McCormack’s novel “The Road” presents the struggle for survival of a man and his son in a post-apocalyptic world in which hunger and distrust has stripped men of their sense of humanity. Through his work, McCormack predicts that under such dire circumstances men will resort to cannibalism and, according to the film, it seems probable that due to both hunger and fear humans will end up exterminating each other. The film and the novel have an ambiguous ending, seeing as throughout the story the reader/viewer has been taught to distrust every other human aside form the two main characters.
At one point in the novel the man tells his son when asked what will happen to the boy they left behind that: “Goodness will find the little boy. It always has. It will again” (kindle location 3500-3507). This statement seems to allude to his own son’s fate, seeing as his son is oddly kindhearted and he also tells him that luck always finds him. And it is true, he always manages to survive every situation, even if it was because he had his father’s protection. However, what I think was even more important is the fact that he never lost his goodness in his struggle to live. He never killed or hurt anyone, and I believe that that’s what his father referred to when he would tell him that he carried the fire. He represented hope for humanity.
When the boy encounters the man he will join after his father’s death it is hard for the reader to trust him. The fact that he lets him keep the pistol, even after he offers to hand it over, and actually covers his father’s corpse with a blanket to me were indicators that he was well intentioned. The movie does an even better job of ending the story in a positive note, seeing as one is able to see how the woman is very happy to see him and seems genuinely interested in him as a person (and not as food). Also the novel mentions their having children, but the reader doesn’t know if he is lying to lure the boy in, while the film actually shows one the children and the dog. The children and the dog are symbol of hope, of a future rather than of death. If they haven’t even eaten the dog it is safe to assume they will not eat the boy.
4 comments:
I like the quote that you chose, and I completely agree that it is foreshadowing his son’s (good) fate. The boy stays pure throughout the entire process, even though he was born into this horrible world. He never got to experience the world in all its goodness – lush plant life, beautiful oceans and marine life, and the kindness of humans. The latter he experienced through his father, and I believe that his father is the sole reason that the boy stayed so pure throughout the process. I enjoyed your take on the subject: “He never killed or hurt anyone, and I believe that that’s what his father referred to when he would tell him that he carried the fire. He represented hope for humanity.” The hope for humanity was a great imagery – combined with the fact that he is a child and is “uncorrupted” by the horrible mess that surrounds him. A child is usually a figure of purity and hope, and McCormak uses the boy in this manner.
I also agree with you that the man’s intentions were pure – specifically for the reasons you stated. He covered the boy’s father, and he lets him keep the pistol. The mother, 2 children, and the dog were just icing on top of the cake. I like to think that the boy journeyed south with his new family, and they eventually found an unharmed area where they lived the rest of their days.
"He never killed or hurt anyone, and I believe that that’s what his father referred to when he would tell him that he carried the fire. He represented hope for humanity."
I agree. "Carrying the fire" meant that the boy still had a sense of dignity and respect for himself as well as common decency. In the grey, harsh world they lived in, fire represented color, warmth and life.
The movie does end the story on a more positive note. The novel offers more of a cliffhanger as it doesn't depict the new family as being completely trustworthy. We see the body language of the man who approaches the boy after his father's death and know from human experience that he means well. As the boy says his last words to his father, he travels with the man to meet his family where we see that the new father figure's children have a natural calm that isn't usually present in coerced kids. Also, the man's wife embraces the boy as her own with a warm hug. The boy becomes convinced that this family is doing the right thing and that they carry the same hope for humanity that his father instilled in him. The book stops short of proving to the reader how trustworthy this family seems.
The movie indeed does end more positive than the novel. I believe that after the boy’s father died and he was approached by the family following them, he was in good hands. He was a very strong individual that was faced with such destructive and catalytic events and somehow with much help from his father, managed to survive. It’s not easy to remain hopeful that things will get better when you’re in such an unbearable time of your life. The family covered his father with a blanket, which I felt was a sign of closure for the boy. Due to the cataclysm, his father was not granted a proper burial but the boy was going to be taken good care of. The family seemed trustworthy and genuinely cared about the well-being and safety of the boy. Another important and slightly funny note you mentioned was that the dog was alive and not killed for food. That showed that despite the fact that food and water was very scarce they did not sacrifice their dog to feed their family. They could have easily killed the dog to feed their children but they didn’t because like you mentioned, the children and the dog was a sign of hope for the future.
Some good points in the blog. The comments are very apt. However, the author of the novel is NOT McCormack. It is Cormac McCarthy. You need to be careful about things like that.
Post a Comment