If you choose to submit a reading response for Cormac McCarthy's
The Road, please do so in the comments section of this post. Remember: your response should be thoughtful, it should evidence a careful consideration of the text, and it should include at least one question for your instructor/your classmates about the text. Your response should be no less than 200 words and no more than 500 words, and at least relatively well-written (you will not be graded on grammar, but please remember that poor grammar/syntax reflects poorly on you/your ideas). If other students have posted before you, your response can be, in part, a response to their posts--feel free to take up other students questions or concerns and use this space as a forum for intelligent discussion. You may also post more than once, particularly if your initial post is short or ambiguous. Your grade for the reading response will be based on your collective input in the comments sections of this post.
In “The Road” I found it interesting that the father kept referring to himself and his boy as the “good guys.” The definition of good has many connotations but I feel the father was referring to moral values when he called him and his son the “good guys.” The father showed that he was somewhat good when he helped the old man with dementia by giving him food when he could have easily just left him without. However, the problem I have is with how the father reacted to the man that stole the cart off the beach. The father did the right thing by going to get his cart back but when the father told the thief to take his clothes off and put them in the cart made me question his merit. The boy even asked the father not to make the thief strip and essentially leave him for dead but the father would not listen. In my opinion being a “good guy” means showing compassion when one's actions may not always warrant such behavior. The father may have showed compassion to the old man but failed to exhibit it to the thief which is a questionable behavior for one who clams to be a “good guy”.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone else think the father is a "good guy?"
In my opinion, "The Road" seemed to start off very slow and confusing. The one thing that puzzled me the most was the recollection of the father having a conversation with his wife. The wife was contemplating suicide and wanted to take her child’s life also, but at the end of the conversation it said she just left. Does this mean she did take her own life or just deserted her husband and son? It seems pretty selfish of his wife to leave her family in such a time of need. Though the whole situation of what is occurring in this book has not yet been revealed, I still believe that a woman should never desert her family especially her own child. As women, we are known to be the nurturing type, so the question for me is why would she decide to leave her family? Also, to comment about the father being a “good guy,” yes, his morals seem to be put on the back burner, however, when you're trying to save your life and your son’s, I think one would do whatever it takes. So compared to the "bad guys" who eat other humans, lock them underground, and/or torture them, I believe the father can be considered the "good guy."
ReplyDeleteThe road reminds me a lot of the new Denzel Washington movie that came out last friday, The Book of Eli. Both stories happen in a time where fear, destruction, loss of faith and values take place. In this novel, Cormac McCarthy masterfully show readers what will happen if the world and humanity as we know come to an end. It makes us think about our actions toward others. It addresses issues such as good, bad, evil, lost of faith/religion. At the same time, and under the nightmarish circumstances (post-apocalyptical time), the author brilliantly shows the profound bond of blood relationships which is the love of a father and his son. In this story the love between them, despite all the disgrace that is going on, bring us feelings of hope. We cannot predict future, but as long as we "carry the fire", the same as in the novel, there will be "light"/hope for our world which is getting "darker" and "darker" due to our own actions. We can only thing about our own well being, we are selfish and sacrifice all that is fundamental for a healthy relationship which is love, respect, trust, forgiveness, and faith. We sacrifice all that for money, power, and so on. McCarthy in this novel makes me think "should we keep living the way we live?" If so, this book pictures very well how our life will be if the world and humanity as we know is destroyed.
ReplyDeleteWhat I found interesting in this book is that the main characters are not identified. There is a father and son, but we do not know their names. We cannot perceive a time period or anything like that. We know that the world/humanity is in disgrace and everyone is fighting for survival. The novel describes the journey of a father and his son that are simply going south hoping to find a warm, batter place and hopefully any sign of civilization. It looks like somehow the world is now in a perpetual winter time. The father's main concern is for food, shoes, water, shelter and warm clothes. As they are heading south, they search for anything that can be useful for their survival. Loss of faith/religion and hope is a constant in this book. Who would not think that way under the same circumstances? If there is a God, where was He when all that happened? If there is a God where is He that does not stop people from killing each other? Perhaps all the disgrace is God's way of showing us the importance of appreciating small things in life.
Death is another addressed a lot. In a time like the one described in the book, for many it would be the answer for the disgrace/misery they have been dealing with. Apparently the boy's mother committed suicide because she could not cope with the despair. Since then, the father tries by all means to protect his son. Their love and trust relationship is how they primarily sustain themselves. The father would do and give anything to his son. A very touching moment in the book was when the father, referred as Papa, offered to his son a coke. The boy had never had it before. By giving him the beverage, the father probably wanted him to know the "taste" of the world in a time he had never known. The boy asked his papa to have some too. That moment showed the complicity, kindness and generosity between the two. The father accepted some, but gave it back to his son who understood why his father wanted him to drink to rest of the soda. He realized what he has lost in life, and most important that he might never have the pleasure of drinking coca cola again.
It is very touching the fact that throughout the reading, the father is always expecting the worst but hoping for the best. We can perceive that in all of his actions. Throughout their journey, he wants his son to believe that everything will be ok and they are the "good guys"; but at the same time, he teaches him how to end up with his own life if the situation gets really rough. Powerful book indeed. Excellent choice professor Camacho!
Rossana Guerreiro aka Xana
Upon first glace, it is easy to regard the mother's decision to leave as selfish and irresponsible to her duties as a mother. I like most people feel that committing suicide wrong and consider it the easy way out. However, none of us have ever been put in the situation that her and her husband are in. The world as they know it is over and gone for good. The thought of survial will only mean enduring more pain for her and for her family. The idea of surviving is to reach the light at the end of the tunnel, but what if there is no light. There is no certainty that the boy and the man will reach prosperity down south. The mother states that, "they are going to rape us and kill us and eat us and you won't face it. You'd rather wait for it to happen. But I can't." She also states that if it were her choice she would take the boy with her for "it is the right thing to do." Granted a major reason for her desire to die was "for eternal nothingness and I hope it with all my heart." Also to not say goodbye to her son was cowardly, but maybe it would have been even more painful for him to watch her leave.
ReplyDeleteI am most definitely pulling for the man and boy to survive and reach their goal to make it down south. All I am saying is that it is tough to identify the father's decision as the right one. Their odds are heavily against them. If the time comes where they do have to die will the father let the boy live or kill him? Would the father be able to kill his own son or let someone else? What if they get sick? At the current time they are extremely lucky to be alive. Anymore time spent in that house would lead to both the man and boy being locked down in the basement with the slaves. Would that have been worth surviving for?
Mark Doran
I disagree with the assertion that the writing style is bad. I have to admit that I do find myself becoming frustrated with the way the book is written. I regularly have to read and reread a section to determine if the boy or the man was talking, if it was a monologue, if a conversation took place, etc. Although this book could be picked apart for abysmal punctuation, I still believe it is well written, and I will tell you why.
