What is the purpose of the blog?
This blog was created to assist you in your "free choice" book discussions, but it can develop into a forum to answer questions, exchange ideas, and extend classroom discussions.
I find the format that Cormac McCarthy’s novel, “The Road,” exceedingly intriguing. At first the flow seemed choppy, but after a while I started to understand the format better. The story of this man and is son is divided into many small parts, each part having its own significance. Many segments share a similar purpose that reinforces McCarthy’s ideas. For example, many of the pieces are dreams or involve the man and child talking about their dreams. The father is troubled by dreams because he felt that “the right dreams for a man in peril were dreams of peril and all else was the call of languor and of death.” The format also diverts the reader’s attention from how they survive by omitting sizable time spans and randomly visiting past events to why they continue trying to survive. One of the glimpses of the past that McCarthy weaves into his story involves the man’s wife. She has decided to kill herself and the man does his best to convince her not to follow through with her idea, but cannot find a reason to stay alive himself. Because of this the man convinces that he must live to ensure his son’s survival.
I agree with his textual format response from you Kyle, McCarthy uses very brief dialect and very vivid imagery to display the author’s dark tone of the future. The use of this diction is amazing and really involves you with the text and to feel as if you are starving with the boy and the man. I was so involved with this book I finished it in one sitting. On another note did you guys like or dislike the author’s vagueness of background info to the current situation and the setting. There are no character names, no names of anything. I think the author does this to show you that these particulars no longer matter in this new dark world. Lets start "blogging" about this strategies used by the author
I to would have to agree with you Kyle in the beginning McCarthy’s Paragraph structure is immensely confusing. However, as you stated you become one with what the author is trying to convey and it then becomes increasingly less difficult to understand and follow. To your point also Austin, I love his use of vivid imagery in his novel. At no time throughout the entire novel do I ever have to wonder to myself what the main characters surroundings look like. McCarthy has no problem using up two or more pages just to describe the desolate wasteland that the man and his son are traveling through. McCarthy uses extraordinary connections to personification and many enticing metaphors to give his images and settings very human or sometimes even very inhuman characteristics. To address your question Austin I personally feel that if McCarthy gave all the information away in the beginning the book itself would not nearly have the level of appeal that it did. For me, it was he lack of knowledge that kept me reading for hours.
Well, as stated previously by my beloved friends, the beginning of "The Road" by Cormac McCarthy is full of nothing but a series of paragraphs that seem difficult to piece together but as time goes on and pages go by, the book seems to go much more smoothly. I too found myself wisked away into the story and have finished this book in a mere two sittings however in response to Austin's question: although I personally dislike the author’s vagueness, I can see the relation of the utter destruction of the land to the fact that traditional society and ways of things have also gone out the window. Almost that we have similar knowledge of the situation that we did. But McCarthy made excellent use of the imagery and personification both of which had me deeply invovled in the story and both of which provided that much more towards the enjoyment of the book.
I for one did not like how McCarthy did not provide any background information. I spent most of my time trying to understand what happened. All I understand is that there were huge fires that destroyed a lot of land and damaged many cities. The ash from those fires was then carried into the upper atmosphere where the particulate matter was so thick that it partially blocked out the sun, this killed all plant life and caused the temperature to drop. McCarthy also alludes that there was some sort of seismic disturbance and an increase in storms. These events somehow destroyed our system of authority, ability to farm, and produce electricity.
I think that McCarthy did not include names in his story on purpose. I think this was meant to highlight how few people were left and encourage the readers to put themselves in the characters place. McCarthy expects the reader to question what they would do if they were in the father and son’s place.
It kind of bothered me to not know what happened, but I think that maybe the ambiguity made it more powerful. For me, that made whatever happened seem even more sinister. The lack of character names made the setting even more bleak to me. It implied that this is a world where names aren't needed because the world is almost deserted.
