Carole Reviews: The Road by Cormac McCarthy

Author: Cormac McCarthy
Title: The Road
Genre: Science Fiction, Dystopia, Drama, Classic
Pages: ebook
First Published: Janurary 1st, 2006
Where I Got It: Borrowed ebook from my local library

"A father and his son walk alone through burned America. Nothing moves in the ravaged landscape save the ash on the wind. It is cold enough to crack stones, and when the snow falls it is gray. The sky is dark. Their destination is the coast, although they don’t know what, if anything, awaits them there. They have nothing; just a pistol to defend themselves against the lawless bands that stalk the road, the clothes they are wearing, a cart of scavenged food—and each other."






**REVIEW FROM 11/2013**

I technically had to read this for my Contemporary Literature class, but since I had this on my TBR list it seemed like an excellent excuse to put this on the front burner and get it read now. haha. Funny how life works. 

This was super, super dark. Super gloomy and super depressing at parts. I recommend that you need to have a thick skin to read this, because there are a few scenes that are rather disturbing. I love it. Okay, I don't love all the cannibals and the putting infants on a roast spit, but I love how McCarthy didn't shy away from the truth. If there was a huge disaster and 99% of animals and vegetation were destroyed, yes, the people that survived would turn to desperate measures. People would lose all of their humanity and become little better then animals in starvation mode. It's a shitty world and people do shitty things.

Simple truth. Which I'm so glad McCarthy didn't try buttering anything up. However, there is a light of hope in this world. The Boy (and one can argue the Father shows this once in a while) has a golden heart and is filled with goodness. He has hope. I can't spoil the end, but I will say that...there is goodness out in the world. Small as it is, it is there. 

Another good thing about this book, it wasn't long at all. It took me virtually no time to finish (took me a long time to actually sit down and write this review though). I am thankful for McCarthy doing this, because it was a hard book to get done. It was rather simple in writing, it was just emotionally hard to get through from time to time. Just some scenes made me shake my head and have to walk away for a moment. Which...I'm glad the author also included some happy memories and flashbacks, which temporarily added the sun to this ashen world of terribleness. 

In the end, it was a good book. I feel that the movie and this are near equal. Some parts of the movie were better and some parts of the book were better. This may have been a dark novel to read, but if you are an avid (adult) reader I highly suggest this. You may not fall in love with it, I know I didn't, but it really makes you think. I also highly suggest this to those who love the classics. This is a modern day classic and will be remembered throughout literature. Out of five stars I shall give this 4 stars. 

**RE-READ REVIEW:
It was good to reread this. I noticed and connected more dots while reading this. I even felt more sympathy for the Mother. Yes, she is still a selfish bitch to abandon her family, but I understand her more. I wouldn't want to live in this. It was still very dark and it made me want to re-watch the movie. I still will stamp this with 4 stars. It is a good book and I recommend to everyone over the age of 15. LOL

Sam Reviews "The Road" by Cormac McCarthy - July 2016

I don't usually read synopses for books picked for the book club, mostly because I plan to read them regardless of how I feel about the summary.  However, the PDF I found of this book was headed by a synopsis and so I read through it.  What strikes me is the following statement:  "The prose is quintessentially McCarthy: spare, desolate, unemotional, reserved of both unnecessary vocabulary and punctuation."  I have mixed feelings about authors and books that do away with common literary devices, but I think because this is a book more about the "journey" than the "destination" I will appreciate the quickness of this story more than I might in a different circumstance.

The book might go into it eventually but I wasn't expecting to step "years" into the journey.  (Kind of like when I started Z Nation I was surprised that it didn't start at the beginning of the apocolypse.)

"He knew only that the child was his warrant. He said: If he is not the word of God God never spoke."

Realistically I wonder how long a cart (assuming a shopping cart) would last pushing it for miles and miles on rough pavement.  I also thought it was pretty ingenious to add a mirror to the cart to keep an eye behind you.

Why does the author refer to the main characters as "the man" and "the boy" if the two are actually related, why not just refer to them as "the father" and "the son"?

"'Just remember that the things you put into your head are there forever,' he said. 'You might want to think about that.'
"'You forget some things, dont you?'
"'Yes. You forget what you want to remember and you remember what you want to forget.'"