ReplyDeleteAs I read the book, I began feeling frustrated. I was frustrated by the lack of punctuation, I was frustrated by the plight of the man and boy, and I was frustrated that the woman had taken the easy way out, leaving the two to fend for themselves. In this growing frustration, I felt like I could begin to relate with the characters. I can imagine how they became more hopeless with each passing debacle. They were cold, starving, and living in constant fear. Each day and every passing situation led to a new danger. Nothing really seemed to be going right for the pair.
I imagine that I would approach the man and the boy much differently if I could trod through the reading without looking back. I would glaze over their situation casually, possibly half reading, half watching TV. Instead, with an attention to punctuation akin to an ADD patient, Cormac McCarthy forced me to actually read the text to understand the passages in the book. Frankly, I appreciate the lack of attention to formality in the writing of this novel.
Additionally, I can appreciate the pace of the book. For the man and the boy, their world is dragging on and on, just like the reading. Their days are punctuated by exciting moments like seeing a house, finding a jar of food, and hiding from anyone they see. I wish I could be so lucky... In our daily lives, these seem like common occurrences, with the exception of hiding from everyone. McCarthy's deliberately slow pace helps these events seem more exciting to us as readers and people that live in a preapocalyptic society. If McCarthy put these "exciting" events closer together, leaving out stretches of loneliness, despair, and monotony, it might lead us to believe that the constant cold, hunger, and foraging is not a significant part of the characters' lives.
To end this post, my question is: Do you consider the man and the boy "the good guys?" How do you imagine yourself acting in that situation?
-Adam Hardesty
I appreciate all the comments so far--keep it up! I especially like the different threads that are developing: the "goodness" of the father/son; the difficulty of the writing style; the logic of McCarthy's post-apocalyptic vision...all are good, and hopefully, more responses will help develop these ideas. I also want to welcome all of you to use this space to critique/extend class discussion--what were the big questions we left class with on Tuesday? Where did it seem like our conversation was going? Were there any interesting points that got sort-of skimmed over in the group discussion? And AS ALWAYS, PLEASE REMEMBER THAT I'M NOT SPECIAL!! I read this book one word at a time just like you guys, and although I've read it a few more times and might be better trained as a reader, I'm still just a guy with an opinion. I hope to use our class time--especially early in the semester--to model good reading for you--but I'm not infallible. If you want to disagree with me, or even just expand/extend something I guided us through, please feel free to do so. That's what all of this is for, after all: I want each of you to become better, more critical, more intelligent readers!
ReplyDeleteKeep going.
-Prof. Camacho
To begin with, I would like to address Adam’s questions because they partly fall along the lines of what I was thinking about. The boy seems to be good because despite all that has happened he still seems selfless and wanting to help everyone else, even at the expense of this own health. Earlier in the book when he believes he has seen another boy, he asks his father to go back and even offers to share half of what little he has with the other little boy. The father’s actions seem debatable. He gives off the appearance of being good, yet his actions like shooting the man in the head make us question his intentions. Since we are not in that situation, we cannot imagine what it would be like to wake up everyday fearing for our lives from starvation and hiding from the cannibalistic “bad guys”. If I was in the situation I most likely would not have survived this long and would possibly have considered suicide like the mother because there really is no light at the end of this tunnel
ReplyDeleteOne of our big questions is about the topic of “goodness” and if it does exist, what endangers it. To answer this I think we must first determine whether humans are born with innate “goodness,” if we are born in sin and evil, or if we are born with a blank slate. This has been a debated question in human behavior for centuries. In my opinion we are all born with an innocence and goodness and it is the environment that deters us from this or not. Throughout The Road, the father and son encounter several people including the man that was struck by lightning and later in the book, the old starving man. When approaching the starving man the boy says to his father, “Maybe we can give him something to eat.” Almost as an instinct, the boy wants to help these people, while the father, thinking of survival is hesitant. This, I believe answers the question that “goodness” does exist, but it is endangered by desperate measures with the drive to survive.
The boy in The Road continually shows us that he not only has a sense of “goodness” about him, but also a sense of morality. Throughout the book this far, he continually asks his father if they should or should not do something, whether or not they are the good guys, and whether they would ever succumb to the evil things that he sees in the world that they are in. About halfway through the book the son asks the father if they would ever eat anyone. The father replies that they would never do such a thing, even if they were starving and the boy responds, “Because we’re the good guys…And we’re carrying the fire.” This is where I believe that the phrase “carry the fire” derives from. To “carry the fire” I think means to keep alive the “goodness” that is still left in their desolate world.
-Stacee Roberts
It took at least 10-15 pages to get me excited about this book. I think it is an interesting journey of a father and son that makes me want to keep reading. The part that confused me at first was when the mother was supposedly still alive. The whole time their conversations were going on, I thought the father may have been dreaming and reminiscing of her, so I was confused until we talked about it in class. Another confusing thing that caught me off guard was the writing style. Although I enjoy the easy read, it was a little hard to adjust to the no quotations when they were speaking at first. In regards to the father being a "good guy", I think everything he does is all for his son. If his son wasn't alive and he still wanted to try and make it to the coast, he definitely wouldn’t be willing to help anyone. The only reason he helped the man who had dementia was because the son begged and pleaded for him to. But the part on the beach clearly shows that he is not a good guy. I think he may have listened to his son if he wanted to try and help them, but other than that he would be a jerk and do what he did. Also, I agree with Stacee’s definition of “carrying the fire”. I think this means that they are trying to carry on good spirits and their goodness with them in order to keep them happy. I also have to wonder if the father is at times too apprehensive about things. Anytime there is some kind of delicious food left behind by someone, he automatically thinks there is something wrong with it. Although that can be a good thing when trying to look out for him and his sons’ health, he really should try and lighten up a bit and take the things he finds as a blessing. I have to wonder that if I were in the same situation would I be willing to risk myself as much as the father and son do on a daily basis… what do you think you would do?
ReplyDelete--Allie Nicosia
One question that has come up multiple times, both here on the blog and in class has been whether or not the man and boy are “good”. In general, this idea of “goodness” was something I thought about extensively while reading the book. I think it is easy to say that the boy and the man are good through and through, but the overall message I got from McCarthy is that it is impossible to be absolutely good or absolutely evil. For example, when the boy and man discuss the cannibalistic tendencies of other surviving humans, it is easy to label these people as “bad” or “evil”. However, when put in this post-apocalyptic world, it is difficult to say when an act stops being evil and starts being simply an effort to survive.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, when the man shoots the man in the head, we, for the most part, perceive this action to be “good” because he did it to save his son. However, from another perspective this could easily be perceived as “evil”. Also, there are multiple times when the man and the boy come across struggling survivors and while the boy begs his father to help them, he refuses (except in the case of old man). While it may seem “evil” for him to refuse to help someone in need, it could also be seen as “good” because his refusal is an attempt to keep himself and his son alive longer.
In general, I believe this book is perfect representation of how difficult it is to describe actions as absolutely good or absolutely evil. There are so many factors that change one’s perception of what is good or evil. Factors such as personal history, experiences, and current situation can all affect whether we perceive an action as good or evil. It is never absolute nor is it the same for every person.
