The book starts off with a father watching over his son as he sleeps outside under a tarp. After reading a little bit more it becomes clear they are in a survival situation and looking for others. Once they finish breakfast they begin to walk to what i think is civilization and on the way the find a gas station. in the gas station the father attempts to call someone but there is no answer, and they then leave just to return again to collect oil for their lamp. After this they continue to walk until it starts to rain and then they stop to take cover. overall this book seems like it can be very interesting i just hope its not overrated.
After reading the book, I can tell that it's not very joyful. Over and over again I've read that descriptions of the setting mentioning words such as "grey". In addition, it mentions, fire and random bodies in several locations, and as you've mentioned rain. These are all depressing aspect. Reading a book of this genre will be a new experience for me and I hope I enjoy reading it.
After continuing to read the book develops a very strong negative vibe. This has me wondering why Cormac McCarthy chose to write about this topic. At one point the father looks inside a trailer and finds many dead bodies, this makes me think the people did not die from a natural disaster. Maybe they are in a old war zone and they are trying to find other survivors. I think McCarthy is making a statement about what will eventually happen to society.
This is defiantly a strange book. Everything seems to be very negative, the setting is often describe as burned, dark, and cold. I also don't see were this story is going to end up, the beginning is unclear on whats going on in the world around them. why is everything burned up? why is there no one around them? They seem to be the only people alive, but looking for more survivors. I wonder what inspired McCarthy to write this book in such a negative and depressing style.
I agree with Angie this is a unique book. It seems as if there is nothing but unbelivable situations all around them. They are the only people around for miles, they seen a man who was struck by lightning, and no one has tried to harm them yet. The only positive thing i can see is the father son relationship becoming a lot stronger. It is already easy to tell the fathers only priority is his son, so i think this story will be about the limits they go to to stay together and survive.
This comment is based on last weeks reading: One aspect of this part that I wanted to focus on was where the father and his son revisited his home. The surrounding of the house is very dark and scary but yet the boy is suddenly frightened after entering his father's destroyed home. Why is that? Is it because he's familiar with the ones who once resided in the home? Is he scared of their spirits? I know there is an underlying meaning as to why he strangely fears his father' former home, bt isn't afraid of the darkness and danger outdoors.
I don't know about everyone else who is reading this book, but for me I feel like the description about how the environment is dark and depressing is very repetitive. It's as if this book is a bit slow in the beginning. It's not that interesting but hopefully the climax kicks in soon because it is boring.
I agree with Jodaelle this book is starting out very slow and i am wondering what the twist is. This book does not seem to creative, when i read it the descriptions of the surroundings remind me of other apocalypse books and movies. Also to comment on the part about when they return to the fathers home and the boy suddenly becomes scared i think this is supposed to represent what happened there during the tragedy. I am guessing we will later find out what made the house look like it did.
Initially, I believed this book to be repetitive, but I beleive McCarthy is repeating details about the environment, such as something always burning or there being fire, for a reason. The constant presence of fire is to show constant destruction--it's to show that things aren't getting better and the world around the boy is getting worse which makes sense because this book takes place during the apocolypse.
When the father was talking to the son he said "Who is anybody?"(49) Meaning that no one and their positions matter in a world like this. This is to show how everyone is in the same boat and no one is better than the other because they are all living through the same troubles.
Both the boy and his father were following a man burnt from lightning but "at his pacce they weer losing the day." This quote emphasizes how much the day and light are very important to them and they're desperate for it in a world filled with darkness. It's so crucial to them that they can't take the time to follow where the man is going.
A very sad part of the book was when the mother wanted to give up on her life and thought negatively about the situation and didnt think of them as "survivors." This proves the stereotype that women are weak. She was the first to go; she left even before her child although her husband begged her to stay. Her heart didn't feel enoughh emotion to caret hat her husband and son would miss her dearly.
This book is very sad I agree, but I can't get into it the way that I would like to. I feel like McCarthy uses the natural disasters to only emphasize the destruction that is going on. It almost makes me feel that no one can win and they won't survive much longer and the book won't have a happy ending. I like how the author introduces a little about their lives.He goes right into the situation with the mom. I think that he could have transitioned into that more smoothly. It seemed like he just went right into it it. Maybe he did that because the setting and plot of the book is so raw that he did that on purpose. When the mother was about to commit suicide it states that she called it her "great gift" to them, but why would it say that if she was begged not to commit suicide? Does anyone have any predictions about the book?