I agree that the book is vefry confusing in the beginning, i had so many questions to figure out like where is this boys mother? How did the world become like this? What year was it? But as the book went on it was like a puzzle that i had to peice together bit by bit with the pieces that the author provided here and there through the main characters thoughts, dreams and flashbacks. To Nacho's commentabout the author's vagueness i find that this writing style was supposed to match the vagueness of the world through the main characters eyes and establish the tone. The vagueness matched the world in which the grayness, dullness, and hopelessness was amplified in the imagery, diction and tone.This books imagery mesmerized me and the author's use of stitching together the pieces which led to the conclusion was also amazing.
Hey I didn’t know you were reading this book Sommer! How do you like it? Anyway back to the commenting. So to kind of go along with the very confusing style of McCarthy’s writing does anybody else find the conversations between the child and his father or the father and the old man confusing? Personally I find it hard to follow at times and to identify who is saying what. Also the fact that they tend to repeat each other’s conversations aids in leaving me very confused But anyway I would love to hear what you guys and girls think.
Well here another thing we could try and discuss. What are your guy’s favorite passages from the novel? Mine is on page 180-181 it is the last paragraph on 180 and is continued onto the next page. But anyway, although somewhat confusing in its context this is a magnificently powerful passage. McCarthy gives a vivid image of the desolate wasteland that they deal with daily and expresses the bareness and the lack of hope this place brings. He uses words like “black” and “dark” and “grim” to set an eerie (spelled wrong?) tone. In addition he also compares this place and the people in it to things like “hell” and the bottom of the sea (which of course is very dark) and also an “ancient dark beyond.”
Well I really liked the book... It was a little weird but i really liked the author's writing style. The conversation's between the man and little boy were a little strange and hard to follow but i think that that was the point because these two didn't hardly have contact with other people. Something I didn't like about the book was how much description there was on them just walking around and digging through stuff, it seemed very repetitious because this is what they did throughout the entire book. I found myself having to reread some of these parts because i would zone out.
Something that I'd like to hear from you guys is how you interpreted the very last paragraph of the book. What do you think the author's point was to end the book like this? And honestly the very last sentence of the last paragraph confused me... i didn't catch the author's point of what he was trying to get across to the reader in this last sentence.
I agree with you Sommer sometimes I felt like I missed the real relevance of McCarthy’s descriptions. But here is one to think about. On page 188-189 there was a part where these men are burning the snakes that they found. McCarthy spends to paragraphs describing these animals burning and how the men just watched silently until they were dead. I related this back to when the bombs went off and it charred the earth leaving only ash and nothing more. The bombs also left no room for words because they would have been detonated and in that time nobody would’ve had a chance to say anything. Hence the “silence” portion of the snake burning part. What do you guys think?
I found the conversations between the father and son quite interesting. They only really contained the bare minimum, even down to their written format. (no quotation marks or any means of identifying the speaker) The father is usually the only one who tries to explain himself and the son typically responds in short phrases or questions. Their conversation reminds me of the conversation I sometimes hear between my grandparents, it is the conversation of two people who have a deep understanding of each other. The father knows that his son is does not want to do somethings (like go upstairs in houses) but he still takes the time to check. On the other hand the boy knows that his father is going to do anything that will help them survive no matter how the son feels about it.
One other thing that I don’t believe anybody has acknowledged yet that is indeed very unique to this novel is the fact that there is no separation of chapters throughout the entire novel. I believe that one of the effects of doing this is to have no separation between the thoughts not hat McCarthy needs to have them because the novel is actually one big ongoing journey. Along the same lines, it allows McCarthy’s story to flow as one continuous thought without any separation of plot. This structure also allows the reader to stay connected to the story and makes the plot much easier to follow. Opinions?
