The Road discussion

I love dystopian books and this is truly the only on that I hated!!

It was boring and didn't do what dystopian literature is meant to. Even when something "exciting" happened, the writing style made it seem dull.

And why does McCarthy never even tell you what happened to the world? Reading this book is pointless as there is little or no development of characters or any even remotely big event. Except that he dies.

Is the movie any better?

OK - I didn't want to offend anyone, as I respect other people's opinions and tastes, but I just have to agree with you Rhine. I just didn't get it hey - and the whole hype about this book? Huh? :)

Julia wrote: "OK - I didn't want to offend anyone, as I respect other people's opinions and tastes, but I just have to agree with you Rhine. I just didn't get it hey - and the whole hype about this book? Huh? :)"

ahah yeah thanks. exactly! i mean, fine lots of people write bad books but how did it ever get so popular?!

Don't get it at all!! When I finished - I was like, OK, what just happened?

I'm all for weird and wacky books, but this was just strange, but not in a good way strange ... :)

I'm sorry you guys didn't like it, but I believe this is one of the best books ever, definitely in my top 10. It exposes raw human nature in the manner of poetry.

I hated it as well but hey, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

It depends on what you are reading for. There are those who only want a story. Point A to point B, and perhaps a point C and D. The characters are vehicles for the plot. You desire an event (or events) with exposition, conflict, and resolution. This is the usual formula for popular forms of entertainment, be it books, television, or film.

The Road is not a book designed for a plot. The apocalyptic event is not the keystone; it is the relationship between the boy and his father, it is the language. Take a step back and observe the novel from the standpoint of usual reality. The events of our lives rarely have a tidy exposition, point of conflict, and encompassing resolution.

There is nothing wrong with enjoying the more common forms of entertainment. The traditional plot paradigm has been in place for centuries, and will (and also should) remain. However, some authors -- and readers -- are at times bored with the conventional aspects of storytelling. They seek to shift the focus, the momentum. Recognizing this difference in approach is paramount to appreciating modern literature in its various forms.

While I appreciate the points made by defenders of this book, sometimes the emperor is just stark raving naked. That's the case with The Road, for me. What McCarthy seems to have done is look at the post-apocalypse novel and strip away everything that might be risky--actually going out on a limb and inventing a science-fictional scenario. Lately SF has been a new area for mainstream writers seeking readers, yet the 'respectable' writers will only go so far into the woods of 'that stuff.'

I don't buy that McCarthy's book is just too sophisticated for simpleton readers who demand a plot. Tidy, safe, etc. are all buzzwords to label those who dislike a book as thugs who just want sex and violence. Well, no, that's not true. Even the wildest avant garde novels can have plots, and just because a novel doesn't have a plot it doesn't make that novel challenging and somehow 'better' than 'mere' entertainments.

A book isn't reality, it's a reflection of reality, a warped reflection, and the writer chooses from his tool box what he will use to tell his story. I think McCarthy did a very good job of depicting a bleak future, and he did a very good job of showing how difficult survival would be for these characters in this world. But all the pretense about how deep and serious this all is--how McCarthy is playing a High Art game, and those puny readers who don't like this book just don't understand the machinery of these writer/critical establishment gods--goes straight down the chute with his ending, where SPOILERS BEGIN our heroic, ever-suffering Daddy dies senselessly, while angelic Son is protected and finds love in a new nuclear (d'oh!) family END SPOILERS.

Now, I'm into all kinds of strange fiction, and I'm also into good stories, but when I got to the end of this, I laughed out loud at the soap opera malarky. McCarthy wants us to believe this is all so dark and foul and un-book-like, it's REAL, man, you know?...and in the end, we get the oldest cliche in the book. ((You want hardcore, non-tidy? Kill the kid.)) The whole facade falls apart because he can't go all the way with his bleakness because he wants to sell some books. Nothing wrong with that, but the ending is why when I read about how the rest of us Just Don't Get The Artistry, I chuckle.

I'm not sorry I read this book, but I can't rate it much more highly than any scifi novel. This one uses hip bleakness and plays it safe throughout, not mussing any feathers or saying anything at all controversial, and ends with something out of a boy's adventure novel.

Enjoy the book if you can, but spare us the tut-tutting about how the rest of us Just Don't Get It. We get it, all right; we just don't buy the hype, and can judge a book for ourselves without the Times Literary Supplement's blessing. And in the case of The Road, some of us just didn't see what all the fuss was about.