After the father killed the cannibal who threatened his son's life, "a single round left in the revolver. You will not face the truth. You will not"(68) I feel that this meant that the father didn't want to use the gun because he believed his son and himself had a chance for survival throught the apocolyptic world. He didn't want to shoot either himself or the boy becauset hat would mean giving up as his wife had did. How do both these individual have enough bravery to walk throughout dangerous and depressing such as this? As stated he and his son were "going south" (60). Many movies that involve the world coming to an end or there is an epidemic have colonies where people exist and are healthy. Does his father beleive there is some sort of colony in the south? Who informed him of this? What do you guys think?
To continue with what Jodaelle said, I also found it interesting how the father talks and thinks about death. It is like he does not want to give up trying to survive but he knows there is a large possibility they wont if they don't find other "good guys". What I found really interesting is when the father asks "But do you think I might lie to you about dying?" and the boy responds "yea"(101). This exchange happened when they were talking about how long humans can survive without food, and this made me wonder what the roots for the boy's thoughts were. Does he think his father is trying to protect him when he lies or does he think he is just trying to make it easier on himself. I am also still confused where the bad guys are coming from and why they are bad.
I found the father’s dedication to the son is really impressive. Although he’s dying he makes sure that he keeps going on for his son. They are trying to get to a destination, but nothing is waiting for the father when he gets there. I ultimately think he’s going to die at the end, but he just wants to protect his son. An example of his dedication to his son in my opinion is when the father and son “settled under a tree and piled the blankets and coats on the ground and he wrapped the boy” (McCarthy, 95). The father is basically doing everything for the son so how is the son going to survive if the father dies? In my opinion I think that the father should train the son to learn how to survive during this time. And I just wanted to say that this is the stereotypical post-apocalyptic in terms of the weather. It’s always raining and things are always in destruction, but McCarthy could just be mimicking the characters’ emotions. I also read a New York Times’ article called “The Road through hell Paved With Desperation” which stated, “This parable is also trenchant and terrifying, written with stripped-down urgency and fueled by the force of a universal nightmare. “The Road” would be pure misery if not for its stunning, savage beauty” (Maslin, 2006). I believe that this book is so raw and I do believe that the rawness of this book is pretty beautiful. There aren’t much “decorations” in this book, it kind of stays on point. Does anyone feel like this book has savage beauty?
As the boy and his father's journey on the road continues readers are able to learn more about their characters although they don't exchange too many words amongst each other. Then again what new, interesting things are there to discuss among father and child after the world has fallen apart and there is no hope? The father depicts something as "the first human being other than the boy that he'd spoken to in more than a year. My brother at last. The reptilian calculations in those cold and shifting eyes. The grey and rotting teeth. Claggy with human flesh" (75). It was hard for me to decide whether the author was referring to the snow or the road, but I concuded the author was referring to the road because not only is it gray, but because the father has remain in constant contact with it like has the boy. Although both are hungry and grow desperate for food during their journey they make exceptions to what they eat several times because they consider themselves the good guys who are "carrying the fire" (83). In the distance they hear a dog and the son reassures "[they're] not going to kill it" (82). I question whether the father would behave differently if he didn't have his song alongside him and looking up to him. Would the father have eaten the dog or engaged in cannibalism if it weren't for his son disagreeing with that and constantly reminding him not to? I feel as though the boy believes that his dad is willing to give in and eat anything that comes his way which is why he keeps reminding him that they're carrying the fire.
After finishing this book I honestly have no idea what to think. This book is unlike anything I have read before mainly because there was no major character development or significant change, and that has been what we were looking for in English class over the last few years. To start off we never even find out there names, they are just known as the father and the son. Also we barely know anything about their life before the apocalypse, the only consistant trends I followed were destruction, death, and safety. I honestly did not enjoy reading this book because of the constant depressing descriptions of their surroundings and unclear future. Personally I disliked the ending the most because it was not an ending. We are left to wonder if the boy ever finds safety after his father dies and if the family he joined was actually the “good guys”. However I am assuming he joined a safe family because Cormac McCarthy has been using guns as a symbol for safety throughout the novel and when the man approached the boy “he carried a shotgun upside down over his shoulder on a braided leather lanyard and he wore a nylon bandolier filled with shells for the gun”(281). Everyone knows a shotgun with multiple shells is better than a pistol with one bullet so I thought this was symbolism for a safe future. Overall this story seems like it would work better as a movie.