-Kelsey Stone
After today’s class discussion, I find myself wanting to write a bit more about the differences between being “human,” and being, “alive.” We mentioned how this book gives us quantifiable differences between the two, and I would like to look at one of the examples and expand upon it.
ReplyDeleteTo be alive, as defined by dictionary.com, is “having life; living; existing; not dead or lifeless.” This is what the father in The Road is trying to do throughout the story. He is simply trying to keep alive and keep his son alive. Anything that gets in the way of that is seen instinctively as a threat and must be eliminated. This is a natural reaction and can be seen on page 256. The aggressive nature of instinct shines through in this moment as though the father were a lion protecting his cubs, or a fresh kill. “Back more. He stepped back again. Papa? The boy said. Be quiet. He kept his eyes on the thief. Goddamn you, he said.” I can, in this instant, feel the man’s rage and overwhelming emotion because of the fact that his survival instincts have kicked in. Without their cart and all their belongings, the two would surely die. The father does what instinctively is sure to protect them from this man in the future; he inadvertently kills him by stripping him of all possessions and leaving him for dead. A dead man cannot cause any trouble. This is a twisted yet justified manifestation of the “golden rule.” The father in this section shows what it means to be “alive” in this world, but I would like to examine the son as well.
The son in this passage shows what it is like to be alive, but to be alive and still possess human traits or human qualities. The aforementioned quote continues with “Papa please don’t kill the man. The thief’s eyes swung wildly. The boy was crying. Come on, man. I done what you said. Listen to the boy. Take your clothes off. What?...The thief looked at the boy. The boy had turned away and put his hands over his ears.” (257) Here we see multiple “symptoms” of being human expressed by the boy. Although the thief has essentially left the two characters for dead, the boy shows compassion and is not willing to treat the thief the same way. He tries to persuade his father to pursue an alternate solution and shows more emotion by starting to cry. Finally, by turning away from the situation and trying to block it out, he is refusing to support or be associated with that which is occurring. I am not suggesting that being human is only showing compassion, but that it is showing emotion, happy or sad, forming opinions about that which occurs around us, and trying to live beyond simply breathing and eating.
As we mentioned, being purely alive (like the father) kills the human aspects of us (represented by the thief.) The father sees these human qualities in the boy, however, and I believe that it does give him hope. McCarthy uses the son as a representation for the hope that we are naturally good and as humans, live beyond pure instinct.
Finally, I thought that Donte’s example in class today of picking up hitchhikers on the side of the road with his family in the car accurately personifies this idea of how in some instances, we are reduced to our, “alive,” portion of being and must refuse the, “human,” aspects in order to protect that which is most important to us. In order to remain, “alive,” we must sometimes avoid the risks that being, “human,” may put in our paths.
After completing, "The Road," I found myself thinking whether or not there was hope left for the boy. His father's death was a long time coming and the father and son were all each other had left. While the father was having his last moments of life, him and his son were discussing about what the boy needs to do in order to survive. The boy seemed hesitant about continuing this journey alone and begged his father to let him go with him. As stated in the novel, "Just take me with you. Please. I can't. Please, Papa. I can't. I can't hold my son dead in my arms. I thought I could but I can't." This quote also reveals how the father still had good/faith left in him. Throughout the novel, the father debated to himself on whether or not he could take his son's life. He tried to convince himself that it would be for the best, but in the end, one can see that he saw hope for the boy and knew the boy would be fine without him. Through the father's eyes, the boy was seen as the last pure thing left in this world and by keeping him alive, maybe one day humanity would become what it use to be before this devastating disaster occurred.
ReplyDeleteThe last few pages of the novel left me pondering about the boy and if he should have gone with the stranger. Going back to the last conversation the boy had with his father, the father said, "You need to find the good guys but you can't take any chances." The father kept telling the boy to not take chances, but the boy decides to go with the first man he runs into after his father's death. What inside the boy made him trust this man? I know the boy was probably desperate at the time, but should he have been more cautious in trusting this man? And if so is the boy better off with these people than alone?
When one is alone, one only defends for oneself and one only needs to find food and water for oneself. Now the boy has to help find food for many people and not only protect himself but help protect the people he is with. This does not seem to be a better solution for the boy and how does the boy know he is not the food for the people?
In the end, this novel still left me questioning about several events that occurred throughout the novel. This way of writing was different than most books I have read, but I overall favored it because not all of my questions were answered. After I was done reading, I would catch myself wondering and thinking of different outcomes for the boy, which I believe was the author's motive while writing this novel.
When I first started reading "The Road" it honestly took me a couple days to get through the first twenty or thirty pages. I thought that it was very boring up that point and I was getting kind of annoyed at the fact that they were talking about how where they were was burnt and destroyed but they never said how it happened. To my dismay, they never ended up doing so.
ReplyDeleteAs the book went on though it grew on me. I really started to get sucked into the intense feeling of the boy and father as they walked along and encountered various things. The one thing that stuck out the most to me was the part where they walked up to a house complacently in search of food and happened to find partially eaten prisoners in a cellar. As intense as this part was, it was the part that followed that intrigued me the most. After they realized that there were "bad" people around the house and ran, the bad people chased after them and they finally just stopped and tried to hide. The father started to talk about how he was going to let the men capture him so his son could go, but he gave the gun to the boy so that if he got caught he could shoot himself. This bothered me so much that they were in such a bad situation that a father would tell his son who he obviously loved to take his own life. Yes, he was trying to save him from what they would have done to him, but even so.
The ending actually surprised me. I was figuring that the father was going to die but I would have never guessed that the boy would have taken it as well as he did and then proceed to find a new family. After thinking about it and discussing it in class though, I realized that him finding a new family was a part of the large theme of "carrying on the fire". I think that at the moment right before his father died, the boy finally realized what the sentence meant.
Overall I really liked the book except I would have really liked to have known what happened to their world, and how old the little boy was.
-Marco Ferrara
Today in class we discussed the question, does goodness exist, and if so what most endangers. In my opinion goodness does exist in the book, through the boy. He keeps his father from losing the goodness. This is shown whenever the boy wants to help the people that they run into such as the old man and the man on the beach. The son convinces the father to help these people. However whenever the man and boy help someone else they are giving up some of their chance to survive. So the drive to stay alive threatens goodness, because you are hurting yourself in exchange for continuing goodness. This is true because you are giving up your own food, blankets etc, that help you survive.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the man does not kill his son at the end because he believes the boy will be okay, because the boy is good and so good things will come to him. On page 281 the man and boy discuss if there are other good guys out there. The boy asked about the other little boy and the father explains that he is okay because “goodness will find the little boy. It always has. It will again.” Also when the man and the boy are on the beach inquires about other people alive in the world. The father ends up saying that “There are people. There are people and we’ll find them. You’ll see.” (244). I believe these quotes by the man show that he has not completely developed a black heart as we discussed in class. He believes in goodness, possibly for the sake of the boy.
