Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I haven't read the book but I really did not like the film. It was just depressing and boring and the ending was saccharine. I also compared it to I Am Legend, which was by far a more visually pleasing and well acted movie with an interesting storyline.
If you liked I Am Legend, then I would suggest you check out Quiet Earth-which I am pretty sure I Am Legend is based off of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wandering_Spirit
...is what brought all of this on? It was never covered in the movie. Was it nuclear war? Was it disease? What? And how did all other life die but not some humans? Someone mentioned that he was looking for his wife - did she leave them?
As I stated previously, McCarthy does not know himself what happened, and as the author, it is irrelevant. The story is about the relationship between the father and the son, nothing more, nothing less. Here is an interview with the author that should explain some things to those who are 'confused'. Cormac McCarthy on The Road - WSJ.com
The Sun was blocked out, and as a result the planet was getting colder. The wife believed that they should go south in order to find a warmer climate. She also believed that it was only a matter of time before pillagers found them, stole all of their stuff, and potentially raped and killed them. The husband was stubborn and thought that they should just stay put, but she lost all hope that he could protect the family (after all, he only had two bullets for his gun) and lost all hope in any sort of future. It all seemed futile to her and she wanted the husband to shoot her, but when he refused, she walked off into the cold, snowy, night without much in way of warm clothing. She knew that she wasn't going to last long, but whether or not she died was never revealed. But yes, this was the impetus that caused the father and son to hit 'the road' and why they were going south-partially because the husband was holding on to her memory (searching for her) and partially because he finally believed that perhaps she was right. When he throw his wedding ring over the side, it signified that he realized that she was gone.
As I stated previously, McCarthy does not know himself what happened, and as the author, it is irrelevant.
I don't buy that, and if McCarthy does, I think he needs to re-read his own book. It's pretty clear in the book what happened. In one of the flashback scenes between the man and his wife, it describes how they listened to "distant explosions," saw the flashes on the horizon, the fires, etc. He couldn't have better described a nuclear attack and subsequent nuclear winter if he tried.
Quote:
Originally Posted by K-Luv
The story is about the relationship between the father and the son, nothing more, nothing less.
I mostly agree. I think the story is ultimately about death, specifically coming to terms with your own mortality, especially as a parent. McCarthy himself became a father when he was much older than most dads. He has to realize he'll be dead when his son is still pretty yong. It's that knowledge that is the central theme of the book: "I'm going to die soon, and who is going to take care of this kid that I love so much it hurts?" Add to that a belief that the world is swiftly going to hell in a handbasket. That's the theme of The Road.
I don't buy that, and if McCarthy does, I think he needs to re-read his own book. It's pretty clear in the book what happened. In one of the flashback scenes between the man and his wife, it describes how they listened to "distant explosions," saw the flashes on the horizon, the fires, etc. He couldn't have better described a nuclear attack and subsequent nuclear winter if he tried.
Do I even need to ask why you don't 'buy' something that the author himself claims? Cormac wrote the book, and no matter what you, or I, believe, he is the only one who really knows the answer. But I'll tell you this, the guy seems to be a no non-sense kind of guy. I don't know what he would gain from withholding the 'truth' about what happened to cause the Earth to become barren. I am sure that he had some thoughts in his head when he wrote it, but it is irrelevant as it is not what the story is about. The story focuses on the relationship between the father and son, not what happened before the kid was born.
The only thing that matters is that the Earth is jacked-up and they are dealing with it. If your curiosity does not allow for an unanswered question from the author, then I dunno.
Cormac hangs out with a Santa Fe think tank of scientists that 'think about this sort of stuff', and it is probably from them that he received some inspiration for the backdrop. Yes, it could describe a nuclear explosion, but it could also describe an astroid hitting the planet or a volcano erupting.
Do I even need to ask why you don't 'buy' something that the author himself claims?
Because artists do it all the time. Sometimes they seem to delude themselves. (Paul McCartney is infamous for reinventing his own history with the Beatles and their work. George Lucas is another one who is constantly contradicting himself about his own work.) And sometimes they do it just to mess with critics' minds. (I think it was Chesterton who once remarked that St. John never saw any vision so strange as one of his own critics.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by K-Luv
Cormac wrote the book, and no matter what you, or I, believe, he is the only one who really knows the answer.
Sure. But if he's going to claim "I don't know what the disaster was" in the story, then he really ought to go back and read his own book. He's a great writer, and as all great writers know: Show. Don't tell. In the flashback scene between the man and his wife, McCarthy showed the perfect description of a nuclear attack. And the rest of the book is a perfect description of the subsequent nuclear winter. If the guy was trying to be subtle in that regard, he failed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by K-Luv
But I'll tell you this, the guy seems to be a no non-sense kind of guy. I don't know what he would gain from withholding the 'truth' about what happened to cause the Earth to become barren.
