Family Troubles

Hey everyone, welcome back to my blog! I hope you all have enjoyed this journey as much as I have. In the last post, I talked a lot about the struggle of remaining moral in a world where being sinful is easier. Throughout that post, I also briefly analyzed the two main characters. However, I never dove deep into their characterization. This post is going to focus heavily on how the two characters interact with one another as well as my opinions on each of them. _________________________________________________

At the end of the last section, the man and the boy encounter a bunker. The bunker has saved them from starvation and also gives them hope for the future. Although the man is at first happy to have encountered the bunker he later

“[wishes] they’d never found this refuge. Some part of him always [wishes] it to be over” (130).

The man often struggles between wanting to die and wanting to live. I feel the only reason he is still living is because of his son. Most people along the road do not have people to rely on. The man and the boy rely heavily on each other. Without the other, they would not be able to continue emotionally let alone physically. The constant strain of survival they face each day ultimately takes a toll on their mental and physical health. The man pretends to be this strong and indestructible for his son. However, on the inside, he is anything but formidable. For instance, upon waking up in a fit of coughing the man says

“I am going to die. …. Tell me how I am to do that” (148).

This again reinforces the idea that the man does not wish to continue living. He asks himself how he can die emphasizing the fact that he wishes to. His son is his only source of strength and the only reason he remains alive. 

The boy on the other fears death. Throughout the novel, he repeatedly asks his father “are we going to die?” He needs the reassurance his father offers to feel secure. The boy’s will to live depends solely on his father. Without him, he would not be able to survive. Despite his fear of death, the boy remains strong and resilient, often refusing to admit his hunger to his father. He wishes to appear strong in the eyes of his father regardless of his fears and weaknesses. One of his major weaknesses is his compassionate nature. For example, on the road, the man and boy encounter an old man. While the man wishes to continue without a second thought, the boy

“[squats] and [puts] a hand on his shoulder. He's scared, Papa. The man is scared” (136).

The man begrudging gives the old man food and treats him to dinner. This showcases how the boy’s top priority is being a good guy. He wants to ensure that he and his father are helping people and “carrying the fire.” His compassionate nature often overshadows his survival instincts. His weakness will eventually lead to his downfall. 

In a way, the two characters in this novel are foils of one another. The scene I describe above showcases their different opinions. The man wants to focus solely on their survival while the boy concerns himself with the survival of the old man. He feels for the old man and stresses over his future while the man is only concerned with the life of his son. Furthermore, the man and the boy differ in their idea of right vs. wrong. In the first section of the novel, I mention a scene where the man kills another human being. The boy has difficulty accepting the action as he believes they have done something wrong. The man, on the other hand, believes he did the right thing for their survival. 

The boy doesn’t seem to understand that the man is acting as a father as well as a protector. This is often where their opinions differ. For instance, upon spotting a house in the distance, the man suggests

“...to take a look.” The boy, however “[doesn’t] want to” (172).

The man knows that they need food desperately. As a father and his protector, the man decides to take a look anyway despite the risk and the boy’s hesitation. Their opposite opinions showcase their character foil and their different instincts of survival. The man takes the necessary risks needed for their survival while the boy lets his fear get in the way. Their difference of opinion balances out. Without the other, their actions would cause their destruction. Without the other, the man would take to many unnecessary risks while the boy would be ruled by his fear.

After reading a majority of The Road, I can confidently say that this is one of my favorite literary novels. The plot has kept me interested throughout and the characters are unique. The man’s determination for survival and the love he has for his son overshadows the griminess of their world. I love how the character converse. The simple phrases give more insight into their thoughts than one would think. It forces me to stop and think more about their conversations. The limited background knowledge we have also forces readers to over-analysis every small detail.

_________________________________________________

Thank you all for reading my blog! Tune in next week to continue this journey!

Speed Bumps

Hey guys, welcome back to my blog. Last week, I wrote about the start of the novel as well as McCarthy’s writing style.  If you haven’t read the first post, I would recommend reading it to understand the basic summary of the novel. In this post, I will continue to analyze the novel and share my thoughts and feelings regarding the plot. 

