the father in "The Road" - Spoiler's ahead

oxygen_old

I had this in films, belongs more in lit tho.

Did anyone think the father character was considerably flawed?

He made no attempt to help anybody else trough out the book.

He didn’t try free the people from the cannibals house. He didn't even consider coming back a day later. He didnt check if the other little boy his son seen was being looked after. the only time he helped anyone, such as the dog or old man, was after considerable pushing from his son.

He took all the thief’s clothes and probably let him freeze to death, even tho he would have done no different himself.

At the end of the book, I thought the boy was better off with the shot gun slinger fello and he religious wife.

Dudess

Meh, one of the points of the story is that when the survival instinct gets that much of a grip on you, to hell with anyone else. I suppose one becomes selfish. Ditto the bond between a parent and child. I don't think the father was flawed at all. I think he was a man in desperate circumstances driven to being that bit more ruthless for the sake of himself and, more importantly, the sake of his son.

Sad Professor

Yeah, I think modern notions of decency are pretty meaningless in the post-apocalyptic world that McCarthy depicts. I mean there was cannibals roaming the street ffs, the fact that the father cared about anyone at all made him a saint. And prior to the end it was questionable whether there was any good people left.

He was dying and he didn't believe his son could survive for a second without him, there was no hope, no where to go, all he could do was protect his son for as long as he could. It's such a hopeless scenario but it's what makes the book so brilliant.

Dades

His one goal was to keep his son alive, and to do that he needed to feed him and keep him safe.

Stopping to help every stricken stranger en route might seem honourable, but would no doubt just become a millstone around their necks. And sooner or later someone they helped would kill them in their sleep and worse. The man knew this, the child in his innocence couldn't understand it.

oxygen wrote:

He took all the thief’s clothes and probably let him freeze to death, even tho he would have done no different himself.

Would he have stolen everything belonging to a stranger who had left it untended? There's a difference between not helping someone with something you have, and stealing everything that someone has.

oxygen_old

Dades wrote: »

His one goal was to keep his son alive, and to do that he needed to feed him and keep him safe.

Stopping to help every stricken stranger en route might seem honourable, but would no doubt just become a millstone around their necks. And sooner or later someone they helped would kill them in their sleep and worse. The man knew this, the child in his innocence couldn't understand it.Would he have stolen everything belonging to a stranger who had left it untended? There's a difference between not helping someone with something you have, and stealing everything that someone has.

I personally thought it was never certain that the people who built the bunker were dead. Also, iirc, he took allot of the clothes and food he found in the cannibals house. While I agree, certainly nothing as extreme as stealing's someones abandoned posestions (the thief wasnt trailing them, he just came across the trolly on the beach) it didn't warrant certain death. As the thief said "You would have done it yourself". The father was very commited to keeping his son alive, and sometimes at the expense of other.

Dades

oxygen wrote: »

I personally thought it was never certain that the people who built the bunker were dead.

The bunker had clearly never been opened since the 'apocalypse' or whatever. If the owners were still alive the place would have been cleaned out.

oxygen wrote: »

Also, iirc, he took allot of the clothes and food he found in the cannibals house.

The clothes had already been taken from the cannibals, and they were locked in the 'larder' awaiting their fate. There was nothing to be gained by leaving the stuff there for the psychos who ran the place.

oxygen wrote: »

The father was very commited to keeping his son alive, and sometimes at the expense of other.

But he never proactively took something from another innocent. He may be guilty of inaction, but that is only understandable given the sparsity of supplies.

What was supposed to have happened to the world, anyway?

oxygen_old

Dades wrote: »

The clothes had already been taken from the cannibals, and they were locked in the 'larder' awaiting their fate. There was nothing to be gained by leaving the stuff there for the psychos who ran the place.

But he never proactively took something from another innocent. He may be guilty of inaction, but that is only understandable given the sparsity of supplies.

What was supposed to have happened to the world, anyway?

Ill agree with you on most of that. When he went into the house he didn't know about the cannibals, it could have been a refugee center for all he knew.

What happened to the world was never specified, in the book, or by the author.

But its kinda creepy, when he got to the ocean, which was his aim for the whole book, there was a wall of smog covering the entire view of the horizon.

