“The Road”, a tale of gray ash.
I really enjoyed this book. Now, it may be because I watched the movie a few years back and always wondered what the movie left out. I have to admit, the book was anticlimactic in the traditional sense, but I think it was intentional. The way I like to look at the book is the climax happened before the book starts. So, whatever cataclysm that brought on the ash and set the world in peril and destruction was the climax of the book. The rest of the book is falling action and the resolution. Like Professor Clark stated in class, the apocalypse or whatever you would call it, was left out so that way it would not be the main focus of the book. The story was written so the questions of humanity would be the main focus and not the environmental factors. I believe McCarthy wanted us to ponder things like how there could still be “good guys”, the lengths at which someone would go to protect someone they love, or even how someone being raised in a world where compassion and empathy will almost certainly get you killed and yet compassion is the only thing they know. It doesn’t matter whether it was nuclear fallout, volcanic eruptions, or a comet striking the Earth, McCarthy wanted the reader to focus on humans and their interactions with one another after such an event.
I also agree that McCarthy didn't want us to focus and or even think about the actual event that caused this post apocalyptic society but instead she wanted us to focus on what the people in the book would do about it. Whether they would abandon all morals and resort to cannibalism or would there be people in the world that stuck to there morals and just unwritten code of being human and "carry the fire" as the son and the man always talked about and she makes you question that the entire novel until you get to the end.