_________________________________________________________________

Going into this week, I am excited to read more of The Road, as it ended on a bit of a cliffhanger. The man and the boy had just encountered a group of "bad guys" when I stopped reading. Their strength of character and devotion to one another is tested as they strive for survival in this scene. Upon being spotted by one of their enemies, the man immediately

"[cocks] the pistol and [holds] it on the man" (65).

His swift reaction and lack of consideration showcases his devotion to his son. He is willing to defy the moral laws of life to protect his only living family. When the enemy tries to harm the boy, the man instantly and without hesitation, kills the foe. He then proceeds to run towards the woods with the boy. This event kick starts the next phase of their journey. Before this scene, the two characters are close to one another. However, this event creates cracks within their foundation as a family of “good people”. The rest of this section is full of similar events where their determination to remain good is put to the test.  

In this new world, laws are nonexistent. No government enacts the rules of the land. It's up to the remaining citizens to create laws for life. Unfortunately, most of the remaining humans are corrupt. They chose to live in anarchy by enslaving people for food or sexual violence. The man and the boy, however, live with moral laws still in mine. They avoid harming other people and try to live as reclusively as possible. This section of the novel tests their ability to remain good as they are pushed to their physical limit. For instance, following the scene I describe above, the boy questions,

“Are we still the good guys.” His father answers, “Yes. We’re still the good guys” (69).

Witnessing the killing of another human being rattles the boy as he doesn’t know how to act. He questions his purity and needs validation from his father to know if he is still a good person. I think it's interesting how McCarthy creates a sense of right or wrong in this new world despite the obvious hardships humankind faces. Readers know that killing another person for food is bad. But if you are starving and your only choice is to turn to cannibalism, would you do it? Or would you abide by the old rules of society? The man and boy choose the latter which creates a barrier between them and the rest of society. By living up to the laws of the old world, the man often struggles between doing what is right and what is necessary. For instance, as the boy and man walk through the woods, they hear a dog. The dog is a potential food source, but the boy begs the man not to kill it. Despite their dire situation and lack of food the man

 "[looks] down at the boy. Shivering in his coats. He [bends] over and [kisses] him on his gritty brow. [I] wont hurt the dog, he [says]. I promise.” (70).

This quote again showcases the man’s dedication to his son. He is willing to let them starve instead of upsetting the boy by killing the dog. His need to remain "good" in the eyes of his child pushes him to act without thinking of their crippling situation. Their relationship is more important to the man than death. He is willing to die of starvation before harming another living creature for the sake of the boy. 

As the section goes on, their situation only continues to grow worse. After losing all their supplies in their haste to get away from the enemies, the man and the boy find themselves near death. When they spot a farmhouse in the distance, the man decides to risk it and search for food. He knows there could be other people in it, but they need food desperately. Upon entering the house they encounter people enslaved for food. The boy and man immediately flee the scene and run back to the woods.  After the scene, the boy asks 

“We wouldnt ever eat anybody, would we? 

No. Of course not. 

Even if we were starving? 

We’re starving now. 

You said we werent. 

I said we werent dying. I didnt say we werent starving 

But we wouldnt. 

No. We wouldnt. 

No matter what.

No. No matter what. 

Because we’re the good guys. 

Yes” (109). 

The boy again needs that validation from his father to know if he is still a good guy. He feels guilty for leaving those people knowing their outcome. The man tries to reassure the boy by promising that they will never eat another human. Within that promise, the man also vows to remain moral and never succumb to darkness.

This section of the novel embodies the struggle of remaining good in a world where being bad is easier. The man and the boy know that they have to live in the light for the sake of their relationship. If they were to succumb to the darkness, their bond as father and son would be ruined. They would no longer be a family who “[carries] the fire” as their determination to never give up would be lost the moment they give in. The love they share for one another is embodied by their perseverance and strength of character. Without it, they are no better than the tyrants who enslave people for food.

