunamis after wards, possibly earthquakes triggered by large asteroids landing in fault lines, etc. Even if all this killed only half of the population there'd be a lot of dead bodies, damaged infrastructures, etc which is going to breed a lot of disease, lawlessness, starvation, etc. So while there may have been many survivors after the initial catastrophe there'd be plenty going on that could kill a whole lot more people.

Your thoughts?

Wow. I just typed a REALLY long reply to this, and then it just disappeared. Nice. Here's the general gist of what I said:

- I agree with you that it doesn't matter what happened to get the world to the state that it's in. All we need to know is that it IS that way. I loved how McCarthy just swooped in on them without giving us a load of backstory that really wouldn't have affected our relationship to the characters anyway.

- My theory of what happened: a massive solar flare or something of that sort. The book says that the clocks stopped (at 1:17 if I'm correct) and that there was a bright light and a series of concussive sounds. That rules out global warming, because that's a slow process. Whatever happened happened quickly. Of course the light and the sounds could also be the result of a nuclear explosion, but you're right, he never mentions radiation. He does say, however, that all the animals died or were in the process of dying out. The ash in the sky also reminded me of nuclear winter.

Do you think it's possible that McCarthy made the incident vague to keep the reader from being able to distance himself or herself from the characters? Since we don't know what happened, we can't outright say that that could never be us, you know?

- It never once bothered me that there weren't more people alive. How do we know that that same story isn't being played out with another man and another boy somewhere else in the world? In the event of such a global catastrophe, it's not hard to believe that there are more dead than alive. And about some houses being left standing...well, look at any war zone. There were a few buildings left standing in Hiroshima. Some things always survive (probably just to spit in the face of logic, in my opinion).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MelissaBee

Wow. I just typed a REALLY long reply to this, and then it just disappeared. Nice.

---

I hate it when that happens. And I would have been interested to read it too. :( Ah well...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MelissaBee

Do you think it's possible that McCarthy made the incident vague to keep the reader from being able to distance himself or herself from the characters? Since we don't know what happened, we can't outright say that that could never be us, you know?

---

I hadn't thought of that. Maybe it was intentional. Now that I think about it this seems likely. I'll have to bring that up.

And I had forgotten about the clocks stopping. What could cause that? A massive shock wave? I don't know much about solar flares...

None of these questions ever bothered me. But my wife likes to have her t's crossed and her i's dotted. :)

Incidentally, she doesn't like the ending either. She felt it was a little to serendipitous that one of the "good guys" happened along when they did. She said she would have preferred the boy died with the man or the man not die and they just keep traveling south.

I can see her point about it being a bit too neat for a "good" guy to show up just as the man was dying IF the reader had been led to believe that the Man and the Boy were the only two "good" people left in the world. It's not written that way at all; the Man and the Boy are just the only two "good" people we meet in the story.

- By the way, I have a HUGE problem with the morality labelling that goes on when people talk about this book. What kind of meanings can "good" and "bad" possibly retain in a world where surviving another day is the only goal? In my opinion, morality and ethics are for people who have the luxury of choosing differently. When it all comes down to do or die, how can what helps you stay alive be a bad thing? I know we're supposed to look at the Man as better because he doesn't resort to what others they encounter are doing, but I think that's simply because he hasn't been forced to make those awfully difficult decisions yet. -

A few people that I forced the book off on had the same kind of problems with the plot, and I think it has a lot to do with the sparseness of the story. Our brains are conditioned to try to fill in holes even when that's unnecessary. Since McCarthy doesn't tell the reader about other "good" people, we simply assume there are none. I think the "good" guy at the end is a sign of hope. Where there are two like-minded people, there could be three or four...or a new community...or a new nation.

The morality issue wasn't a stumbling block to me, which is to say that it didn't bother me but I do see your point. The Man and the Boy refer to carrying the "fire". That fire is civilization. Civilized people don't roast babies on spits. Could the Man have sunk that low? Maybe. Or he might have just opted to kill himself rather than do that. Its one thing to eat someone that's already dead...its a completely different thing to hunt down, kill, field dress, and eat another human being or to keep that person alive while you eat their limbs one by one. Some people would. Some wouldn't. But that said, if there really is nothing to eat, its arguable that the person who will eat other people is the one that's truly "carrying the fire". While the people that don't have whatever it takes to do that die out, the people that do will survive and eventually, when other food becomes available, they'll stop doing that and the rules of a "civilized" society will take root again.

I loved this book.

The cause of the state of the world is purposely left vague. The reason no longer matters in the context of the story. It didn't bother me at all we never conclusively find out, but I assumed it was a nuclear war. I may be right or wrong, but again, it doesn't matter to the story.

On the morality thing: We always have choices. The bad guys in this story are bad - the end (they survive another day) does not justify the means (their behavior as described in the book). Even if they are last people standing, survival in and of itself wouldn't therefore make them good people.

I was glad that the boy found some other "good" people at the end. This is a very bleak, dark story, it needed some light. I don't consider the meeting a neat happy coincidence, I consider it a tragedy that the father didn't live to see it. He died not knowing his son would be watched after. As a parent, this is horrible.