Sure. Which is why I suspect he's probably just sick to death of being hailed as "the prophet of our age" (as one British critic called him). So he may well just be tired of critics over-analyzing his book.
But really, what McCarthy might have intended or how he interprets his own work now is ultimately irrelevant. What matters is what he wrote. And what he wrote is a perfect description of nuclear disaster. He couldn't have gotten it more accurate if he tried.
Quote:
Originally Posted by K-Luv
I am sure that he had some thoughts in his head when he wrote it, but it is irrelevant as it is not what the story is about. The story focuses on the relationship between the father and son, not what happened before the kid was born.
I very much agree. The relationship between the man and his son is the heart of the story. That's what matters.
But saying that the book doesn't explain the disaster just isn't true. It does. Quite brilliantly, in fact.
Because artists do it all the time. Sometimes they seem to delude themselves. (Paul McCartney is infamous for reinventing his own history with the Beatles and their work. George Lucas is another one who is constantly contradicting himself about his own work.) And sometimes they do it just to mess with critics' minds. (I think it was Chesterton who once remarked that St. John never saw any vision so strange as one of his own critics.)
I understand what you are saying here. It is like Cheech (Cheech and Chong) claiming that they never did drugs at a time when he was trying to launch himself as a serious actor/comedian. On one hand McCartney is doing the same-denying that The Beatles did drugs or where part of any subversive, underground culture. Essentially in the long run, he wants to separate himself from The Beatles and show (prove) that he is indeed a talented solo artists who could have made it big on his own. Paul McCartney wants to be recognized in his own right -but let's face it, no matter what he does, he will always be remembered as one of The Beatles. I could imagine that might be annoying for him at this stage in his career.
I don't think that Cormac is trying to reinvent himself or toy with critics. He could possibly very well be, but it seems to out-of-character for him, especially since he lives a rather low-key life, generally stays out of the media, and for the most part -doesn't do things that are typical of other writers of his caliber.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S.
Sure. But if he's going to claim "I don't know what the disaster was" in the story, then he really ought to go back and read his own book. He's a great writer, and as all great writers know: Show. Don't tell. In the flashback scene between the man and his wife, McCarthy showed the perfect description of a nuclear attack. And the rest of the book is a perfect description of the subsequent nuclear winter. If the guy was trying to be subtle in that regard, he failed.
Yes, it is a perfect description for a nuclear winter, but keep in mind that the term nuclear winter is also used to describe the conditions that would occur after a large volcanic eruption or a massive meteor or asteroid attack.
The question that Cormac is posing in the book is: is morality an inherent human trait, or is it a learned human behavior? The majority of the characters threw their morals out the window, including the father for the most part. The son was born into that ruined world and it was/is all that he knew/knows. Incidentally, the son is the most moral character. For me that works, and makes the back story of what happened to the planet irrelevant. What happened in the past? Doesn't matter. What does matter is that they are now dealing with it in the present.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S.
Sure. Which is why I suspect he's probably just sick to death of being hailed as "the prophet of our age" (as one British critic called him). So he may well just be tired of critics over-analyzing his book.
People are going to analyze things anyways. Even if Cormac said with authority that X is what happened, that is why the world became the way that it did, there will always be critics who are going to say, Well, I dunno. That doesn't really seem to work. I think that this scenario makes a better explanation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S.
But really, what McCarthy might have intended or how he interprets his own work now is ultimately irrelevant. What matters is what he wrote. And what he wrote is a perfect description of nuclear disaster. He couldn't have gotten it more accurate if he tried.
Like I said, it could also describe other disasters and seeing as how Cormac hangs out with scientists at a Santa Fe think tank, he is privy to the catastrophic consequences of many natural disasters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S.
But saying that the book doesn't explain the disaster just isn't true. It does. Quite brilliantly, in fact.
It gave a description of what the father witnessed, but didn't describe the actual cataclysm that led up to, or caused, the event(s). It was left open to interpretation.
The location that the film was shot in a location that was the result of the real-life effects of acid rain caused by the coal industry. It just goes to show that a nuclear war is not required to turn the world grey.
Anyways, if you liked the book you should check out the movie. It is a pretty good adaptation and follows the story in the book closely. The only real difference between the two is that some of the grosser scenes in the book were left out of the movie. Check it out, you'll probably like it.
I don't think that Cormac is trying to reinvent himself or toy with critics. He could possibly very well be, but it seems to out-of-character for him, especially since he lives a rather low-key life, generally stays out of the media, and for the most part -doesn't do things that are typical of other writers of his caliber.