And spare us the "holier than thou" malarkey. The Road is clearly an important book and is significantly beyond your attempts to belittle it John. I'm sorry that you did not seem to get it either.

John wrote: "While I appreciate the points made by defenders of this book, sometimes the emperor is just stark raving naked. That's the case with The Road, for me. What McCarthy seems to have done is look at ..."

:)

Peeps - let's agree to disagree ... whatever blows your hair back man!! :)

It's one thing to review and give your thoughts on a book, another thing all-together to berate others for their opinions, which is exactly what John did, by starting/stating his scathing review in the manner he did.

Anyway, you're right. This book tends to get bi-polar responses and everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Enjoy.

(P.S. I hate those Peep things :) )

Hey man - this is a chilled forum for book lovers. Everybody should build a bridge and get over themselves ... :) Chill peeps. :)

Isn't if funny how these things go. Someone posts a comment saying they HATE SOMETHING, someone agrees with them. Someone else says they think it GREAT. Then someone jumps in and berates those who say it's great. When it is pointed out that the berater is not talking about the book, but attacking those who like it, taking the 'holier than thou'/I know better attitude and you who like it clearly are idiots. And then of course someone who thinks they are LAW ENFORCEMENT jumps in and tell everyone what to do.

Isn't it funny. I think it's funny.

(and chilled peeps are only slightly less offensive than microwaved peeps.)

I really tried to point out that I didn't think the book was "too sophisticated" or that the masses are ill-prepared. I think almost everyone can appreciate literature, it just requires altering the frame of reference a bit. Maybe it's still not a worthwhile book. I do agree with you, John, on the ending. It was sappy. However, try not to be so abrasive. Criticize the book, not its supporter. Let's not turn a forum on books into a forum on politics.

This book scared the bejesus out of me; and I know it seeped into my subconscious because I remember having nightmares about it. It's also very moving.

The ending I have no problem with. I really wanted the little boy to make it. I was rooting for him all the way.

This is a post-apocalyptic book by necessity only. McCarthy stated he got the idea to write it while standing with his 8-year-old son at some southern tourist attraction and he looked at the desolation around him and imagined the landscape on fire. He imagined what would he do in that hopeless situation where it was just him and the boy. That's the frame of reference for the story, the parent and child, what forces drive them when to all appearances hope is gone. What use is morality and ethics if survival is better achieved through detached self-interest or even sadism. Does desperation erode humanity. The state of the world is simply a vehicle for presenting these ideas in the most extreme context possible.

The Road is not a feel-good book with a plot that keeps you turning pages. If anything, it's a book that benefits from slow reading and letting these ideas sink into you. It's plain and unironic, forthright to the point of melodrama, a stark departure from the majority of entertainment in today's culture. If that type of storytelling does not affect you, it's perfectly okay not to like this book, but don't presume that it is not an important or affecting work to others.

Caution: Spoilers ahead.

Also, in regard to the ending, John states that McCarthy "can't go all the way with his bleakness because he wants to sell some books." I contend that this wasn't a bleak book. That the child dying would have destroyed McCarthy's argument that, even in the worst circumstances, parental sacrifice is a worthy endeavor. The point of the bleak atmosphere is to allow us to see how these two defy it even when it's weight feels so crushing.

Kenny wrote: "Isn't if funny how these things go. Someone posts a comment saying they HATE SOMETHING, someone agrees with them. Someone else says they think it GREAT. Then someone jumps in and berates those who ..."

I didn't say I hated something, I just gave a review. The opening you seem to object to was this:
"While I appreciate the points made by defenders of this book..."

Saying I appreciate the other guy's opinion even thou I strongly disagree with it is holier-than-thou/a personal attack?

I'm merely expressing my opinion. If you have some problem with that, it's just that--your problem, not something I wrote.

There is indeed an attitude from the book's defenders that those who don't like it are just too dense and don't GET it, and it's over their little heads. I responded to that later in the review. If I'm not talking about you in particular, why should you care?

Tom wrote: "Caution: Spoilers ahead.

Also, in regard to the ending, John states that McCarthy "can't go all the way with his bleakness because he wants to sell some books." I contend that this wasn't a bleak ..."

Tom,

I do think it was indeed a bleak book, and it seems that he swerved away from where he was going. I see your point, though.