When they arrive to the shore they notice that the ocean is grey, not blue, as they anticipated thus resulting in the boy's disappointment. The boy wanted to swim but his father warned him that he'd "freeze [his] tokus off" (217), but he allowed him to swim. I believe he did this to make up for his son's disappoinment. In a world where there is no happiness, the father tries his best to give his just a little bit of an emotion that is nearly nonexistant in this apocalyptic world.
I know I am late but I'm going to add the first couple of comments. I requested my book at the library and it took me a while to get it and I kind of forgot to respond so here is my response. I have heard of "The Road" before it was first introduced to me in Mr. Spencer’s class, Advanced Reading Seminar. Choosing this book I knew that there were no chapters and no names and that made reading it a little difficult for me. I often got confused and it was hard for me to imagine the characters because there were no adjectives explaining how they said something. For example, “Are we going to die? ‘Sometime. Not now" (McCartney, 10). When a person imagines a child asking this is should be really sad, but the dialogue just seems so dry. Now I just imagine the characters speaking in monotone I don’t like the way the dialogue is written at all. I often take the adjectives for granted, but I now I realize how Important they are in shaping the reader’s mind about the reading and how they picture each of the characters.
I definitely agree to Anthony's January 3rd comment. I am glad that I finished this book because it was definitely something new and challenging. I never really got into this book therefore it was a real struggle for me to finish. Although the readers knew that the characters were living in a post-apocalyptic world, but he still made a point to describe the surroundings. I wondered why did he do that, but I am just going to guess. I think that he described their depressing surrounding because he never wanted the readers to forget what the characters were going through he wanted it in the reader's mind constantly. He wanted to make a point that through these horrible times the hope for a better life and love conquer all. Through this the characters still keep the "fire" inside of them even the father dies in the end, he died with the fire inside of him. They had to continue on the road which is the journey.
I do agree with Jodaelle’s December 28th post when she said that we could learn a lot about characters even though they don’t change much dialogue. I had a feeling that the father was sick and going to die through this passage. “They settled under the tree and piled the blankets and coats on the ground and he wrapped the boy in one of the blankets and set to raking up the dead needles in a pile.” (95) Also the passage, “coaxed the fire back to life” (96). At this point in this book everything is pointed out with life and death. For example those two passages where he describes the needles as dead and the fire alive. I feel that the author incorporates these subtly to stress how survival is so important at his point. He uses these descriptions so subtly in this book, but very often in my opinion because every little move can decide between life and death. But these descriptions do have some truth to them, things are either alive or dead there is no in between. We don’t really notice things because we do take life for granted and this point the characters in this book don’t.
Roadsters, This book poses the challenge of a journey from cover to cover -- it's a journey that is not fun, often filled with the same cold repetition and confusion that gives us a taste of what the characters may feel. You have risen to this challenge heroically with awareness and insight in grappling with some of the challenges McCarthy presents. What I most appreciate about your conversation is how you each posed new questions and ideas for the group on a whole range of aspects of the book, and used each other's ideas and questions to inform your own while still following your own thought down an original path. You guys are the light!
To respond to Jodaelle’s December 1st comment. I think that he was afraid to visit the home because at this time the world is very dangerous so a person should be careful in each place they go. To see the place that he grew up to just end up being destroyed is very scary and emotional. Also the environment is very dark and little kids most likely scared of the dark so I could se why he would be scared to return. During this post-apocalyptic world why would anyone want to visit somewhere that is dark any way? I could only imagine during this time a person would only want to visit joyful places that aren’t vey dark, but light. Darkness represents things that are all evil and bad while light makes people feel secure. You can’t see in the dark making everything unpredictable just like their journey, so he want to steer clear of that.