As we have discovered and discussed in class, carrying the fire, means to carry on goodness. When the man is dying at the end the little boy wants to die too. But on page 278, the father explains to the boy that he must keep going, and that the boy will always be lucky. He says to the boy the boy that he can’t come with him, or die, because he has to carry the fire. The boy asks if the fire is real and the man responds that it is. This statement leads me to believe the man believes in goodness, and that goodness is inside the boy. Also in this section the man says, “I can’t hold my son dead in my arms. I thought I could but I can’t.” The man still has goodness. There were times in the book where I wasn’t sure, but he was just trying to survive.
-Megan Switzer
The other day in class we discussed in depth the idea of goodness in "The Road." I agree with Megan that there is certainly goodness represented through the boy throughout the entire story, but I also wanted to address my opinion on the father's look on not killing the boy. In class we talked about how he could not see himself morally stooping to that level but I really believe that the father TRUSTS his son. We didn't bring this up in class all that much; however, as the story progresses we see the father starting to ask the boys opinion. For example, when the father starts to ask the boy if he thinks they should enter the before deciding for the both of them whether to go in a look around. We also see this when he starts to leave the gun next to the boy when he goes to sleep. We all know how little the father trusts anyone, and yet we still see the boy convince his father to stop and help the blind man who is clearly harmless. There is clearly a theme of the boy's "coming of age" and a sense of trust and hope that the young boy can make smart decisions to keep both of them alive or yet himself.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading these parts of the story I saw the father see his son as an adult; a boy that has learned a lot from their trip and has hope of "carrying the fire" even without his father. I think that the father permits his son to "carry the fire" and continue to search for goodness because he has faith that he can and trusts that he will make smart decisions.
In addition to that, I really enjoyed the book. I thought it was slow at times but an interesting father-son story. One thing that I really enjoyed about "The Road" was McCarthy's ability to give the boy characteristics that allowed him to balance the his behavior and actions. At times when the story was very serious and depressing, that was how the boy acted; and at other times, we saw the boys ability to be a normal child by playing on the beach and by wanting to shoot the flare gun for fireworks. The boy's intriguing character made me understand that even though he is used to his and his father's particular situation and struggle...he still has dreams and an understanding of what it should be like to be a "normal" child. I would love to know what happened after the boy went off with the family.
I wonder if the boy taught them his ways of survival that allowed him and his father to stay alive and fed?
--Zach Greenberger
Honestly, when I first began “The Road” I disliked it. I thought there was no point to it. I typically enjoy books that have a distinct plot with one or two climatic events then a joyful ending.It was difficult for me think beyond the effects of this postapocalyptic event and the father and son’s bleak circumstances. “Solitary and dogged. A raw country. Alluminum houses….Just beyond the high gap in the mountains they stood and locked out over the great gulf to the south where the country as far as they could see was burned away, the blackended shapes of rock standing out of the shoals of ash and billows of ash rising up and blowing downcountry through the waste” (page 14). After reading for a while, I began to understand that even though the father and boy were surrounded by constant darkness, desolation, and depravity, the father continues to strive to maintain goodness and to pursue freedom from their bleak circumstances.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the story, I noticed how innocent and naïve is this young boy. Out of curiosity, the boy asks so many questions to his father and his father realizes it and the father struggles to keep his son’s goodness and innocence. The father expresses this idea of keeping his son good and safe when he makes this solemn promise to his son, “My job is to take care of you. I was appointed to do that by God. I will kill anyone who touches you” (page 77). The father always puts his life at stake in order to keep the boy safe, clothed, warm, and fed. At the end of the father’s life, the boy really struggles to accept the fact that his father was dying. I was touched by one of their last conversations because of the strength and encouragement the father shares with his son.
The boy says, “I want to be with you.”
“You can’t,” replies the father.
“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.”
At the end of the story, after his father dies and the boy meets the family, this makes me wonder if they will find an end to this desolate place without fear and death and experience a new beginning.
Taci Hodgins
“The Road” to me was very confusing at first, I actually struggled to keep up with what was happening because of the writing style. I especially got confused because McCarthy switched every paragraph from past to present to thoughts and etc. Once I got passed all that I really found the story and the theme of morality far from what we normally consider being moral. The setting leaves us to wonder what exactly happened to the world but what we know is that it is burnt and there are survivors skewed throughout the United States. Of these people some are good and some are bad. But bad is not the correct term for them, they are cannibals yes, but they choose to eat other humans instead of dying of starvation. With the idea of morals, we see them as horrible people but if we were in this situation I assume some of us would turn into “bad” guys and eat others. Not everyone has the willpower to simply walk around and rummage for food or sift rat poop through grains. The “good” guys which include the father and son are not exactly moral either well the son is quite possibly the most moral person in the book being completely pure and innocent but the father steals, kills and withholds what he has from others i.e. food from the old man. Although all this is very immoral we see it as being ok merely because he has no other option. The boy seems to keep in check and actually makes him a “good” guy, without the boy I believe the man would have a black heart instead of just a “grey heart.” So from both the good and bad guy perspective in the book neither is better than the other in my eyes they both just choose a different way of surviving the conditions of the world. I think the continued reference to them “carrying the light” was very touching. As the man states in the end the boy has always carried the light and its always been inside him. The boy is truly carrying goodness inside of him and as one of my classmates stated in class, the boy is really like the Christ-like figure in this novel. Even the dream in the end of the story showed the boy carried the light keeping them from becoming this “monster of sorts” in the cave. Does anyone agree with me that there is very little difference between the good guys and bad guys?
ReplyDeleteJessica Phillips
We discussed what the conception of what was “good” in class and I believe that the boy clearly represented it. Also, I believe the father represents goodness as well, but only because the son wants him too. The boy was good to other people even if they were alive or dead. For example, the boy was always good about thanking people for things. When they reached the bunker the boy was so grateful for having warmth and food. Even though the people were not alive anymore he still thanked them. That shows genuine kindness and goodness from the boy, especially in a time where there hardly is anything to be thankful for. I believe the father also represented good, but mostly for his son. When their stuff was stolen on the beach they finally caught up with the guy and took all the stuff back. The father wanted to take all of the man’s stuff but the boy did not want him to die. He talked his father into leaving the man’s clothes and shoes. This was a true act of kindness, especially since the father and son could’ve used as much clothing as possible. The father would not have done that for the man, but the son talked him into it, which also shows the true goodness the boy possesses. They both were good in the end and really did want to help people out and survive at the same time. They did not eat people, they did not steal, and the son survived in the end to carry the fire, which is what the father wanted.