Okay, now that you mention the format of the novel as a whole, does any one have an idea at to who and when the story is being told? Once in a while the story will take a glimpse into the mind of the father, clarify what happened, or make a comment about the son's memory. For example the father's dreams and memories. Also when on page 87 when all of a sudden there is a paragraph in first person that ends with "[t]hat is the the dog he remembers. He doesnt remember any little boys." Sometimes, for me anyway, it seems as if the son is telling the story to people he is traveling with. The larger gaps in the story are parts that he omits because nothing important is happening or the story is told over a series of nights and he does not always pick up where he left off. Then parts of the story are meant to convey certain values and ideas. The incidence where the father pries open the 'cellar of horrors' and the sons caution depict the value of caution in their world. The father's insistence that they still go up stairs to check for goods is meant to remind his fellow travelers that it is important to find those goods. One of the main components then would be the constant repetition of finding what they needed in their hour of ultimate despair. This would be meant to remind his fellow travelers not to loose hope and that they too can survive. My other theory is that the father is recounting the story somehow after his death, but there seems to be less evidence.
I find it simply to be written as the landscape is, which is barren and in chaos. The fact that this world has lossed all sense of order seems to have carried over, at least in some cases into his writing and it is almost that the writing is just as mysterious as the situation is to us. We are supposed to get as little details as the characters themselves are getting.
Concerning the issue of not having defined chapters is to continue the theme of a lost of order and all the norms that would be considered with it. I find the lack of chapters almost a device itself, the story keeps moving regardless of where it begins or ends as there is no "moderating" force anymore.
I also agree with Steph on the neglection of giving any of the characters names. The names seemed trivial in comparison to the issues facing them as a whole. Instead of having to worry about the faces of the characterrs, we were forced to worry about what made the characters, and how the characters survived thier day to day lives. Not having the names just added a form of sincerity to the story, it gave something that much more beliavable.
The end of this book is ridiculous. I cannot decide whether I like it or if it makes me angry. I mean the son gets so many lucky breaks, but something bad always happens first. This is frustrating because "life is not fair," for me, usually, if something bad happens, something worse happens. Anyway the man that finds the boy mentions "discussion about whether to even come after you at all." This leads to some questions. How many people? How long had said people known about the boy? How are they staying alive (especially if they do not eat people)? It seems to me that "they" are a just another family who is trying to go south, but for some reason I have a feeling that the family is traveling with a band of like-minded people. But most puzzling to me is the disfigured man's comment "If you stay you need to stay you need to keep out of the road. I dont know how you made it this far." Does this mean that the father and his son somehow managed to wander into the middle of an area that is controlled by some sort of cannibalistic warrior group that roams the road in search of food? Possibly the new home to the group that passed them on the road? What do you think of the last paragraph? It is super heavy. It seems to me that it is an accusatory rant against or way of life. (this may just be because we are talking about global warming so much) The last paragraph may serve as a warning. A warning that humanity can destroy nature, that our greed may lead to the ultimate retaliation (the nuclear variety), that we do not truly understand nature, that our mistakes are irreparable. I do not know, I just know that the last paragraph makes me feel guilty in some weird way.
Kyle I actually really like the end of the book it couldn’t have ended any other way. One of the major themes of the book is how the father teaches the son how to live life not only by surviving, but also how to be a man in this new world. For the father to have not died the lead up of the book wouldn’t have made any sense. Also whenever the man at the end picks the boy up on the road after the boys father died, I thought that was very appropriate. If no one had picked the boy up you would have left the book feeling incomplete or saddened. That end makes you have hope that the son will reach it south and survive to see a new world that he always wanted to. A somewhat complete and happy ending in a very sad and incomplete book.
And Ryan about the irrelevance of chapters or development. I think he does this because the story cannot be compartmentalized like other books. There’s never a break, never a resting point in these characters lives and the ending of a chapter gives this feeling. Then father and son are living in a non existent world were they are constantly being aware of there surroundings fearing every move they make. It is for this reason McCarthy never segments the book into chapters in my opinion.