The book starts off with a father watching over his son as he sleeps outside under a tarp. After reading a little bit more it becomes clear they are in a survival situation and looking for others. Once they finish breakfast they begin to walk to what i think is civilization and on the way the find a gas station. in the gas station the father attempts to call someone but there is no answer, and they then leave just to return again to collect oil for their lamp. After this they continue to walk until it starts to rain and then they stop to take cover. overall this book seems like it can be very interesting i just hope its not overrated.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the book, I can tell that it's not very joyful. Over and over again I've read that descriptions of the setting mentioning words such as "grey". In addition, it mentions, fire and random bodies in several locations, and as you've mentioned rain. These are all depressing aspect. Reading a book of this genre will be a new experience for me and I hope I enjoy reading it.
ReplyDeleteAfter continuing to read the book develops a very strong negative vibe. This has me wondering why Cormac McCarthy chose to write about this topic. At one point the father looks inside a trailer and finds many dead bodies, this makes me think the people did not die from a natural disaster. Maybe they are in a old war zone and they are trying to find other survivors. I think McCarthy is making a statement about what will eventually happen to society.
ReplyDeleteThis is defiantly a strange book. Everything seems to be very negative, the setting is often describe as burned, dark, and cold. I also don't see were this story is going to end up, the beginning is unclear on whats going on in the world around them. why is everything burned up? why is there no one around them? They seem to be the only people alive, but looking for more survivors. I wonder what inspired McCarthy to write this book in such a negative and depressing style.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Angie this is a unique book. It seems as if there is nothing but unbelivable situations all around them. They are the only people around for miles, they seen a man who was struck by lightning, and no one has tried to harm them yet. The only positive thing i can see is the father son relationship becoming a lot stronger. It is already easy to tell the fathers only priority is his son, so i think this story will be about the limits they go to to stay together and survive.
ReplyDeleteThis comment is based on last weeks reading: One aspect of this part that I wanted to focus on was where the father and his son revisited his home. The surrounding of the house is very dark and scary but yet the boy is suddenly frightened after entering his father's destroyed home. Why is that? Is it because he's familiar with the ones who once resided in the home? Is he scared of their spirits? I know there is an underlying meaning as to why he strangely fears his father' former home, bt isn't afraid of the darkness and danger outdoors.
ReplyDeleteI don't know about everyone else who is reading this book, but for me I feel like the description about how the environment is dark and depressing is very repetitive. It's as if this book is a bit slow in the beginning. It's not that interesting but hopefully the climax kicks in soon because it is boring.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jodaelle this book is starting out very slow and i am wondering what the twist is. This book does not seem to creative, when i read it the descriptions of the surroundings remind me of other apocalypse books and movies. Also to comment on the part about when they return to the fathers home and the boy suddenly becomes scared i think this is supposed to represent what happened there during the tragedy. I am guessing we will later find out what made the house look like it did.
ReplyDeleteInitially, I believed this book to be repetitive, but I beleive McCarthy is repeating details about the environment, such as something always burning or there being fire, for a reason. The constant presence of fire is to show constant destruction--it's to show that things aren't getting better and the world around the boy is getting worse which makes sense because this book takes place during the apocolypse.
ReplyDeleteWhen the father was talking to the son he said "Who is anybody?"(49) Meaning that no one and their positions matter in a world like this. This is to show how everyone is in the same boat and no one is better than the other because they are all living through the same troubles.
Both the boy and his father were following a man burnt from lightning but "at his pacce they weer losing the day." This quote emphasizes how much the day and light are very important to them and they're desperate for it in a world filled with darkness. It's so crucial to them that they can't take the time to follow where the man is going.
A very sad part of the book was when the mother wanted to give up on her life and thought negatively about the situation and didnt think of them as "survivors." This proves the stereotype that women are weak. She was the first to go; she left even before her child although her husband begged her to stay. Her heart didn't feel enoughh emotion to caret hat her husband and son would miss her dearly.
This book is very sad I agree, but I can't get into it the way that I would like to. I feel like McCarthy uses the natural disasters to only emphasize the destruction that is going on. It almost makes me feel that no one can win and they won't survive much longer and the book won't have a happy ending. I like how the author introduces a little about their lives.He goes right into the situation with the mom. I think that he could have transitioned into that more smoothly. It seemed like he just went right into it it. Maybe he did that because the setting and plot of the book is so raw that he did that on purpose. When the mother was about to commit suicide it states that she called it her "great gift" to them, but why would it say that if she was begged not to commit suicide? Does anyone have any predictions about the book?
