The Road discussion

So, I read this book and loved it, but had a constant inner struggle with how old the kid was. Sometimes I thought he must be very very young (4-6 age group), and sometimes thought he must be at least in his teens (16-18 age group). What did you think?

i think i had him pegged around 11 - 13

I think he's pretty young but at times mature for his age. I thought some things indicated that he was supposed to be very young.

I would say 8-10. I have NO idea where you're getting 16-18.

Oh also, I read somewhere that Cormac got the idea for the book when he was with his 8 year old son, so I assume he modeled the child character in the book to be the same age.

I thought 16-18 sometimes because the father said stuff like: the kid could be off on his own -or- in a different life, the kid would be off on his own by now... stuff like that. Maybe he just meant the kid wouldn't be hanging out with and so dependent on his father.
8-10 seems about right though.

I pictured him as about 12, old enough to start being independent, but young enough to still need guidance and protection.

I haven't finished the book yet, but this has been bothering me too. It says in the book he was born at home and the father cut the cord with scissors,etc. I figured since he was born after the apocalyptic event, (do they ever say exactly what happened?)he could not be that old. Maybe aged 4? But the character acts more like an 8 year old. But realistically, how could they live like that for 8 years-- wandering and scavenging? (Maybe I'll find the answer myself when I finish the book?) I'm glad I'm not the only one wondering about this!

Meredith wrote: "But realistically, how could they live like that for 8 years-- wandering and scavenging? (Maybe I'll find the answer myself when I finish the book?) I'm glad I'm not the only one wondering about this!"

The events of a post-apocalyptic happening like the one alluded to in the book would not kill off life immediately; that would take years. PLUS, at any one time, This country has millions of pounds of food stockpiled. So, for the first few years it was just a matter of eating what was all around you. It's not until much later that food starts to really disappear.

Will wrote: The events of a post-apocalyptic happening like the one alluded to in the book would not kill off life immediately; that would take years. PLUS, at any one time, This country has millions of pounds of food stockpiled. So, for the first few years it was just a matter of eating what was all around you. It's not until much later that food starts to really disappear.

That makes sense.

Just finished the book and what the father said to him and all at the end, I'm thinking he might have been about 9-10.

I would pass on the movie, by the way, just in case you were thinking of watching it. It's not terrible, but it doesn't even come close to the book.

I presumed he was aged 4-8 years of age and the maturity he shows is because he was raised in a post apocalyptic society.

Michael wrote: "I presumed he was aged 4-8 years of age and the maturity he shows is because he was raised in a post apocalyptic society."

I was thinking that, too. I could go either way.

based on the movie I think about 10..

The kid portrayed in the movie was too old for the role in my opinion. I agree with Michael: probably 4-8 yrs old.

I figured the boy for 10-12 and at times I wondered if he wasn't retarded.

Will wrote: "I would pass on the movie, by the way, just in case you were thinking of watching it. It's not terrible, but it doesn't even come close to the book."

I was wondering if I should rent it and decided not to after watching some previews. That you it doesn't even come close to the book confirms I don't want to see it.

I disagree that the film is bad, I think it is absolutely stunning and on a par with the book (which i rated 5/5). Yes there are scenes from the book missing from film but the atmosphere and general feeling of the book is captured in the film beautifully. one of my favourite books and one of my favourite films.

I think he is between 8 and 12. I think this book has an exceptional tone and is excellent at setting mood.

8-9-10 somewhere in that range - excellent book - dark and full of foreboding but a beautifully rendered study of a deep and loving father-son bond (albeit one under constant duress).

I'd have to say 5-10, somewhere in there. He was too fragile to be a teenager.

Craig wrote: "I'd have to say 5-10, somewhere in there. He was too fragile to be a teenager."

I'm not sure about that in this world. His dad protected him from a lot.

Laura wrote: "Craig wrote: "I'd have to say 5-10, somewhere in there. He was too fragile to be a teenager."

I'm not sure about that in this world. His dad protected him from a lot."

He did protect him a lot, but only a very small child needs that kind of protection. Also, the stranger at the end spoke to the boy as a child, not a teenager. One constant characteristic emphasized through out the whole book was the boy's fragility. A boy of more than 5 to 7 doesn't need someone else to draw a bath for him, but the father did that for him. Only small children need that kind of care and attention.

He can't be more than 8. Definitely 5-7.

Just to add my frame of reference, I've got 4 kids ages 4, 6, 7, & 11.

My niece is 10, and in comparison, I don't think 10 would be too much of a stretch, although I think 8 is the most likely age. 5 is wayyyy too young.

I reckoned on about 11 or 12.

My guess is that he was in the 7-10 year old age bracket, but who would know how this post apocalyptic world would effect his social and emotional intelligence. It may have stunted his development in areas and made him more mature in others.

I don't believe the age was all that important, he symbolized innocence which could be at any age, that being said, I pictured him being the same age as my son at the time I read wich was 5.

Will wrote: "My niece is 10, and in comparison, I don't think 10 would be too much of a stretch, although I think 8 is the most likely age. 5 is wayyyy too young."

have you ever touched grass

Halle wrote: "Will wrote: "My niece is 10, and in comparison, I don't think 10 would be too much of a stretch, although I think 8 is the most likely age. 5 is wayyyy too young."

have you ever touched grass"

I'm sure they have touched grass but I'm not too sure about you... I believe Will's comment makes perfect logistic sense and naysayers like you only bring the rest of us down ): Will seems delightful and your negativity has no place here ):