"...it's perfectly okay not to like this book, but don't presume that it is not an important or affecting work to others. "

Have no idea where this comes from--when did I say other people didn't find it important or affecting? I didn't.

P.S. That's certainly interesting about his being inspired by his son, and it may explain the ending. I think Stephen King once said he put PET SEMETERY (sp?) away because his wife wept over the way the boy is treated in that. Writers are just people, too. But in this case, it was jarring, because a totally bleak ending is what the book seemed to be heading for, and it would have actually made me like the book for its gutsiness. But at that point, it seemed, the writer stepped in and jerked the story away from where it was heading, and made the ending the very scifi type of ending that the fans of this book applaud it for not being.

I didn't like it either but hey, other books that I love love loved....people hated....to each, his or her own. There are plenty more books out there...we can all find one to enjoy and hopefully someone else enjoys it too, so you can find someone to talk about it with :)

Stacey,

Of course you're right. The goal isn't that everyone agrees. To me, the goal is exchanging ideas. It would be boring to agree on everything, and pointless to disagree on everything.

I would have to agree with a lot of readers that 'The Road" was a bit anti-climatic. I did enjoy the concept of the book and I appreciated the relationship between the father and son through their struggles. In a culture that seems to thrive on post apocalyptic themes, this one took a typical approach to the genre. I found the story line of The Book of Eli to be a whole lot more satisfying despite the unrealistic nature of the story.

Jeanpaul wrote: "I would have to agree with a lot of readers that 'The Road" was a bit anti-climatic. I did enjoy the concept of the book and I appreciated the relationship between the father and son through their..."

Yes Jeanpaul - I said the same thing. "The Book of Eli" was absolutely brilliant and it's not even my thing. :) To be honest, I can't even remember the details of "The Road" - it bored me so much.

Stacey wrote: "I didn't like it either but hey, other books that I love love loved....people hated....to each, his or her own. There are plenty more books out there...we can all find one to enjoy and hopefully s..."

Yes Stacey - I agree!!

I didn't love it but I didn't hate it either

John wrote: I do think it was indeed a bleak book, and it seems that he swerved away from where he was going.

I think you and I read the book very differently. To someone putting more importance on the setting than the relationship, it might very well seem like a bleak book. But the point, and it seemed obvious to me, was a rejection of nihilism. That McCarthy wanted to portray a situation of absolute desperation in order to shine a light on the nature of human morality and the power of love between a parent and child. If the boy dies, the theme is destroyed and the work becomes nihilistic itself. It would destroy the value of the man's sacrifice, it invalidates the boy's quest to be the "good guys" and sends the message that the world is bad and eventually you will succumb to misery.

That would be a bleak book indeed. My views on it are more fully explored in my review here: http://tnt-tek.com/reviews/review-the...

I first read No Country for Old Men and loved the book so quickly moved onto The Road. All i can say it was hugely disappointing story line and ending. Not something id recommend to anyone than high-school students.

Movie wasnt up to much either.

While this book engrossed me into the story while I was reading it, the ending left me extremely disappointed. Usually I remember the books I read in very specific detail. There are only a few things I remember about this book - a shopping cart, a ship and the main characters.. For me, if I can't even remember the main events of a book then it's not worth reading again. I can do bleak, but as far as where I thought the book was going to go and where it actually went was exactly what I expected, and not in a good way.

Rhine wrote: "I love dystopian books and this is truly the only on that I hated!!

It was boring and didn't do what dystopian literature is meant to. Even when something "exciting" happened, the writing style ma..."

completly agree with you. Thought it was just me that wasnt getting it. It was recommended by a friend who said if i liked The Stand i would love this. What an insult to Stephen King. I Love The Stand it is one of my favourite ever books and The Road is not fit to be mentioned in the same breath.

Sue wrote: "While this book engrossed me into the story while I was reading it, the ending left me extremely disappointed. Usually I remember the books I read in very specific detail. There are only a few th..."

you cant remember anything that happens in the book because nothing does happen. Every chapter you end up hoping for something, anything to end the dullness and boredom and every chapter you are left disappointed.

Nathan wrote: "It depends on what you are reading for. There are those who only want a story. Point A to point B, and perhaps a point C and D. The characters are vehicles for the plot. You desire an event (or eve..."

I completely agree with your comments. There have been other films and novels addressing how 'man' would behave in such dark times....some good and some terrible. McCarthy depicts how people might be reduced to behave when they are reduced to animal instinct surroundings. Some people could adapt to it...and others like the mother could not. His novel was a look at the roots of our human inclinations when the advantages of civility have been removed.

