The author did not want to be too specific about the factors of the apocalypse because Cormac McCarthy wanted the story to be vague as possible. He wanted this story to be relatable. By not having specific details it can be relatable to anyone. One of the most in-depth description McCarthy gives about what has happened is “A long shear of light and then a series of low concussions. He got up and went to the window. What is it? She said. He didn’t answer. He went into the bathroom and threw the light switch but the power was already gone (52).” Later on he mentions “Beyond the window just the gathering cold, the fires on the horizon (59).”The only thing that we know about what caused the apocalypse is that there was a great fire. He did this because it never really mattered how the apocalypse happened, the story between the man and the child is what mattered. Explaining the apocalypse in depth would make this simple story more complicated than it needs to be. “Can I see? The boy said. Yes. Of course you can. The boy leaned on the cart and adjusted the wheel. What do you see? The man said. Nothing. He lowered the glasses. It’s raining. Yes, the man said. I know (McCarthy 8).” Cormac continues to add this feeling of vagueness by not giving the main characters names. Cormac does this so the story can be relatable to everyone. He calls the characters the man and the child because that is all the story needs. By calling the two main characters the man and the child they could be anybody.
I agree that Cormac McCarthy wanted the story to be vague so that it can be relatable to anyone. I also think the story was done in this matter so that the reader would not be focused on the cause of the apocalypse but instead on the characters. The story is really about showcasing the man and his son and their journey the road. Going into detail about the cause would have made the book more complicated and would have been essentially pointless because it would not affect our two main characters and would not change their actions. “Are we going to die? Sometime. Not now. And we’re still going south. Yes.” (McCarthy 10). This quote that the author wrote about the man and the boys journey really shows that it doesn’t matter who they are, but instead the book focuses on how they interact and what their overall goal was in this apocalyptic world.
I completely agree with Erik Wheeler in the comment above about how the story is not really about the apocalypse, it is about the aftermath of it. The author left readers with hardly any exposition so we would be able to focus on the real message the author was trying to convey to us; the sustainment of love, "What would you do if I died? If you died I would want to die too. So you could be with me? Yes. So I could be with you. Okay" (McCarthy 83). Giving the readers more background information would actually take away from the plot, as this is not the main point of the book. In addition to McCarthy trying to convey the real message of the story, he also did not add much of a back story to enhance the eeriness and mysteriousness of the book as it leaves readers to come up with their own theories and ideas of what they think caused the apocalypse, "Nights dark beyond darkness and the days more gray, each one than what had gone before" (McCarthy 20). I also agree with Erik on why the author decided to omit the main character's names from the book. This leaves the readers to think that this type of situation could happen to anybody, including you, which makes the story more relatable.
Your comment has opened my mind and gave me better insight to the story. I was not even thinking that the authors real message was the love between the man and the boy, and adding the exposition would take away from that. First off I would like to say thank you for adding that insight. I would also like to say this completely makes sense because the father and son are almost inseparable because they are all they have left. They both love each other and the father would do anything for his son. If there was any exposition on what caused the apocalypse or just exposition on their lives before the apocalypse then it would add a lot more complicated threads to the story that are not needed. “They lay listening. Can you do it? When the time comes?” (McCarthy 96). In the quote the man talks about if the time comes could he kill his kid, McCarthy is trying to focusing on the relationship between the father and what the road has made them become. The author is trying to centralize his focus on the two characters and the bond between them and what their actions are throughout the novel. It doesn’t matter what they did before because that would not really contribute to the overall plot of the story and wouldn’t have such an impact as their journey on the road does. On your comment about leaving the cause of the apocalypse up to the reader I also agree with that. Doing that is also similar to the author leaving the main characters names out. Its allowing the reader to be drawn into the story and allowing them to feel as if this could happen to them and could happen in the world we live in today.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe author did not want to be too specific about the factors of the apocalypse because Cormac McCarthy wanted the story to be vague as possible. He wanted this story to be relatable. By not having specific details it can be relatable to anyone.
ReplyDeleteOne of the most in-depth description McCarthy gives about what has happened is “A long shear of light and then a series of low concussions. He got up and went to the window. What is it? She said. He didn’t answer. He went into the bathroom and threw the light switch but the power was already gone (52).” Later on he mentions “Beyond the window just the gathering cold, the fires on the horizon (59).”The only thing that we know about what caused the apocalypse is that there was a great fire. He did this because it never really mattered how the apocalypse happened, the story between the man and the child is what mattered. Explaining the apocalypse in depth would make this simple story more complicated than it needs to be.
“Can I see? The boy said. Yes. Of course you can. The boy leaned on the cart and adjusted the wheel. What do you see? The man said. Nothing. He lowered the glasses. It’s raining. Yes, the man said. I know (McCarthy 8).” Cormac continues to add this feeling of vagueness by not giving the main characters names. Cormac does this so the story can be relatable to everyone. He calls the characters the man and the child because that is all the story needs. By calling the two main characters the man and the child they could be anybody.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree that Cormac McCarthy wanted the story to be vague so that it can be relatable to anyone. I also think the story was done in this matter so that the reader would not be focused on the cause of the apocalypse but instead on the characters.
DeleteThe story is really about showcasing the man and his son and their journey the road. Going into detail about the cause would have made the book more complicated and would have been essentially pointless because it would not affect our two main characters and would not change their actions. “Are we going to die? Sometime. Not now. And we’re still going south. Yes.” (McCarthy 10). This quote that the author wrote about the man and the boys journey really shows that it doesn’t matter who they are, but instead the book focuses on how they interact and what their overall goal was in this apocalyptic world.
I completely agree with Erik Wheeler in the comment above about how the story is not really about the apocalypse, it is about the aftermath of it. The author left readers with hardly any exposition so we would be able to focus on the real message the author was trying to convey to us; the sustainment of love, "What would you do if I died? If you died I would want to die too. So you could be with me? Yes. So I could be with you. Okay" (McCarthy 83). Giving the readers more background information would actually take away from the plot, as this is not the main point of the book. In addition to McCarthy trying to convey the real message of the story, he also did not add much of a back story to enhance the eeriness and mysteriousness of the book as it leaves readers to come up with their own theories and ideas of what they think caused the apocalypse, "Nights dark beyond darkness and the days more gray, each one than what had gone before" (McCarthy 20). I also agree with Erik on why the author decided to omit the main character's names from the book. This leaves the readers to think that this type of situation could happen to anybody, including you, which makes the story more relatable.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYour comment has opened my mind and gave me better insight to the story. I was not even thinking that the authors real message was the love between the man and the boy, and adding the exposition would take away from that. First off I would like to say thank you for adding that insight. I would also like to say this completely makes sense because the father and son are almost inseparable because they are all they have left. They both love each other and the father would do anything for his son. If there was any exposition on what caused the apocalypse or just exposition on their lives before the apocalypse then it would add a lot more complicated threads to the story that are not needed. “They lay listening. Can you do it? When the time comes?” (McCarthy 96). In the quote the man talks about if the time comes could he kill his kid, McCarthy is trying to focusing on the relationship between the father and what the road has made them become. The author is trying to centralize his focus on the two characters and the bond between them and what their actions are throughout the novel. It doesn’t matter what they did before because that would not really contribute to the overall plot of the story and wouldn’t have such an impact as their journey on the road does.
DeleteOn your comment about leaving the cause of the apocalypse up to the reader I also agree with that. Doing that is also similar to the author leaving the main characters names out. Its allowing the reader to be drawn into the story and allowing them to feel as if this could happen to them and could happen in the world we live in today.