Maybe. I'm just speculating here, but I think what's going on here has to do with a lot of the attention the book received.
McCarthy has always been a favorite of critics (as he should be; he's one of the greatest writers of his day). But The Road, in particular, was heavily embraced by a lot of activists and folks in the environmental and political movements, who wanted to use the book as a sort of flag for their cause. And I rather get the impression that McCarthy got a bit frustrated by it. Because the entire point of The Road is not "the disaster," but the relationship between the man and his son.
So I think McCarthy finally got fed up with so many folks concentrating on what he thought was a very minor part of the story (and I think he's right, by the way), so he said, "Listen. 'What' the disaster was doesn't matter. The disaster isn't the point!"
He's right. The disaster doesn't matter. But for him to go back and say that the story doesn't explain that is a bit disengenuous on his part, I think. Because he really does explain it quite well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by K-Luv
Yes, it is a perfect description for a nuclear winter, but keep in mind that the term nuclear winter is also used to describe the conditions that would occur after a large volcanic eruption or a massive meteor or asteroid attack.
Meteor ... maybe, though I think that would be a stretch, because that isn't what he described in the story. Volcanic? No way. Because the man and his wife heard the explosions, and there is no volcano in the U.S. that could wipe out civilization. In fact, there is no volcano on Earth that could wipe out civilization, and all of Earth's volcanoes erupting at once ... I think McCarthy is too scientifically savvy to seize on that, because it's so unrealistic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by K-Luv
The question that Cormac is posing in the book is: is morality an inherent human trait, or is it a learned human behavior?
Ah, I think it's even simpler than that. I think the heart of the story is a dad who loves his son with all his heart, but who knows he isn't going to be around to see his kid grow up. And he's leaving his kid to try to grow up in a world that's pretty much gone to hell. As a dad, that's pretty easy to identify with. Especially these days.
Quote:
Originally Posted by K-Luv
Anyways, if you liked the book you should check out the movie. It is a pretty good adaptation and follows the story in the book closely. The only real difference between the two is that some of the grosser scenes in the book were left out of the movie. Check it out, you'll probably like it.
I'd like to see it, but I'm honestly a bit hesitant, simply because I love the book so much. I loved No Country for Old Men as well, and I was rather disappointed in the movie. I liked the movie, but I LOVED the book, and I thought the movie really misunderstood the book in a few places.
Maybe. I'm just speculating here, but I think what's going on here has to do with a lot of the attention the book received.
McCarthy has always been a favorite of critics (as he should be; he's one of the greatest writers of his day). But The Road, in particular, was heavily embraced by a lot of activists and folks in the environmental and political movements, who wanted to use the book as a sort of flag for their cause. And I rather get the impression that McCarthy got a bit frustrated by it. Because the entire point of The Road is not "the disaster," but the relationship between the man and his son.
So I think McCarthy finally got fed up with so many folks concentrating on what he thought was a very minor part of the story (and I think he's right, by the way), so he said, "Listen. 'What' the disaster was doesn't matter. The disaster isn't the point!"
Huh, I was not aware that this book caused such a reaction from the the activists community; your prior posts make more sense now. I assumed that because of his age, and his son's age, this book was his way of parting some fatherly advice/love to his son considering that there is the chance that he will buy the farm before his kid really enters into adulthood. So, the setting of the story is not the message that he wanted to leave his son.
Then again, as a writer he had to have had some thought as to what 'really' happened. He claims that he does not know, and I believe him in the sense that he has not concluded Okay, here's the deal. You see, there was this...., but yet as he was formulating, writing, and thinking about the story, he must have at the very least thought about what 'might' have happened. Cormac does not just pull stuff out of his a*s and put in on paper. He does his research, and he knows what kind of events could happen to cause the barren landscape in The Road.
I would bet the house that there is one particular event that he focused on as he was writing the book -he would have had to- but I don't think that it is something that we would ever know and I do believe that what ever it was was only used to help design setting and was nothing that is of any real importance to the the story.
I don't know, but lately it seems to me apocalyptic movies are becoming a trend.. "I, am legend", "The book of Eli", "The Road", and few names I've forgotten..
See, I haven't read the book, so I don't have much of comparison. Yet, it's not likely to miss the fact that the movie is not about what has happened to the world, or our wrong-doings and mistaken actions as humans that led to the occur of events which caused the supposedly "end of the world".
Therefore - it's simply a theme which meant to intensify something. The question is - what?
What is the purpose, the button line?
Is it the the quest towards survival? Is it the father-son relationship? Is it the end which meant to show us even in such a world, with no high morals, laws - there are some good people? that there is still hope to the human race?
Something was missing to me..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