ReplyDeleteAfter the father killed the cannibal who threatened his son's life, "a single round left in the revolver. You will not face the truth. You will not"(68) I feel that this meant that the father didn't want to use the gun because he believed his son and himself had a chance for survival throught the apocolyptic world. He didn't want to shoot either himself or the boy becauset hat would mean giving up as his wife had did. How do both these individual have enough bravery to walk throughout dangerous and depressing such as this? As stated he and his son were "going south" (60). Many movies that involve the world coming to an end or there is an epidemic have colonies where people exist and are healthy. Does his father beleive there is some sort of colony in the south? Who informed him of this? What do you guys think?
ReplyDeleteTo continue with what Jodaelle said, I also found it interesting how the father talks and thinks about death. It is like he does not want to give up trying to survive but he knows there is a large possibility they wont if they don't find other "good guys". What I found really interesting is when the father asks "But do you think I might lie to you about dying?" and the boy responds "yea"(101). This exchange happened when they were talking about how long humans can survive without food, and this made me wonder what the roots for the boy's thoughts were. Does he think his father is trying to protect him when he lies or does he think he is just trying to make it easier on himself. I am also still confused where the bad guys are coming from and why they are bad.
ReplyDeleteI found the father’s dedication to the son is really impressive. Although he’s dying he makes sure that he keeps going on for his son. They are trying to get to a destination, but nothing is waiting for the father when he gets there. I ultimately think he’s going to die at the end, but he just wants to protect his son. An example of his dedication to his son in my opinion is when the father and son “settled under a tree and piled the blankets and coats on the ground and he wrapped the boy” (McCarthy, 95). The father is basically doing everything for the son so how is the son going to survive if the father dies? In my opinion I think that the father should train the son to learn how to survive during this time. And I just wanted to say that this is the stereotypical post-apocalyptic in terms of the weather. It’s always raining and things are always in destruction, but McCarthy could just be mimicking the characters’ emotions.
ReplyDeleteI also read a New York Times’ article called “The Road through hell Paved With Desperation” which stated, “This parable is also trenchant and terrifying, written with stripped-down urgency and fueled by the force of a universal nightmare. “The Road” would be pure misery if not for its stunning, savage beauty” (Maslin, 2006). I believe that this book is so raw and I do believe that the rawness of this book is pretty beautiful. There aren’t much “decorations” in this book, it kind of stays on point. Does anyone feel like this book has savage beauty?
As the boy and his father's journey on the road continues readers are able to learn more about their characters although they don't exchange too many words amongst each other. Then again what new, interesting things are there to discuss among father and child after the world has fallen apart and there is no hope? The father depicts something as "the first human being other than the boy that he'd spoken to in more than a year. My brother at last. The reptilian calculations in those cold and shifting eyes. The grey and rotting teeth. Claggy with human flesh" (75). It was hard for me to decide whether the author was referring to the snow or the road, but I concuded the author was referring to the road because not only is it gray, but because the father has remain in constant contact with it like has the boy. Although both are hungry and grow desperate for food during their journey they make exceptions to what they eat several times because they consider themselves the good guys who are "carrying the fire" (83). In the distance they hear a dog and the son reassures "[they're] not going to kill it" (82). I question whether the father would behave differently if he didn't have his song alongside him and looking up to him. Would the father have eaten the dog or engaged in cannibalism if it weren't for his son disagreeing with that and constantly reminding him not to? I feel as though the boy believes that his dad is willing to give in and eat anything that comes his way which is why he keeps reminding him that they're carrying the fire.
ReplyDeleteAfter finishing this book I honestly have no idea what to think. This book is unlike anything I have read before mainly because there was no major character development or significant change, and that has been what we were looking for in English class over the last few years. To start off we never even find out there names, they are just known as the father and the son. Also we barely know anything about their life before the apocalypse, the only consistant trends I followed were destruction, death, and safety. I honestly did not enjoy reading this book because of the constant depressing descriptions of their surroundings and unclear future. Personally I disliked the ending the most because it was not an ending. We are left to wonder if the boy ever finds safety after his father dies and if the family he joined was actually the “good guys”. However I am assuming he joined a safe family because Cormac McCarthy has been using guns as a symbol for safety throughout the novel and when the man approached the boy “he carried a shotgun upside down over his shoulder on a braided leather lanyard and he wore a nylon bandolier filled with shells for the gun”(281). Everyone knows a shotgun with multiple shells is better than a pistol with one bullet so I thought this was symbolism for a safe future. Overall this story seems like it would work better as a movie.