_________________________________________________________________

Thank you for reading this post. I hope you all enjoyed it! Tune in next week to learn more about their journey along the road.  

Destination Unknown

Hello blog readers! It's that time of the year again when blogging comes back in full force. This new blog is going to follow my journey as I read and analyze the novel The Road, written by Cormac McCarthy. 

____________________________________________________________

As a new reader of McCarthy, I didn't know what to expect going into his novel. I have never read any of his work or heard much about him from friends or family. However, the little plot summary I read on the internet drew me into the novel instantly. The Road follows the journey of a man and a boy, later discovered as father and son, who are traveling across a ruined United States. In this dystopian world, the United States and the rest of the planet have been burned and destroyed. Ash covers much of the land and all the animals are essentially dead. All that remains are scattered groups of humans corrupt with violence. As the man and boy travel South in search of food, water, and warmer weather, they encounter many challenges. Although, most of their challenges in the first fourth of the novel involve the need for basic human necessities. 

After reading the first few pages, I am immediately hooked. The author has a unique sense of style, where he emits most of the plot from the readers. His short paragraphs with direct sentences frame the story without giving much detail. This style of writing emphasizes the importance of each sentence as the reader has little information to dissect. Despite his bare minimum writing style, the love the man and the boy share for one another is evident. In a way, his minimalist style emphasizes the relationship between the two characters. For example, Cormac McCarthy doesn’t use quotation marks making the speaker bare and stripped to nothingness. The simple, unembellished statements and questions in which the two characters converse give the reader a clear sense of tenderness and devotion between the father and son. This can be seen when the son asks the father,

“What is it, Papa?” The father answers, “Morels. It’s morels.’ 

‘What’s morels?’

‘They’re kind of mushroom.’ 

‘Can you eat them?’ 

‘Yes. Take a bite” (34). 

The innocent questions and simple answers eliminate the background noise. The direct sentences the author creates allows for the character's raw emotions to be shown. Wordy sentences can often overshadow the emotions of the characters. Short, concise sentences, however, focus the attention of the readers on the meaning of each word. 

As I stated above, I have only read the first fourth of the novel. Most of this section follows the boy and the man as they travel along the road. Throughout this section, they search for food and warmer weather despite the extreme conditions. The author’s use of detached diction in this section showcases the extreme conditions as well as their intense determination for survival. For instance, following the river the man and the boy

“...[walk] out through the woods. The light [is] failing. They [follow] the flats along the upper river among huge dead trees. A rich southern wood that once held may-apple and pipsissewa. Ginseng. The raw dead limbs of the rhododendron twisted and knotted and black” (34). 

This passage encompasses much of what the book is about. The detached diction the author uses showcases the barren atmosphere.  Words like “failing,” “huge dead trees,” and “raw dead limbs” provide a somber description of their setting while expressing their dire situation. The simple vocabulary also showcases the author's detached voice and raw feelings. 

Furthermore, McCarthy, as I am learning, loves to be unique in his writing style. Not only does he have limited punctuation and no chapters, but he switches into flashbacks without warning. One minute the speaker will be in the present, and the next he is remembering his dead wife. Usually, this happens at night when the man has a minute to rest physically and mentally. For instance, as the man lays in the dark he dreams of the past where he says to his wife 

“We’re survivors.” 

‘Survivors?’ she said. 

‘Yes.’

‘What in God’s name are you talking about? We’re not survivors. We’re the walking dead in a horror film” (47).  

Instead of remembering a happier moment, he dreams of the night she killed herself. The quote later goes on to describe her trouble accepting their fate and her decision to die. This flashback gives us insight into the man's past as well as showcase his true dedication to his son. Instead of taking the “easier” road and killing himself, he chooses to fight for survival. By writing the novel out of chronological order, McCarthy is expressing the importance of the present. The past only serves to cause the man pain as he cannot recreate what is lost. Focusing on the present is the only way they can survive day-to-day. Remembering the past will only serve to showcase their grim future. And their future as foreshadowed throughout this section is very grim. 

Thank you all for reading this post. Tune in next week to learn more about their journey along the road.