I was truly impressed with McCarthy's details of each setting encountered by the father and son. His descriptions kept me just as captivated as the topic.

I just wanted to add my name here to those readers who loved this book. I was literally moved to tears throughout the book, and sobbed like a baby when I reached the end.

***Caution minor spoilers***

I was amazed at the the briliance of McCarthy's ability to capture the voice of a parent desperate to protect their child. His use of simple unadorned dialogue to capture such feeling is trully remarkable.

I was even more impressed by the way McCarthy caught the voice of a child growing up in a unsafe world, his need to find goodness, and especially his need for constant reassurance that this "goodness" existed in the actions of his own small family unit.

The end of the book left me with a bag full of emotions and questions. Why did the boy throw caution to the wind and approach the stranger as he did? Was it in despair and helplessness? was it because of his eternal desperation to find goodness in others and the world? Is the world as dangerous as his father had envisioned? And many other questions to ponder.

I am not overstating when I say that this book deeply affected me, this is a book I plan to reread and I will definitely be reading more from this author in the future.

John wrote: "While I appreciate the points made by defenders of this book, sometimes the emperor is just stark raving naked. That's the case with The Road, for me. What McCarthy seems to have done is look at ..."

hear hear! as someone with a taste for both fine literature and fine science fiction, i have to say i think this book failed on both counts.

and before someone accuses me of lowbrowitude, get back to me when you've read the entirety of Moby Dick and actually enjoyed it.

Ah, thx Joe for the explanation. :)

I loved this book, at times I found it almost unbearable and had to stop for a while. I cared so much about the father and son, and in the end, the big thing for me was that in the midst of all the devastation and cruelty, there was still love

and hope!

Nathan wrote: "It depends on what you are reading for. There are those who only want a story. Point A to point B, and perhaps a point C and D. The characters are vehicles for the plot. You desire an event (or eve..."

Thank you!

Wendy wrote: "Rhine wrote: "I love dystopian books and this is truly the only on that I hated!!

It was boring and didn't do what dystopian literature is meant to. Even when something "exciting" happened, the wr..."

I agree that it's not anything like The Stand but it's not a dystopian book or a horror story or any of that. It's actually closer in genre to, I don't know, if Mad Max met The Great Gatsby. It's just not a normal story

Rhine wrote: "I love dystopian books and this is truly the only on that I hated!!

It was boring and didn't do what dystopian literature is meant to. Even when something "exciting" happened, the writing style ma..."

This is not a dystopian book and that's why it didn't do what dystopian literature does. And the story is not meant to excite you. If you know Mcarthy's writing, none of it excites you, regardless. It's just not meant to. There are no action sequences, even if they're running. I can see why you found it boring though. It's not like it's not slow. It's not like there aren't scenes that couldn't have been taken out, because there could have been. But the story is simply and only about the father and son on the road and the few events that happen and nothing more. Just thought I'd add that. I liked the book and it took me way too long to finish it because the entertainment value isn't immediately there, but the emotions from more than a few of the moments kept me going and I remember them as if they happened to me, in a way.

For what it's worth, I didn't enjoy the book either. It was difficult to finish. On the other hand, Blood Meridian takes my breath away, although it is very brutal.

Well it's nice to know that I'm not the only one. I just did not see the point in this book and also hated it.

Rhine wrote: "I love dystopian books and this is truly the only on that I hated!!

It was boring and didn't do what dystopian literature is meant to. Even when something "exciting" happened, the writing style ma..."

I agree. This is one of the sorriest books I've ever read -haha!

I love the book! Its genius and poetic in my opinion.

Its a very simple book, about the relationship of a father and son. Its not a work of science fiction, and its not a dystopian or a post-apocalyptic text as some would like to lable it. Its not about political or social structures, and its not about global devastation or the end of the world.

The setting of the novel is incidental and simply a tool to aid in the narrative developement and thematic elements of the novel. The world is wiped away so that the narrative can focus on the relationship between father and son without the ornamentation of "civilization" and society to get in the way. The daily hardships and fear of cannibalism are meant to intensify this relationship and explore the father's inherent need to protect, and the son's eventual growth beyond that need. It is an exploration of that relationship and the bonds that exist between fathers and their sons.

