As I progress "along" The Road, I continue to enjoy it for its story elements and brilliantly written characters. However, does Cormac McCarthy's book about two survivors struggling to stay alive in a post apocalyptic world have a deeper meaning behind it? Put simply, yes; McCarthy inputs small messages throughout the novel which all relate to the bigger meaning as a whole. Clearly, the strong message behind The Road is that survival must not take away our humanity. Let's break this down a bit more so that that vague message can make more sense.
First of all, McCarthy incorporates two types of characters in the novel - good guys and bad guys, both having the same goal of survival. Good guys are people like the man and the boy (obviously). The man makes it clear to his son that they are in fact different from the savage cannibals they run into. There are also those who are helpless in the story, like the prisoners in the cannibals' basement, and the man who was struck by lightning, who are all also good guys as they do not cause harm to others in order to complete their goal. That is the key and defining trait of these good guys - they all want to survive, but these people still have values from a previous world and do not cause harm to others in order to live.
On the other hand, the bad guys are those like the cannibals, who will ruthlessly murder people and eat them to survive. Of course, it is morally wrong, but their goal of survival is just as important to them as it is to the good guys.
The boy and the man, who are good guys, cannot necessarily help the helpless people because they know doing so could jeopardize their own survival. The decision to leave behind the man who was struck by lightning upsets the boy, but the man knows helping out may require that they give up some of their precious supplies.
Therefore, where does one cross the line between good guy and bad guy? McCarthy's point in the story is that survival can bring out the worst in people, but people must retain their humanity. He uses the main characters to explain his message. Throughout the novel, the boy constantly makes sure his papa is doing the right thing. He constantly asks him if they are doing what the good guys would do. For example, on page 128, he says, "We would never eat anybody, would we?" to which his father responds "No. Of course not." The man even makes it clear that even if they were starving they would not eat anyone, which reassures his son, and shows that these two characters retain their morals even though they are faced with the challenge of survival. When they find the food in the bunker, the boy gives thanks to those who left the food there, saying, "Dear people, thank you for all this food and stuff. We know that you saved it for yourself and if you were here we woudnt eat it no matter how hungry we were" (146). This shows that he still cares for other people despite how horrible most people in that world are. Additionally, we see the struggle that the man goes through with morals. He thinks about killing his son in order to protect him from the bad guys who would seek to use him as a source of food. He horribly asks himself, "Could you crush that beloved skull with a rock? Is there such a being within you of which you know nothing?" (114). The man cannot conceive the idea because he feels it would not be morally right. Therefore, the man is able to keep his morals, definitely making him one of the good guys.
By including people in the story who share the same goal, yet go about completing that goal differently, McCarthy is able to show his point. Survival is a dangerous goal, and The Road displays how far people will go just to stay alive. However, there are some who survive while keeping their morals, like the man and the boy, who are our main protagonists. Because we follow their story, we are able to see the struggles with crossing the line between good guy and bad guy, but overall, they are able to keep their humanity and morals.
Where do you think the man would be without the boy? I think your comments about the contrast between good and evil is interesting. I always thought of the boy as not just being the mans anchor to sanity and life but his anchor to humanity as well.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Aaron, your discussion about good, evil, and morals was intriguing. The line between good and evil is often unclear, and morals sometimes conflict with survival instincts. Do you think Cormac McCarthy meant for his theme to be applied to a specific conflict of his time?
ReplyDeleteI think you did great job analyzing the theme of humanity in this book. I especially liked how you mentioned the fine line of good and bad that the characters walk along. Do you think that to strengthen the point that survival conflicts with morality, the author will end the story with their weakness of humanity causing their deaths?
ReplyDeleteI liked how you pointed out that although the bad guys are clearly doing the wrong thing, they are just trying to survive like everybody else. It is easy to forget things like that. That being said, they seem to have crossed a line from being forced into doing these things to enjoying them. Cannibalism is bad enough, but the body of the infant found is an example of a completely unnecessary act that likely would not have helped their survival much.
ReplyDeleteHi Jonny! Your discussion on the line between good and evil is very well thought out. It seems like this theme in your book is very applicable to many problems we are facing today, especially with the presidential election coming up.
ReplyDeleteA strong discussion of the theme of the novel, with good textual support. Nice work.
ReplyDelete