So the ending to me is both good and bad.

I assumed that it was some sort of natural cataclysmic event. Possibly astroid strike. Whatever the reason, I felt that it was important that we the reader did not know, because the child did not know. That helped us, the reader, to identify more closely with the boy. This is, after all, his story.

I agree with everyone else about not needing to know what caused the current state of the world. It never once bothered me. It's not necessary, all we need to know is that it's that way. I also assumed it was nuclear war, but I could be completely wrong.

Now the one thing that did bother me was how sheltered the man kept his boy. It's been quite awhile since I read it, so I'm kinda vague on the details, but didn't the father and son meet the good guy in the end previous to the father's passing? I understand that there were very bad people in this world, but I just can't believe that they're the only two good ones remaining. And throughout the whole story I just felt like the father was teaching his son that every single person was bad. And this might be horrible to say, but I was kinda glad when the father passed away because I felt that now his son might be able to live a better life with a more positive view on the world. It would have been nice for the father to see it, but I just don't think he would have been open to the idea. Am I misremembering anything? and did anyone else feel this same way?

Yes, I do think the Man had trust issues. We know that he does because of his actions against the man that steals the cart near the end. I think that the father doesn't have the ability to trust in others like the Boy does. Which is part of the reason why the father had to die at the end. The Boy learned much from his father, but he has to carry the spark on his own now.

For the record, I don't think that carrying the, "fire" is a direct reference to civilization. Civilization isn't what matters in this story to me, what really matters is the ability of the human heart to stay hopeful and flourish in these conditions. I other words you have to keep faith, hope, and love strong even in the worst of conditions.

The man had trust issues because he had to protect his reason to live. His son was his only reason to live. Take that away and life isn't worth fighting for. So you may think it was sheltered, I think it was an adapted way of being.

While I would have loved more explanation as to what happened to the world and why it was the state it was, that wasn't the point of the story, in my opinion.

To me, it was a love story. The story of a father and a son. The rest were just details that surrounded them and their closeness. I understand those readers who "need there t's crossed and their i's dotted" but that wasn't the point of the story. Not all stories are wrapped up with a tight bow at the end.

The book left an open ending and lots of unanswered questions. But there was no questioning the love that the father and son had for each other. That was the true story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dolan

I understand those readers who "need there t's crossed and their i's dotted" but that wasn't the point of the story.

The book left an open ending and lots of unanswered questions.

---

I wholeheartedly agree with you. The story did leave a lot of questions, much like No Country For Old Men.

I don't think the Man had trust issues...or at least not any issues that the situation he was in didn't warrant. I mean, hell, if I were in that situation and I knew that my actions could determine whether or not someone rapes, kills, and eats my son...I'd be a fairly mistrusting bastard myself. I didn't feel that the Man was too protective of the Boy considering the circumstances. And it was the Man that told the boy that there were still good people in the world and that they might find them.

Bear in mind also that when the Man caught up to the guy that took their stuff his anger wasn't about what was taken from him. It was about what was taken from his child...food, clothing, blankets to keep him warm...everything they needed to live. And in taking those things this thief was basically killing them. I don't think the man overreacted. But even putting the anger aside and looking at the situation pragmatically I have to say that he really should have killed the guy right there. I wouldn't be willing to risk the guy coming back...maybe with friends. I do realize that by taking his clothes the Man pretty much did kill him but you never know.

But was everyone in the world really as bad as the man saw them, or was that just his perception of them? I know in the book he comes across a few horrible people, but that's not to say in his travels that he didn't bypass other people that could have been of help to him and his son.

I don't think he saw everyone as being bad. It was the Man that was holding on to hope. He wanted to find other "good" people and he reassured his son that there were other good people. At worst, one might be able to accuse the Man of going about his quest in the wrong way. He was very careful and he should have been but perhaps in some situations, he was a bit too careful. But I'm not really even comfortable saying that because it appeared that many of the people that were left had become very barbaric. We don't know if it was most of them or even half of the people that fell into this behavior. But there'd still be plenty of the bad guys around to make you mistrust people in general. If you trust the wrong person you could end up naked in a cold basement waiting to be eaten limb by limb. Hell, that can happen now, let alone in a world like that.

The Road is sitting here, waiting for me to find time to read it. I confess that I haven't read the replies in this thread, as I don't want too many spoilers. :evil:

I had to read this for an English class my Freshman year of college. Although it was my favorite from the class (the teacher was fresh out of college and had some really bizzare choices for our assignments), I really did like the book that much. McCarthy can write good prose but it just seemed too light, like the was not enough story or something (maybe this is not exactly what I mean but it's the best way I can explain it write now). I am currently reading The Stand and the thought that The Road is just a lazy, less thought out copy of King's masterpiece has crossed my mind several times. I feel there is not enough character development (not to mention the fact that he leaves, as you have mentioned, details out. I really did not enjoy the vagueness and felt it took away from my engagement to the story).

There is my two cents regarding this story (I am glad someone started a thread on this book)