I find the format that Cormac McCarthy’s novel, “The Road,” exceedingly intriguing. At first the flow seemed choppy, but after a while I started to understand the format better. The story of this man and is son is divided into many small parts, each part having its own significance. Many segments share a similar purpose that reinforces McCarthy’s ideas. For example, many of the pieces are dreams or involve the man and child talking about their dreams. The father is troubled by dreams because he felt that “the right dreams for a man in peril were dreams of peril and all else was the call of languor and of death.” The format also diverts the reader’s attention from how they survive by omitting sizable time spans and randomly visiting past events to why they continue trying to survive. One of the glimpses of the past that McCarthy weaves into his story involves the man’s wife. She has decided to kill herself and the man does his best to convince her not to follow through with her idea, but cannot find a reason to stay alive himself. Because of this the man convinces that he must live to ensure his son’s survival.
ReplyDeleteI agree with his textual format response from you Kyle, McCarthy uses very brief dialect and very vivid imagery to display the author’s dark tone of the future. The use of this diction is amazing and really involves you with the text and to feel as if you are starving with the boy and the man. I was so involved with this book I finished it in one sitting. On another note did you guys like or dislike the author’s vagueness of background info to the current situation and the setting. There are no character names, no names of anything. I think the author does this to show you that these particulars no longer matter in this new dark world. Lets start "blogging" about this strategies used by the author
ReplyDeleteI to would have to agree with you Kyle in the beginning McCarthy’s Paragraph structure is immensely confusing. However, as you stated you become one with what the author is trying to convey and it then becomes increasingly less difficult to understand and follow. To your point also Austin, I love his use of vivid imagery in his novel. At no time throughout the entire novel do I ever have to wonder to myself what the main characters surroundings look like. McCarthy has no problem using up two or more pages just to describe the desolate wasteland that the man and his son are traveling through. McCarthy uses extraordinary connections to personification and many enticing metaphors to give his images and settings very human or sometimes even very inhuman characteristics. To address your question Austin I personally feel that if McCarthy gave all the information away in the beginning the book itself would not nearly have the level of appeal that it did. For me, it was he lack of knowledge that kept me reading for hours.
ReplyDeleteWell, as stated previously by my beloved friends, the beginning of "The Road" by Cormac McCarthy is full of nothing but a series of paragraphs that seem difficult to piece together but as time goes on and pages go by, the book seems to go much more smoothly. I too found myself wisked away into the story and have finished this book in a mere two sittings however in response to Austin's question: although I personally dislike the author’s vagueness, I can see the relation of the utter destruction of the land to the fact that traditional society and ways of things have also gone out the window. Almost that we have similar knowledge of the situation that we did. But McCarthy made excellent use of the imagery and personification both of which had me deeply invovled in the story and both of which provided that much more towards the enjoyment of the book.
ReplyDeleteI for one did not like how McCarthy did not provide any background information. I spent most of my time trying to understand what happened. All I understand is that there were huge fires that destroyed a lot of land and damaged many cities. The ash from those fires was then carried into the upper atmosphere where the particulate matter was so thick that it partially blocked out the sun, this killed all plant life and caused the temperature to drop. McCarthy also alludes that there was some sort of seismic disturbance and an increase in storms. These events somehow destroyed our system of authority, ability to farm, and produce electricity.
ReplyDeleteI think that McCarthy did not include names in his story on purpose. I think this was meant to highlight how few people were left and encourage the readers to put themselves in the characters place. McCarthy expects the reader to question what they would do if they were in the father and son’s place.
It kind of bothered me to not know what happened, but I think that maybe the ambiguity made it more powerful. For me, that made whatever happened seem even more sinister.
ReplyDeleteThe lack of character names made the setting even more bleak to me. It implied that this is a world where names aren't needed because the world is almost deserted.