In my opinion it was an massive environmental accident. All the filth, smog, ash. And there was no fuel. Also there was no radiation poisoning, and no invading forces. Also him and his wife watched distant cities burn

Dudess

Yeah, I don't think the type of disaster was of any relevance. That wasn't the point - the focus was on the aftermath and if the world is practically wiped out, what does it matter what caused it if you're one of the misfortunate survivors. The focus of the story, imo, was survival and the bond between a parent and child.
I doubt it was a nuclear strike too, as there was indeed no mention of poisons in the atmosphere. Although they did wear masks, but still, if there was a lot of radiation, there would surely have been at least a mention in passing.
Yup, ecological/meteorological I think...

Ew, I feel a bit down thinking about that book. I love post-apocalyptic/dystopian fiction but I found that particularly tough...

oxygen_old

Dudess wrote: »

Yeah, I don't think the type of disaster was of any relevance. That wasn't the point - the focus was on the aftermath and if the world is practically wiped out, what does it matter what caused it if you're one of the misfortunate survivors. The focus of the story, imo, was survival and the bond between a parent and child.
I doubt it was a nuclear strike too, as there was indeed no mention of poisons in the atmosphere. Although they did wear masks, but still, if there was a lot of radiation, there would surely have been at least a mention in passing.
Yup, ecological/meteorological I think...

Ew, I feel a bit down thinking about that book. I love post-apocalyptic/dystopian fiction but I found that particularly tough...

Yea, its depressingly realistic. Apparently the movie has a realistic look about it too, stuffing jackets with garbage and the like The one part of the book where I had to put it down and take a break was the cannibals house. That was a creepy creepy part

I know there a spoiler in this tread, so hope this is OK.... i think the saddest part in the book is when they come across the people cooking the baby .. i think the father does his best and is maybe a bit of a week character...who is in the film and when is it coming out dose anyone know

oxygen_old

mariaalice wrote: »

I know there a spoiler in this tread, so hope this is OK.... i think the saddest part in the book is when they come across the people cooking the baby .. i think the father does his best and is maybe a bit of a week character...who is in the film and when is it coming out dose anyone know

Yea, that part was rough. Especially, when the kid hadn't spoke for a couple of hours after, the father wondered if he would even speak again.

Viggo Mortison is playing the father in the film. In my opinion I would have preferred a more middle aged, middle of the road actor for the father. Still tho, cant argue with his acting credits. I dont think the film will be anytime soon

Dudess

I think Mortensen's ideal for the role. He's 50, not exactly a youngster any more. The man in the book struck me as being only in the first half of his 40s, if not younger.

oxygen_old

Dudess wrote: »

I think Mortenson's ideal for the role. He's 50, not exactly a youngster any more. The man in the book struck me as being only in the first half of his 40s, if not younger.

Yea, but the father from the book seemed to be a guy that could be living 3 doors down the street from you. Just a Joe Soap. I dont think Vigo has that quality enough. Granted playing a mythical warrior king, and a russian mafia hit man dont help. But even in A History of Violence for example, you could always see that he wasn't just going to be a regular guy, he turned out to be an assassin.

oxygen_old

Ignore this post

Lizzykins

I read it last night in about two hours and now I think that was a mistake to race through it. I missed the baby cooking somewhere and I didn't realise that the peple in the cellar were going to be eaten. I'll have to read it again but it was so depressing.

Dudess

Yeah, I dashed through it too. I think it was because I just wanted to get it over with, it was that tough-going.

oxygen_old

Yea, its a quick read. he glazes over alot of the serious parts.

The people in the house were going to be eating since the guy on the floor had no arms or legs, they were slowly eating them, keeping them alive as a sort of a keep fresh method. The people they werent currently eating were chained to the wall. Was horrible when they were crying out for help, and he had to run, since the cannibals were coming back across the field.

Also a day before the baby was killed, the father saw two men and a pregnant woman (presummably the mother) walking the road, and took some strength from the fact that there were other people who were trying to carry on like him, it must have been tough on him when he say they killed the baby.

Its a tough book all right, makes you think long after it tho

Lizzykins

I remember the guy with no legs but not the pregnant woman. God awful scenario. I won't be going to see the film.

Lizzykins

Found the pregnant woman and the baby. Ugh.

oxygen_old

Lizzykins wrote: »

Found the pregnant woman and the baby. Ugh.