ReplyDeleteWhen they arrive to the shore they notice that the ocean is grey, not blue, as they anticipated thus resulting in the boy's disappointment. The boy wanted to swim but his father warned him that he'd "freeze [his] tokus off" (217), but he allowed him to swim. I believe he did this to make up for his son's disappoinment. In a world where there is no happiness, the father tries his best to give his just a little bit of an emotion that is nearly nonexistant in this apocalyptic world.
ReplyDeleteI know I am late but I'm going to add the first couple of comments. I requested my book at the library and it took me a while to get it and I kind of forgot to respond so here is my response. I have heard of "The Road" before it was first introduced to me in Mr. Spencer’s class, Advanced Reading Seminar. Choosing this book I knew that there were no chapters and no names and that made reading it a little difficult for me. I often got confused and it was hard for me to imagine the characters because there were no adjectives explaining how they said something. For example, “Are we going to die? ‘Sometime. Not now" (McCartney, 10). When a person imagines a child asking this is should be really sad, but the dialogue just seems so dry. Now I just imagine the characters speaking in monotone I don’t like the way the dialogue is written at all. I often take the adjectives for granted, but I now I realize how Important they are in shaping the reader’s mind about the reading and how they picture each of the characters.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree to Anthony's January 3rd comment. I am glad that I finished this book because it was definitely something new and challenging. I never really got into this book therefore it was a real struggle for me to finish. Although the readers knew that the characters were living in a post-apocalyptic world, but he still made a point to describe the surroundings. I wondered why did he do that, but I am just going to guess. I think that he described their depressing surrounding because he never wanted the readers to forget what the characters were going through he wanted it in the reader's mind constantly. He wanted to make a point that through these horrible times the hope for a better life and love conquer all. Through this the characters still keep the "fire" inside of them even the father dies in the end, he died with the fire inside of him. They had to continue on the road which is the journey.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with Jodaelle’s December 28th post when she said that we could learn a lot about characters even though they don’t change much dialogue. I had a feeling that the father was sick and going to die through this passage. “They settled under the tree and piled the blankets and coats on the ground and he wrapped the boy in one of the blankets and set to raking up the dead needles in a pile.” (95) Also the passage, “coaxed the fire back to life” (96). At this point in this book everything is pointed out with life and death. For example those two passages where he describes the needles as dead and the fire alive. I feel that the author incorporates these subtly to stress how survival is so important at his point. He uses these descriptions so subtly in this book, but very often in my opinion because every little move can decide between life and death. But these descriptions do have some truth to them, things are either alive or dead there is no in between. We don’t really notice things because we do take life for granted and this point the characters in this book don’t.
ReplyDeleteRoadsters,
ReplyDeleteThis book poses the challenge of a journey from cover to cover -- it's a journey that is not fun, often filled with the same cold repetition and confusion that gives us a taste of what the characters may feel. You have risen to this challenge heroically with awareness and insight in grappling with some of the challenges McCarthy presents. What I most appreciate about your conversation is how you each posed new questions and ideas for the group on a whole range of aspects of the book, and used each other's ideas and questions to inform your own while still following your own thought down an original path.
You guys are the light!
To respond to Jodaelle’s December 1st comment. I think that he was afraid to visit the home because at this time the world is very dangerous so a person should be careful in each place they go. To see the place that he grew up to just end up being destroyed is very scary and emotional. Also the environment is very dark and little kids most likely scared of the dark so I could se why he would be scared to return. During this post-apocalyptic world why would anyone want to visit somewhere that is dark any way? I could only imagine during this time a person would only want to visit joyful places that aren’t vey dark, but light. Darkness represents things that are all evil and bad while light makes people feel secure. You can’t see in the dark making everything unpredictable just like their journey, so he want to steer clear of that.
ReplyDelete