ReplyDeleteLucas Garber
When I was reading “The Road” at the beginning, I started out hating it. It was depressing and sorrow, which made me not like it at all. However, I found that the book had deeper meanings and was happier than I thought. I really enjoyed watching how the relationship between the father and son changed throughout the book. At the beginning I felt like the dad was more about surviving and being cautious. He never really listened to his son and always did as he chose and what he thought was best for him. There were numerous occasions where the father chose to go inside houses and search in places his son clearly was scared of and did not want him to go in. This was clearly for survival and not about keeping the son happy and hopeful. Then towards the end the father was more about making his son feel hopeful and confident that life will be better. For example, the father found the flare gun and let his son shoot it off at night as if it were a “celebration.” In this situation firing off the flare gun may not have been the best situation possible for survival, but it was the best thing to do for the morale of the son and to keep him hopeful. This showed that the father wanted his son to be happy and hopeful even in the darkest of times, which to me showed how their relationship had grown. The father had learned what was best for his son in his last few days of life and this is why I believe he could not have killed him. He made his son hopeful and confident and their relationship and love grew stronger throughout the story.
ReplyDeleteLucas Garber
To address the writing style, I think it was completely appropriate for a post-apocalyptic story. I would imagine that to survive in a world such as the one in The Road you would have to take life slowly and one day at a time. So when the text is divided up into paragraphs it conveys the monotony that they go through everyday. I actually think that this style may be the best for writing a book in this genre. The only thing that is strange about this form is that while you're reading you have to decide to stop when you reach a decent point instead of making it to the end of a chapter.
ReplyDeleteOn the topic of "goodness" and what most endangers it: It is quite clear that the boy is meant to represent goodness in the book, but in the thought experiment that is The Road it seems to me that McCarthy believes that people are generally bad. The father in the book believes this as well, but the boy is different. Not only does the boy represent good, but he also believes in the good of other people. It's hard to say that the people they encounter are actually "bad." They could also be viewed as victims of circumstance. Amidst the total depravity of The Road people are forced to make decisions that compromise their own beliefs and do things that they themselves would deem "bad." So the thing that most endangers goodness would have to be when survival comes in conflict with ethics. When it comes down to making some of these horrible decisions you have to decide what you value more, your life or your ideals. The instinct to survive can be a hard one to overcome, but maybe not impossible.
Also, I rather liked this book up until the ending. I feel that McCarthy dodged his way out of all the problems at the end with the boy finding basically a new family to live with. I think that something much more fitting or clever could have been put in there. Or you could look at it as that McCarthy was confirming that there was still some goodness left and that the boy's curiosity on the subject was correct.
-Sean Graham
The Road revealed a certain hypocrisy with which I believe we all wrestle, and of which far too few of us are aware or at the very least, to which too few of us admit. No one that I’ve ever known or known of carries out their beliefs to the letter all the time. In The Road, the father in theory has this undying belief in human decency and the intrinsic goodness of his fellow man. However, every encounter he has with someone on the road, he takes the opportunity to put that belief on display and shrouds it in paranoia, distrust, selfishness and sheer desperation.
ReplyDeleteHe points his gun at a guy who’s apparently just trying to use the bathroom. The interaction that ensues involves the guy inviting him to get he and his son something to eat off of the truck he rode in on and the man immediately rebuffing that offer as trickery and deceit. The man from the truck pulls a knife on the boy, but we have no way of knowing if he would have even done that had the man not pulled the gun on him.
It’s not fair to say he should simply have trusted the guy and taken his son to the truck upon being invite to get something to eat. However, if you are a good guy, who believes in the existence of other good guys, sooner or later you have to think someone you’re looking at is one of them. Put another way, if there are good guys out there, odds are everybody you encounter isn’t necessarily a bad guy.
My belief, and I believe it’s consistent with the book, is that we each are the good guys and the bad guys to varying degrees. We have both in us … we have the propensity for both in different situations.
Donte Lazarus
In response to Tyler Osborne comment about “The Road”, I'm not quite sure if the father really is a good guy. I mean, by protecting his own son doesn't make him a good guy. Every parents would do the same thing like “the father” in this movie did. I also don't understand why would the father keep pushing themselves to survive in the world like that, I mean, every time they were in dangerous situations he always had this thought to kill his son. Why would we called a person who even had that kind of thought a good guy? And also, other than that I'm questioning the father's actions in few situations when he tried to save his son, but when it came to the time when he thought they couldn't make it, he wanted to kill his son? I just don't get it what's the difference between him killing the son or other people.
ReplyDeleteI feel like the son in this book is the true good person left. Clearly, in few moments he tried to help people that they met, even in the situation and environment like this. He has the faith that good people still exist, from what I've read I somewhat got a feeling that he still pure and will be the light of the world that already fallen a part. Although I don't like most part of this book, but I do like how McCarthy set up the ending, where the son met other people although we don't know if they're really good people or not. But, in the end it there's this little girl and somehow I have this feeling that the world still has hopes that these kids might build future generations. Overall, this is definitely not one of my favorite book just because it's too dark and hopeless, but at the same time I'm hoping that McCarthy would write the second book just so people know what's the real end of the little boy's journey.
Poppy Aprilia
Cormac McCarthy’s The Road is an ominous tale of woe and shame. It’s a black story of a grey soul and his torment of giving in and becoming black and cold or softening and gaining lost compassion. His life force is centered on his son whom which he gave life, but as the story tarries on becomes the life giver to himself. His purpose for living is to get his son to the coast, in hopes of finding food and sustainable life during a time that cannibalism has become the way of life for so many other survivors of the perilous event. Along the way father teaches the son how to survive in case he is unable to carry on.
ReplyDeleteThere is a constant struggle in this story as to the location of peace. Peace is believed to be in the soul of the child, and the father pseudo worships the son and treats him like a God. Peace comes to the father by the son’s continued existence. However, the father is continually plagued by the outside world and is fighting the temptation to give up and end his and his son’s life. The son’s innocence and naivety becomes the ingredients necessary to give the father hope, and faith that good things are abound to happen, yet the father believes that all his lost, and that true survival begins with “protecting the fire.”
This fire is yet another opportunity for the father to hold on to some sense of compassion and life. It becomes the secondary drive for survival and some sort of unconscious attempt to be the protectors of sanity and humanity. The father believes that all others are bad, and they are the only ones that are good and teaches the kid how to persevere through adversity. However, the kid’s youthful innocence takes his father teachings and couples them with compassion that challenges the father’s belief.
I also believe that the title of Cormac’s book has additional meanings. The road defines a path traveled. It seems to describe something cold and worn versus something frequently traveled. The word ‘the’ in front of ‘road’ seems to make it impersonal and distant. There is no name assigned to this stretch and it tells the reader that it offers no compassion or warmth. The title further alludes to the reader that it is a journey being taken and not necessarily a physical destination. The father is on his journey with maintaining sanity and compassion, the son is on a journey of learning from his father and not accepting things that don’t feel intrinsically right in his eyes. They are both on their perspective Roads throughout this book. The title does not suggest a destination, which allows both characters to arrive at their internal destination separately. Other people in the book are on their own journeys as well. Some are going from being human to savage, while others are purely on the journey for survival. The Road is for everyone.