Ahh crap, did you miss it first time. You could have lived in blissful ignorance, sorry about that. I remember after the cannibals house scene I had to put the book away for a little bit

Its a hard hitting book, in a way its a relief from Mad Max-y type apocalypse type movies (I know its a book). Still there are parts that stay with you/

Lizzykins

What I disliked about it was that there was no hope in the book at all that I could find. Ok at the end the boy might have been saved but who knows. Maybe the two who saved him were cannibals too. I liked the sense of mystery not knowing what had caused the holocaust. Also it might have been set anywhere. I don't think it's neccessarily the States. Added to it I thought.

oxygen_old

Lizzykins wrote: »

What I disliked about it was that there was no hope in the book at all that I could find. Ok at the end the boy might have been saved but who knows. Maybe the two who saved him were cannibals too. I liked the sense of mystery not knowing what had caused the holocaust. Also it might have been set anywhere. I don't think it's neccessarily the States. Added to it I thought.

Yea, its a little hazy about where its set. Errie considering John Mc Cormac is quite open about stating that it was in the west of Ireland that he fleshed out the details of the story, and that Ireland's baroness was an inspiration to him.

Throughout the book I had in mind that the author was not particullarly science fictiony, and that this book could have been based in current day political climates, such as Rwandan refugees, or tsunami survivors etc.

Dades

oxygen wrote: »

Yea, its a little hazy about where its set. Errie considering John Mc Cormac is quite open about stating that it was in the west of Ireland that he fleshed out the details of the story, and that Ireland's baroness was an inspiration to him.

I didn't know that - interesting.

I think Viggo Mortensen is a great choice btw.

Sad Professor

Re: the geography I'm sure I read somewhere that El Paso in Texas was McCarthy's inspiration for the novel. Also isn't there a part in the book where they find Spanish writing? It's still open to interpretation but I suspect McCarthy was thinking of the Texas/Mexico border region, the same place most of his novels are set.

oxygen_old

Sad Professor wrote: »

Re: the geography I'm sure I read somewhere that El Paso in Texas was McCarthy's inspiration for the novel. Also isn't there a part in the book where they find Spanish writing? It's still open to interpretation but I suspect McCarthy was thinking of the Texas/Mexico border region, the same place most of his novels are set.

Yea, according to his interview with Oprah (he is a bad interview btw) he did get the idea when in El Paso with his son. He didnt start working on it tho until he was Ireland some time later. I thought it was fairly clear from the book, that he started off in Northern America, and walked to South America with his son, hoping for warmer weather down south. It gradually dawned on him that it wasnt getting any warmer as they went.

Speaking of good parts to the book, what got me was when he said him and hit son were exausted, and when walking on the road, they would wake up sprawled out on the road, unintentionally having fallen asleep when they were walking.

John

My obligatory Cormac McCarthy thread post:
I don't think the father was flawed in any unrealistic sense. After reading the book I sat and thought seriously about what would I do in that situation. And I came to no conclusions. I'd like to think I would play by the old rules, looking out for people and not being one of the bad guys but how realistic is that? Who's to say that faced with certain death that they wouldn't act like the people who ate the baby or the cannibals, let alone the father.

Dudess

Lizzykins wrote: »

What I disliked about it was that there was no hope in the book at all that I could find.

But when mankind is pretty much wiped out, how can there be hope?

Reynolds.irl

The father mentioned that there might be other people out there "carrying the fire" and the boy mentioned that there could be another father and son doing what they were doing, I kind of found a little comfort in that but only a little.

All so did anybody else think that maybe the father might have helped if he had more than two bullets for the gun? He never hesitated when the son had a knife to his throat and knew that, in his condition, the last bullet was going to be used sooner or later. He was a good father I reckon, but his son came first and he had to protect him continentally.

siochain

oxygen wrote: »

Yea, its a quick read. he glazes over alot of the serious parts.