I agree that the book is vefry confusing in the beginning, i had so many questions to figure out like where is this boys mother? How did the world become like this? What year was it? But as the book went on it was like a puzzle that i had to peice together bit by bit with the pieces that the author provided here and there through the main characters thoughts, dreams and flashbacks. To Nacho's commentabout the author's vagueness i find that this writing style was supposed to match the vagueness of the world through the main characters eyes and establish the tone. The vagueness matched the world in which the grayness, dullness, and hopelessness was amplified in the imagery, diction and tone.This books imagery mesmerized me and the author's use of stitching together the pieces which led to the conclusion was also amazing.
ReplyDeleteHey I didn’t know you were reading this book Sommer! How do you like it? Anyway back to the commenting. So to kind of go along with the very confusing style of McCarthy’s writing does anybody else find the conversations between the child and his father or the father and the old man confusing? Personally I find it hard to follow at times and to identify who is saying what. Also the fact that they tend to repeat each other’s conversations aids in leaving me very confused But anyway I would love to hear what you guys and girls think.
ReplyDeleteWell here another thing we could try and discuss. What are your guy’s favorite passages from the novel? Mine is on page 180-181 it is the last paragraph on 180 and is continued onto the next page. But anyway, although somewhat confusing in its context this is a magnificently powerful passage. McCarthy gives a vivid image of the desolate wasteland that they deal with daily and expresses the bareness and the lack of hope this place brings. He uses words like “black” and “dark” and “grim” to set an eerie (spelled wrong?) tone. In addition he also compares this place and the people in it to things like “hell” and the bottom of the sea (which of course is very dark) and also an “ancient dark beyond.”
ReplyDeleteWell I really liked the book... It was a little weird but i really liked the author's writing style. The conversation's between the man and little boy were a little strange and hard to follow but i think that that was the point because these two didn't hardly have contact with other people. Something I didn't like about the book was how much description there was on them just walking around and digging through stuff, it seemed very repetitious because this is what they did throughout the entire book. I found myself having to reread some of these parts because i would zone out.
ReplyDeleteSomething that I'd like to hear from you guys is how you interpreted the very last paragraph of the book. What do you think the author's point was to end the book like this? And honestly the very last sentence of the last paragraph confused me... i didn't catch the author's point of what he was trying to get across to the reader in this last sentence.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Sommer sometimes I felt like I missed the real relevance of McCarthy’s descriptions. But here is one to think about. On page 188-189 there was a part where these men are burning the snakes that they found. McCarthy spends to paragraphs describing these animals burning and how the men just watched silently until they were dead. I related this back to when the bombs went off and it charred the earth leaving only ash and nothing more. The bombs also left no room for words because they would have been detonated and in that time nobody would’ve had a chance to say anything. Hence the “silence” portion of the snake burning part. What do you guys think?
ReplyDeleteI found the conversations between the father and son quite interesting. They only really contained the bare minimum, even down to their written format. (no quotation marks or any means of identifying the speaker) The father is usually the only one who tries to explain himself and the son typically responds in short phrases or questions. Their conversation reminds me of the conversation I sometimes hear between my grandparents, it is the conversation of two people who have a deep understanding of each other. The father knows that his son is does not want to do somethings (like go upstairs in houses) but he still takes the time to check. On the other hand the boy knows that his father is going to do anything that will help them survive no matter how the son feels about it.
ReplyDeleteOne other thing that I don’t believe anybody has acknowledged yet that is indeed very unique to this novel is the fact that there is no separation of chapters throughout the entire novel. I believe that one of the effects of doing this is to have no separation between the thoughts not hat McCarthy needs to have them because the novel is actually one big ongoing journey. Along the same lines, it allows McCarthy’s story to flow as one continuous thought without any separation of plot. This structure also allows the reader to stay connected to the story and makes the plot much easier to follow. Opinions?
ReplyDeleteOkay, now that you mention the format of the novel as a whole, does any one have an idea at to who and when the story is being told? Once in a while the story will take a glimpse into the mind of the father, clarify what happened, or make a comment about the son's memory. For example the father's dreams and memories. Also when on page 87 when all of a sudden there is a paragraph in first person that ends with "[t]hat is the the dog he remembers. He doesnt remember any little boys."