Kenny B
During class we mentioned the writing style but we did not go as in depth with it as I would have hoped. I thoroughly enjoyed the way it was written without quotations. I thought this really added to the overall feeling of lost identity and loneliness. I think Cormac McCarthy wrote it without quotations for the same reason he gave neither character a name. Also, when the characters talked, both the conversations and the individual statements are really short. For example, on page 81 the conversation is as follows:
ReplyDeleteI'm hungry, Papa.
I know.
Will we be able to find our stuff?
Yes. I know where it is.
What if somebody finds it?
They wont find it.
I hope they dont.
They wont.
...
This adds to the desolate feel of the whole novel. There is no chatter, laughter, or talking just for fun. Everytime they speak, it is of survival and necessity.
I also wanted to elaborate on David Strider’s comment of how the man is alive without really living. I agree that the man is not living for some greater purpose other than just staying alive and keeping his son alive as well. Unlike his son, the man does not allow himself to hope or dream about anything. He does not even want to remember how his life used to be or reminisce about his own wife. When the man emptied his wallet of his ID and all the stuff from his past life, I took it as an act of resignation to become the hardened, dreamless man that he is in the rest of the novel. At that time, in my opinion, he chose to stop “living” right then. At that moment he had turned into the world that he is living in- lifeless and without hope.
I thought Jennifer Scott brought up a good question when she speculated on how the boy survives after his father does. Though the book ends here, I would like to think that the boy is relatively happy. Though he is unhappy at the loss of his father he has also achieved everything else he wanted. He wanted to find more people who "carry the fire" and he also now has another boy to play with. His life will not be easy, but at least now he will be able to still have somewhat of a normal childhood with other children.
--Kelcey Flegel
John Osinski
ReplyDeleteProfessor Camacho you told me to simply bullet point my response that I had written about The Road because for some reason when I submitted it, it did not process.
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/haiti/7005554/Haiti-earthquake-looting-and-gun-fights-break-out.html - I posted an article similar to this one stating the comparison between the apocalyptic type scenery in the story and in Haiti after the earthquakes. At the time the earthquakes had just happened so I thought it would be a prevalent comparison.
• I investigated how Moral Truth is tested in today’s world just as it was in the story and how McCarthy’s analysis on how Moral Truth shifts in more barbaric survival type mind sets.
• Right and wrong is something that needs to be considered more grey than simply black and white. What would you do when you needed to choose to commit crimes in order to survive? When there is no type of law enforcement or as strict of enforcements would you steal or even murder to survive or protect loved ones? Things that we consider to be immoral in our controlled and ordered society’s may not be considered as immoral or morally wrong at all when we consider such extreme situations such as this.
• Just as in the story the Father is forced to make decisions out of necessity not out of evil in order to make sure that he can survive to protect his son and make it to safety. While murder is an extreme case I was convinced by McCarthy that even that condemning act can be explained to be an act of love for his son rather than savage cold blooded act.
John Osinski
ReplyDeleteProfessor Camacho you told me to simply bullet point my response that I had written about The Road because for some reason when I submitted it, it did not process.
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/haiti/7005554/Haiti-earthquake-looting-and-gun-fights-break-out.html - I posted an article similar to this one stating the comparison between the apocalyptic type scenery in the story and in Haiti after the earthquakes. At the time the earthquakes had just happened so I thought it would be a prevalent comparison.
• I investigated how Moral Truth is tested in today’s world just as it was in the story and how McCarthy’s analysis on how Moral Truth shifts in more barbaric survival type mind sets.
• Right and wrong is something that needs to be considered more grey than simply black and white. What would you do when you needed to choose to commit crimes in order to survive? When there is no type of law enforcement or as strict of enforcements would you steal or even murder to survive or protect loved ones? Things that we consider to be immoral in our controlled and ordered society’s may not be considered as immoral or morally wrong at all when we consider such extreme situations such as this.
• Just as in the story the Father is forced to make decisions out of necessity not out of evil in order to make sure that he can survive to protect his son and make it to safety. While murder is an extreme case I was convinced by McCarthy that even that condemning act can be explained to be an act of love for his son rather than savage cold blooded act.
Even after the reading of multiple novels in this class, I feel that The Road still had to be my favorite. The novel evoked the most thought and emotion within me because of the deep moral issues that lie within the text.
ReplyDeleteI will agree with Rossana’s previous response that it reminded me a lot of the movie the Book of Eli, and I think it is an interesting phenomenon that a lot of post-apocalyptic books and movies are becoming more prevalent around this time.
One of the many issues that people have blogged about is the writing style of this book. This is one of the first things I noticed when I first started reading the book. His short, choppy dialogue made it hard to get into the book at first, but eventually I acclimated to it. I believe that his style of writing reflects many aspects of the novel. First, it reflects the encompassing idea that there is not much to discuss between the two characters, other than how they are going to survive from day to day. Secondly, I feel that the shortness of the dialogue reveals the darkness of the world that they now live in. I simply believe that it strengthens the overall theme of the book.
The largest aspect of the book that I would like to comment on is the prevalence of death, because it stood out to me the most. I believe that the boy knows that death is inevitable because he asks the father repeatedly about it, but the father frequently dodges the subject. Maybe it is to give the boy hope, but I also think it is a survival mechanism for the father to not plague the boys thoughts with the idea of death. I just think that the father should have been more realistic and open with the boy about the whole concept.
As for the moral issue that is brought up in the book, I believe that the father did the best he could to bring up a boy in a world that has no moral standards or values. He instilled in him goodness, because the boy always claimed that they were the ones “holding the fire”. I feel that even after the father’s death the boy will continue to hold the fire in a world where many don’t.
The Road was also one of my favorites, as a post-apocalyptic world is a very interesting thing to picture. Although the style the book was written in was a bit slow, the story was still pretty captivating. The difference in maturity was really what pushed the story of “good vs evil” within the text. The father displayed much more cautious pessimism while the son, a more ignorant optimism. These personality characteristics fit in perfectly in this environment of chaos. I feel like the way that the duo comes into contact with outsiders really captivates the reader for a brief few pages. These run-ins are so interesting because it is a situation that no person has ever had a chance to live in. I realize that certain war-zones are a pretty similar setting, but you get what I am saying.
ReplyDelete-Chris Lendrim
Is there such a thing called morals when a person is stripped of everything he/she has ever known. While reading "The Road" this issue becomes a struggling topic. The father wants nothing more than to end his son's and his life, but is unable to bring himself to it. The fatherly instincts and set of morals guid him throughout the story. He sees it moraly ok not to trust anyone and kill anyone that may try and harm them. These acts of the father describe what was talked about in class, a black heart. The father tried to have a black heart and showed the development of it at times in his actions, but the thought of his son was what kept him as close to morally right as possible. His son was "the light" at the end of the tunnel that was keeping him going. This story shows it is possible to be morally just even if you are stripped of everything you have, you just need one thing to keep you going.