Also a day before the baby was killed, the father saw two men and a pregnant woman (presummably the mother) walking the road, and took some strength from the fact that there were other people who were trying to carry on like him, it must have been tough on him when he say they killed the baby.

definitly the tougest part of the book,

meldrew

One part I could.nt understand was when they saw the "army" going past all wearing some kind of red uniform and also with pregnant women and "slaves" , maybe he was trying to suggest in a new world order where hierarchies always establish themselves , and why did.nt they stay longer in the bunker when he had the place well camoflagued

oxygen_old

meldrew wrote: »

One part I could.nt understand was when they saw the "army" going past all wearing some kind of red uniform and also with pregnant women and "slaves" , maybe he was trying to suggest in a new world order where hierarchies always establish themselves , and why did.nt they stay longer in the bunker when he had the place well camoflagued

I cant remember where he said they were wearing uniforms, but I presummed they were just guy's with trucks who went to the next town over and took a load of slaves, men and women. It was like the guys who lived in the house eating the ppl, they werent an army per say, just crowds of cannibals or whatever. I didnt personally think it was a new world order, you make a good point, maybe it was an army in its infancy or something.

Yea, I wanted to stay in the bunker as well, it was the one comfortable part of the book. But it was originally burried in the ground in the garden close to the road (they were going to the road when they passed over it). They had to dig it up. When they were down there, the door was exposed in the garden. When they were down there, it was quite visable. The father tried to cover it up with a matress when they were in there, but that could be lifted if someone tried to nick it. You wouldnt want to be trapped in a bunker like that if those afore mentioned guys showed up.

ibh

I gave this book to my mother when she went on holidays a couple of weeks ago. She texed me to say that it was keeping her awake at night!!

It is the one book that i can think of immediately that kept me thinking about it and the fate of the father and son for a long time after finishing it.

cautioner

Horrible, gripping, excellent, terrible terrible book.

I thought I'd read the height of disturbing literature with American Psycho. How wrong I was.

mickste

One of the most emotional books I've ever read. Mc Carthy does a great job of describing the father's love for his child, through his actions.

A haunting tale that resides in the memory for a long tiime after .

KevinH

One thing that didn't fit for me about this book;

The sheer bleakness and hopelessness of the scenario (the cannibals house, the baby, no food growing ANYWHERE at all) juxtaposed with the constant luck of the father and son (finding food, shelter just in time, etc again and again).

It just made it seem unreal.
Oh and it was a hundred pages too long.

Richard Roma

cautioner wrote: »

Horrible, gripping, excellent, terrible terrible book.

I thought I'd read the height of disturbing literature with American Psycho. How wrong I was.

There were some grim bits such as the cannibals, the eaten baby and the group they saw marching with catamites. The latter was very interesting because it seemed like the type of group that would have roamed thousands of years ago, it made me question how much (if) people's humanity has changed over the intervening millennia.

I don't think it's anyway near as disturbing as American Psycho. There are some heartening things to take from the book:

(i) The fact that the father didn't just use the two bullets to kill himself and his son. He kept going on despite the fact that it was hard to see anything worth living for (his wife clearly didn't think there was).

(ii) The father was completely and unselfishly putting the welfare of his child above everything else.

(iii) The people at the end of the book appeared to take care of the son.

i think the most interesting aspect of the book is that it questions where we draw the line of self-interest.

I think the father's one crime in the book was when he took all of the beggar's clothes.

monkey9

This book didn't disturb me at all. It just really bored me

ncmc

Sorry for dragging up an old thread, but just finished this book and can't get it out of my head. I think it is a book that sticks with you long after you read it.

Of course the father in the book is flawed, all humans are flawed! It makes the book more realistic that the father character wasn't perfect. Although I think it's foolish to say he should have helped people along the way, at what cost, maybe losing his son because he gave a stranger food? The bit with him taking the man who stole the carts clothes, well I guess that is good old fashioned revenge. If someone nearly sentanced me and my child to death, I think I would do more than just steal his clothes! And you have to remember, he did try and give them back and I think he was going to help the man too only he wouldn't come back to them.

The bit that really got me was when the father was dying and he couldn't bring himself to kill his son. When he said "I can't hold my son dead in my arms, I thought I could but I can't." That really moved me.

I think I need to read it again though, I was in such a rush to get to the end to see what happened them, that I missed things like the cannibals eating the people while still alive (actually kind of glad I missed that part!) Think it is a book that you will pick up more and more every time you read it.

I think the people who say there is no hope in the book, I would have to disagree, I think the fact that there was good people left in the world, that they had children, I think that gives a glimmer of hope.