People who are looking for a Book of Eli, Mad Max, Total War or Pilgrimage to Hell style post-apocalyptic sci-fi action thriller will be gravely dissappointed because this is not what McCarthy was aiming for. He is not a science fiction author, and this is not a work of science fiction. There are no combat scenes of father and son squaring off in pitched bloody battles against roving bands of punk rock cannibals. There are no mutants, no crazed and power hungry town dictators, no Mad Max style vehicles or chases through toxic wastelands and there are no beautiful damsels in distress for the father and son to rescue and latter fall in love with.

I am personally a huge fan of all of these and most of my favourite novels are the of Post-Apocalyptic, Dystopian and Science Fiction categories, which is what admittedly led me to this book in the first place... but I personally found something more beautiful and more powerful than I imagined.

Sadly, the book has often been presented as the above in the media and other commercial interests which have no concern or respect for the intellectual endeavour, and they have done the book, its author and potential readers a great disservice by doing so. Many people pick it up expecting a sci-fi post-apocalyptic adventure and are dissappointed to learn that its not.

What the book is for me, is a wonderfully beautiful and sublime exploration of the relationship of fathers and sons where the setting and the hardships they endure serve only to highlight and expediate this relationship as opposed to being the story itself. This is not a commercially driven novel, instead it is the expression of the author's exploration of a subject dear to him... its poetic, emotional and thoughtful.

For me, reading this novel was a profoundly moving experience that has been matched by only a handful of texts before, and will likely be at the top of my list for years to come. Granted, the grammatical structure and sparce narrative style is not for everyone, and there is surely not enough action or romance for others, but then no work can satisfy the world.

I agree completely uh8myzen!

Maybe I didn't "get" it, I dunno. I do read a lot of so called "classic literature" and love a lot of it, but this one just bored me to tears. Personally, reading this book was a complete waste of my time.

If others enjoyed it and got something out of it though, more power to them!

John wrote: "McCarthy wants us to believe this is all so dark and foul and un-book-like, it's REAL, man, you know?...and in the end, we get the oldest cliche in the book. You want hardcore, non-tidy? Kill the kid."

I totally agree.

Karen wrote: "John wrote: "McCarthy wants us to believe this is all so dark and foul and un-book-like, it's REAL, man, you know?...and in the end, we get the oldest cliche in the book. You want hardcore, non-ti..."

Actually that's not right in this scenario. He's not trying to make things all bleak. It's just that things are bleak. This is an effortless endeavor. To be truthful, much of the dialogue was taken from conversations with Mccarthy's actual son. To have the reader understand them better, he placed the conversations in this context. So there really wasn't a point to kill the kid.

I'm going to be the guy to say it. If this book bored you, that's fine. I can see that, even from a stylistic standpoint. If it rubbed you wrong and you didn't get the point of it all, I can see that too, honestly. But you can't say it didn't do what it was trying to do. It wasn't trying to do anything. It did it, which is why it is praised. It gets praised because whether you like it or not, it did what it was trying to do. It is successful in tone, dialogue, perspective and brings these characters alive...effortlessly. It might have been boring, but it wasn't trying to keep you on the edge of your seat. But it wasn't trying to be bleak. It was bleak.

U.L. wrote: "Actually that's not right in this scenario. He's not trying to make things all bleak. It's just that things are bleak. This is an effortless endeavor. To be truthful, much of the dialogue was taken from conversations with Mccarthy's actual son. To have the reader understand them better, he placed the conversations in this context. So there really wasn't a point to kill the kid"

I'm with you... McCarthy isn't trying to be bleak... its not about bleak, its about the relationship of fathers and sons (and specifically his relationship with his son).

This is a character driven work... its not meant to have action, its not an escapist work as so may people seem to want it to be. The big problem here is that people are looking for a Book of Eli type apocalyptic adventure, but McCarthy was not trying to write that kind of book.

I would also say that of all the books he has written, this is the least commercial and the most intelligent piece of writting he has done to date. He was not writing to anyone's expectations... if he was, it would likely have had the action and gore people seem to be missing in it. In fact, he avoided any hint of his previous subject matter, the stuff that has been his bread and butter, to write this book. For any author that takes balls, and most would not have had the courage or sway with their editors and publisher to do it. So I hardly think that its fair to say he was trying to be anything other than real when he wrote a book that breaks not only with his previous works, but any genre expectations that would normally apply to a post-apocalyptic novel.