ReplyDelete-Chase Liebler
Referring back to the good and evil concept from a couple posts. Was the father actually one of the good guys by the end of the novel? The thing that made them good is because they didn’t harm or bother other people. The other people were just what was left after an Apocalypse trying to survive. We knew the father was sick and dying for most of the novel, but how he left the boy in a way was worse than anything. The father was not sure what his son would make of it or that a random man was going to help him when he lay down to pass. That man could have taken his son off and tortured him for all we know. I just feel like if the father was going to go the proper thing would have been to either kill his son in an unpainful, unknowing way or to make sure he was son where he could have survived on his own better than the middle of the forest. In a way I know the mother taking her own life in the beginning was a horrible thing. But was it the right decision? Should he have let the boy encounter hunger and see the things he saw, or go through the things he had to at such an early age? By leaving the boy I say the father being one of the good guys is very much in question.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with a responder about the pace of the book being quality. The book was enjoyable at moments but it was very repetitive and drug out. I know there days were drug out but the book was a little much. In all it was a good read and I’m happy I read it, I just feel like it could have been summed up a little better.
-David Erbacher
The story depicts the end of the world, a father and son to resist cold, hunger and inhuman massacre, carried out a difficult journey for survival. The father and son, even in the most difficult circumstances, still uphold with their own conscience as a good human being - or is the dignity of a man. In the book, Father and Son in fact are two sides of a person; the son’s problems seem naive, but I think that those questions are also what the father is thinking in his heart and what the father wants to ask to God.
ReplyDeleteWe absolutely will not eat people, right?
Not. Of course not.
... ...
But we will not die.
Not. We will not die.
In any case will not die.
Right. Whatever.
Because we are good people.
Right.
If there is no son, the father can still keep his own good? There is no answer. Because we are good people, so we will not die, it is a completely logical faith - kind heart is good. McCarthy said: Because our love, our good, because good, we are saved. So the book said: "Good will find that little boy. Has always been this way. Good to find him again."
"Road" demonstrates that, in this world, evil although is everywhere, but good is not alone, good can transfer and make miracles. The end, his father died, the boy would actually get a "mother" - that he has been missing and seeking for. Love and good, it is impossible to re-shape the world, but they can lead people to find hope. The author first uses special wording to grab readers attention, at least my attention, and then he takes readers to everyone's inside. This book allow me to feel the great of father's love and hope.
Yinyin Shi
I had considered before, after a nuclear war ；Are you willing to die or willing to guard your families in the endless night waiting for the dawn. So long and painful wait, maybe that day would never come. Just read Cormac McCarthy’s "Road", and this book made me into the contemplation.
ReplyDeleteThis is the nuclear winter after a nuclear war. Waste dust enveloped the world. No sun. No moon. No stars. In the pitch-dark night, the wind may never stop. The river is black. The sea is gray. The cleanest water is in the gutter. Even in the south, temperatures often drop below zero. No government-issued tents, blankets and bread, will you live not live?
The road is a long line of cars wreckage. Tires have melted on the ground. You can see died bodies everywhere. Melted glass buildings all become a string of ice hanging, attached to floor wall. Forest has gone. Animals are dead. Plants are dead. Have you ever familiar world, and now exists only in memory. The past world, which you are familiar with, is only in your memory. Life is unpredictable; you will suffer hunger, cold, disease, and loneness. Will you live or not live?
A father and his son, survivors of a nuclear war, only have a pistol with one bullet left. The father told his son: If you run into bad guys, and I will divert their attention, you take your gun to hide, if the bad guys find you, you commit suicide. Because the bad guys would eat the child, the child’s father would rather he committed suicide. That such a situation, will you live not live?
Father and son to remind each other: we're good people, we do not rob other people's food, and we do not eat people. The father told his son: We carried the fire. Father taught his son all the survival skills.
If we are really in such a situation, people can keep a minimum of dignity? Will we help others? Can we wait until the new sun rises up? At least here is an example. This father and son gave us a bid shock.
Yinyin Shi
Everyone goes through life feeling like they are alone at one time or another. With the world being dark all the time, the boy and his father are searching for people that carry the fire. T believe this has a religous meaning to it. There is a song that I used to sing at church camp when I was younger that said "Light the fire in my heart again". The lyrics in this song talks about finding God again and how he will light light your fire again. God will never let you be alone if you have faith. With the father and the son looking for people who carry the fire, they are really looking for people who believe and have faith.
ReplyDeleteRyan Stonaker
This story is extremely suspenseful and exciting. There are very few, if any stories relating to a post-apocalyptic world. I think initially, without learning about the characters circumstances in detail, the reader will assume that the man and the boy are "good" and doing everything to the best of their ability to be moral.
ReplyDeleteIs it because they are expressing their emotions and discomfort, or is because the reader can sense great love between the man and the boy?
I agree a lot with Adam Hardestry with the way I felt about this book initially. I felt that it was just this annoying and redundant story that just focuses on every important detail and draggd it on to make a novel out of it.
But after studying it in class, I have realized that each of these details and events that occur tie back to to theme of moral truth. An example is with the truck people early on. I assumed that the entire novel they were just going to run into people and escape or take care of them. But each time they encountered people the man acted in a manner which complicated what moral truth is, whether it was killing them (like he did with the truck people), or mistrusting other people, or willing to help them. Each encounter with other characters did not follow a consistent meaning of what moral truth meant.
-Mark Menezes
I think The Road was a dark but really good book. I thought that it was cool how McCarthy tried to show how people’s true characteristics come out in a time of disaster. The mother chose to kill herself because she felt that there was no reason to continue to live. This could be considered reasonable but still she is not as strong as the boy and the man. The boy and the man are more impressive because they do decide to try to find the coast, even though living day to day is extremely difficult. I think that because things are so bad for them that when they do come across simple things, like food and shelter, they are more appreciative. When I was reading this book and they would find food or a place to sleep I was happy for them and realized how nice it is when people take nothing for granted.
ReplyDeleteI think it was interesting that the boy was portrayed as a “good guy,” because he is still so concerned with other people. This is particularly interesting because the boy has only known the apocalyptic world. He has really never seen any goodness so we can believe as readers that he is innately good. Does anyone else think that man would not be considered a “good guy” if he didn’t have the boy?
I think that McCarthy is a really good writer and his descriptions are so unique. After we read this book I read Child of God which is even more depressing and disgusting, but an amazing book at the same time.
Martha Gillespie
The Road was a very interesting book. I liked it at times, while at others I disliked it very much. Overall, I thought it wasn’t very entertaining and it was just a bunch of needless negative ideas and foreshadowing based on mans’ follies. I tend to be a fan of optimism and correction. I didn’t like McCarthy’s style of writing either. He abandoned all traditional forms of literature. He used incorrect punctuation, butchered dialogue (thanks to the lack of quotation marks), and completely held no regard for any sense of classic writing. If I can grow up to write any way I choose, then why do schools stress so much importance on proper English and making a foundational knowledge for writing? I’m just not a fan of this author. I feel the same way about “Angela’s Ashes,” his other book, as well.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I like several things about this book. Even though I appear to condemn the non-use of quotation marks, I must point out that the snippy and brief dialogue between the father and son seems very real, albeit confusing. Sometime the best answer to a child is a short one so they can understand, but at the same time, the father is probably very frustrated with his life so he only offers these small effortless remarks. I also liked how most people are cannibals. It seemed very human. My definition of cannibal here is merely a person trying to survive. In this world of devastation, all morals are thrown out the window. We return to a primitive world where survival of the fittest is practiced. Sure, eating people seems terrible, but when you have no options and no set rules anymore, I cannot call it “evil.”