The Road drinking game:  Every time you read the word "Gray" take a drink!

"In his dream she was sick and he cared for her. The dream bore the look of sacrifice but he thought differently. He did not take care of her and she died alone somewhere in the dark and there is no other dream nor other waking world and there is no other tale to tell."

"'If you break little promises you'll break big ones. That's what you said.'
"'I know. But I won't.'"

Knowing that you have to let someone else did just so that you can live, and not even being able to just shoot him to put him out of his misery, must be the worst thing in the world.  [In reference to the man who was burned in the tar.]

"'I wouldnt leave you.'
'I dont care. It's meaningless. You can think of me as a faithless slut if you like. I've taken a new lover. He can give me what you cannot.'
'Death is not a lover.'
'Oh yes he is.'"

"The hundred nights they'd sat up arguing the pros and cons of self destruction with the earnestness of philosophers chained to a madhouse wall."

Not that I'm a fan of this possibility but wouldn't killing and eating the dog be the best course of action?  Except for the fact that they only have one bullet.

When the narrator is describing the "parade" of people and says that there is a dozen ore more women in their convoy, some of them pregnant.  What logic does it make to get people pregnant?  Clearly the world has been destroyed beyond just "building a new society" - all of the trees are dead and the only things growing are mushrooms, so it's not likely that they'd be able to survive.

The plantation they found, I'm assuming they locked their slaves in the cellar and turned to cannibalism, am I right or did I totally miss something?

Obviously if every house they came to had nothing to offer then the story wouldn't go very far, but the fact that he found a cistern of water as well as a ton of dried apples just seemed way too good to be true and I was really surprised when no one jumped out and threatened him.

"'You should thank him you know', the man said. 'I wouldn't have given you anything.'
"'Maybe I should and maybe I shouldn't.'
"'Why wouldn't you?
"'I wouldn't have given him mine.'
"...'Why did he do it?' He looked over at the boy and he looked at the old man.
"'You wouldn't understand', he said. 'I'm not sure I do.'
"'Maybe he believes in God.'
"'I don't know what he believes in.
"'He'll get over it.
"'No he wont.'

"'You wont wish us luck either, will you?' the man said.
"'I don't know what that would mean. What luck would look like. Who would know such a thing?'"

When the portable stove gas tank went empty, it's amazing to think about being in a situation where getting mad is truly useless.  The man could have yelled and screamed and devalued the boy for making such a thoughtless mistake, but what good would that do them?  So instead he just breathes and says "It's not your fault" and just moves on from his disappointment.

When the man was sick and was talking about memories I wasn't sure if the scene where men pried up a rock and burned snakes alive was a past memory or a current happening.  If it was current why didn't the men just eat the snakes instead of torturing them?

Oh my god, do you think people would resort to getting pregnant just so they could eat the infants later?

When they find the house with the home jarred goods and the boy is afraid to go upstairs, it seems really dumb to not investigate the upper story but to still start a fire in the living room fire place.

I liked how at the end the Man was asking the Boy to tell him a story and the Boy kept saying how his story wouldn't be good because it's not happy and it's too much like real life, and the Man says, "I think it's pretty good. It's a pretty good story. It counts for something."  Kind of seemed like a 3rd wall break or something and I always like those.

"'What's the bravest thing you ever did?'
"'Getting up this morning, he said.'
"'Really?'
"'No. Don't listen to me. Come on, let's go."

How old is the boy?  Obviously he's at least grade school age, but the statement:  "In some other world the child would already have begun to vacate him from his life." almost implies that he's even older than that.

After the Man died and the Boy started off on this own, how did the other guy who came along know him?  And who was discussing whether or not to go back and get the boy?  Was it really the same group of people from the town so long ago, were they just following him this whole time?

The ending seemed very abrupt.  Is it just assumed that the boy tagged along with this other family and things just went on similarly as they had with the Man?  That they lasted as long as they could and then they died?  And what was with the last paragraph about the trout?

Overall, I liked the book.  I don't know that I would re-read it.  I think this is a book better off as a movie, which I know probably sounds crummy of me.  But I am excited to see the movie now.