ReplyDeleteSometimes, for me anyway, it seems as if the son is telling the story to people he is traveling with. The larger gaps in the story are parts that he omits because nothing important is happening or the story is told over a series of nights and he does not always pick up where he left off. Then parts of the story are meant to convey certain values and ideas. The incidence where the father pries open the 'cellar of horrors' and the sons caution depict the value of caution in their world. The father's insistence that they still go up stairs to check for goods is meant to remind his fellow travelers that it is important to find those goods. One of the main components then would be the constant repetition of finding what they needed in their hour of ultimate despair. This would be meant to remind his fellow travelers not to loose hope and that they too can survive.
My other theory is that the father is recounting the story somehow after his death, but there seems to be less evidence.
I find it simply to be written as the landscape is, which is barren and in chaos. The fact that this world has lossed all sense of order seems to have carried over, at least in some cases into his writing and it is almost that the writing is just as mysterious as the situation is to us. We are supposed to get as little details as the characters themselves are getting.
ReplyDeleteConcerning the issue of not having defined chapters is to continue the theme of a lost of order and all the norms that would be considered with it. I find the lack of chapters almost a device itself, the story keeps moving regardless of where it begins or ends as there is no "moderating" force anymore.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Steph on the neglection of giving any of the characters names. The names seemed trivial in comparison to the issues facing them as a whole. Instead of having to worry about the faces of the characterrs, we were forced to worry about what made the characters, and how the characters survived thier day to day lives. Not having the names just added a form of sincerity to the story, it gave something that much more beliavable.
ReplyDeleteThe end of this book is ridiculous. I cannot decide whether I like it or if it makes me angry. I mean the son gets so many lucky breaks, but something bad always happens first. This is frustrating because "life is not fair," for me, usually, if something bad happens, something worse happens.
ReplyDeleteAnyway the man that finds the boy mentions "discussion about whether to even come after you at all." This leads to some questions. How many people? How long had said people known about the boy? How are they staying alive (especially if they do not eat people)? It seems to me that "they" are a just another family who is trying to go south, but for some reason I have a feeling that the family is traveling with a band of like-minded people. But most puzzling to me is the disfigured man's comment "If you stay you need to stay you need to keep out of the road. I dont know how you made it this far." Does this mean that the father and his son somehow managed to wander into the middle of an area that is controlled by some sort of cannibalistic warrior group that roams the road in search of food? Possibly the new home to the group that passed them on the road?
What do you think of the last paragraph? It is super heavy. It seems to me that it is an accusatory rant against or way of life. (this may just be because we are talking about global warming so much) The last paragraph may serve as a warning. A warning that humanity can destroy nature, that our greed may lead to the ultimate retaliation (the nuclear variety), that we do not truly understand nature, that our mistakes are irreparable. I do not know, I just know that the last paragraph makes me feel guilty in some weird way.
Kyle I actually really like the end of the book it couldn’t have ended any other way. One of the major themes of the book is how the father teaches the son how to live life not only by surviving, but also how to be a man in this new world. For the father to have not died the lead up of the book wouldn’t have made any sense. Also whenever the man at the end picks the boy up on the road after the boys father died, I thought that was very appropriate. If no one had picked the boy up you would have left the book feeling incomplete or saddened. That end makes you have hope that the son will reach it south and survive to see a new world that he always wanted to. A somewhat complete and happy ending in a very sad and incomplete book.
ReplyDeleteAnd Ryan about the irrelevance of chapters or development. I think he does this because the story cannot be compartmentalized like other books. There’s never a break, never a resting point in these characters lives and the ending of a chapter gives this feeling. Then father and son are living in a non existent world were they are constantly being aware of there surroundings fearing every move they make. It is for this reason McCarthy never segments the book into chapters in my opinion.
ReplyDelete