This is a point where I tend to disagree with the authors intentions. I think that the father and son are “good” not because they won’t eat people, but because they intend to move on and fix the world by repopulating it, but I still can’t even say that I know that is the father’s intention. It seems like a feasible opinion to me. I wouldn’t call the majority population of cannibals evil though, like the book implies. I think they are just evil because the author is trying to create some sort of argument. If the difference between good and evil is having the extreme will to live, then this whole basis works out. When referring to the dream sequence at the beginning of the book, scientifically, it makes sense. When emerged in darkness for so long, a creature loses coloration and eyesight. I think this search for the end of the road and light, in an effort to restore humankind is a great inclusion to the novel. A brilliant metaphor.
So, my question to whoever wishes to answer is this: When the world has gone utterly awry, is it okay to abandon morals that took thousands of years to instill?
Terry Page
Okay, so I realized that I made an embarrassing mistake by crediting McCarthy for writing "Angela's Ashes" as a comparison in my response for this book. Please overlook my incompetence. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteTerry Page
The book “The Road” is a great book to associate with moral truth. In my opinion, the evil is born with nature, and the goodness is created by adding standard ethics into the nature. As many of class members talked about the goodness and evil, I want to talk about how the father and son’s relationship is associated with goodness and evil.
ReplyDeleteIn the story, father and his son had not many things to say to each other. However, if you see how the father acts for his son, then you will see their relationship. The father treats so lovely on his son in such hopeless and dangerous situation. I think it is normal that a person become selfish to survive, but the father protects his son with all his efforts although it has even been overprotection. For example, at the first section, father gives too much water to his son. It was not necessary to help survival; even it was wasting their necessity.
While there is an overprotection on the boy, the son’s reaction is quite different. Through the novel, the father always prevents the boy from contacting with other people.
As the contrast, the boy says that he has to watch for his father. Also, he sometimes ignores what his father told him. The story in the end of last section is a good example to use. When the father was dying, he told his son to use the gun when he encounters someone. However, the boy refused to use that, even he listens to the man who had family to feed and follow the man by abandoning his father. I know, at that time of last story, their relationship was broken and the boy lost his trust on his father, but he chose a better possibility to survive rather than dying with his father. No one taught the boy to act in such selfish way, but it was a strong desire to survive in such unstable situation.
-Ryan Yoon-
The Road by Cormac McCarthy was one of the most interesting books we read this semester and by far one of the darkest and most depressing. Many people have remarked that the dad and boy live in a world with no light at the end of the tunnel, but I think they create that light at the end of the tunnel by continuing to “carry the fire.” Just as long as they continue to have hope and not give up completely and become cannibals then they themselves represent the light at the end of the tunnel. The father does the best job he can by striving for a goal, getting to the coast, that keeps both their hopes alive and keeps them down a path of goodness. Goodness has also been debated in class and on the discussion board as to whether it is a learned trait or an innate one. I believe that goodness is a mixture of the two innate and learned. The boy seems to be innately good because he always wants to help people but his father usually refuses except for a few circumstances. This would mean that the boy is innately good because the father is not teaching him compassion towards others. At the same time though the father is teaching him to carry the fire and not become a cannibal like the others. The father also brings past experiences, morals, and ethics from times before the “big event” which he teaches his son.
ReplyDeleteWhile I believe Cormac’s writing style is confusing, I also appreciate his writing style for this particular story. His punctuation and transitions from flashbacks to the present are unusually rough and often made me backtrack to reread. However, this unique writing style creates an even more chaotic mood in an already chaotic setting. The man in the story is also confused and out of control of his own dreams and memories while the boy doesn’t even have memories of a time before the “event”.
ReplyDeleteThis brings me to my next observation. The boy has only known this post-apocalyptic era with little or no good surrounding his life. Yet there is this goodness that comes from within him that appears to be unaffected by the horrors and the evil that he sees daily. It is a refreshing and optimistic attitude in this environment. Unfortunately, this natural goodness the boy poses comes from his naïve belief that there are plenty of good people out there. So without the man’s skepticism and doubt in the goodness of other people, they would surely be dead already. On the flip side, the man sees his son’s purity and innocence that in turn drives the man to believe that even if his son is the last good thing in the world, he is willing to do whatever he can to protect him. He wants to protect his son and what his son represents. For whatever reason, there is an undeniable good that exists and prevails that is confirmed by the boy.
Jeff Kibler
When I first started reading The Road, I was not the biggest fan. When I typically chose books to read for pleasure, I like ones that have distinct plots and interesting story lines. The Road does not have a distinct plot except for the fact that the father and son are trying to find the shore so that they can get away from this apocalyptic event.
ReplyDeleteCormac McCarthy did a very good job as the book went on. She captivated me and I actually started to enjoy the book. The book showed me deep meanings of morals and goodness and made me think about what I would do in certain situations. The book also made me realize what could be determined as right and wrong like when the father shot the one bad guy in order to protect his son. Some would say that that was wrong but I think the father was in the right because of the circumstances.
The book also deals with death a lot and how everyone deals with it. When the mother decided to leave and ultimately commit suicide, the father was mad and the boy was sad. Later in the book, the son said he wanted to be with his mom meaning that he wanted to be dead which makes you wonder if he was sad that she was gone or that he wasn’t gone as well.
The book made me think a lot and I actually like when a book does that. If I had to choose, I think that The Road is my favorite book that we read this semester.
-Ryan Cormack
The Road really started to grow on me as I read it. At first, I would always read it before I went to bed and it seemed like it would put me in depressed mood before I feel asleep. The constant imagery of gray soot and gray skies just made the father and son's journey that much more hopeless and depressing.
ReplyDeleteAs the novel moved along, however, I began to find the hidden values of life that McCarthy was trying to portray. His examples of compassion and love between the father and son showed that there was something special to human life, even despite total chaos and destruction. The father kept reminding the son that "we are the good guys". It seemed hopeless that they would never survive, but there was always a part of me that believed in their spirit and the hope that the boy possessed. That hope allowed the father to continue to lead the way until they were eventually able to find another group of "good" people. Their courage and determination proves that there is a reason to live no matter what life throws your way. Human's are "good" in nature and this book proves that love will overcome all odds, including death. Along the road, the father and son looked death square in the eye and the love that the two shared between them continued to give them hope to live another day. This love proved to be their main tool for survival and it continued the hope for a renewal of the human race.
Mark Doran