# The Road...is it just me?



## Michael_J_Sullivan (Aug 3, 2011)

Okay, so don't hate me but I'm not a fan of Comac McCarthy's The Road.  I know a ton of people LOVE this book, and its been on Oprah and won the Pulitzer but seriously - to me it seems like he wrote it as a joke to see if just his name could make this popular.  I'm going to post my opinions on it here.  I know it will probably give a fair amount of flax but I just feel strongly about it. So here goes....

Cormac’s McCarthy’s The Road, I can honestly say, is the worst book I have ever read. I am stunned to find such a critical following for a novel that is so clearly bad that I have yet to meet a flesh and blood person who does not hate it, or cannot, even after the most mild inquires, explain its appeal beyond the latent thought that they “ought” to like it. To do otherwise would mark them as uncultured and ignorant. Modern art had Duchamp's toilet, and now literature has its own case of the emperor’s new clothes in, The Road. 

What sets this novel apart from all others in its genre of ill-conception, is the totality of its failure. There is nothing good that can be said of it. Some virtue can be found in every book, as in the old adage—“…but she has a nice personality.” The Road breaks this rule, and soundly. From the plot and characters to the writing style and even the cover design, the book is abysmally uninspired and a black hole of skill. 

Much has been made of the writing quality. Alan Cheuse, of the Chicago Tribune, and book commentator for NPR calls it “…his huge gift for language.” Let’s look at that for a moment. It is universally accepted that the first few sentences of any novel are the most crucial—the words which a writer labors over the most to get them just right. Here are the first two sentences of The Road: 

“When he woke in the woods in the dark and the cold of the night he’d reach out to touch the child sleeping beside him. Nights dark beyond darkness and the days more gray each one than what had gone before.” 

I once presented these two sentences to an amateur writer’s forum and asked their opinion. Several members politely replied that the sentences were badly in need of work. Not only were they not grammatically correct, but they were awkward, confusing, used several unnecessary words and had all the rhythm and pacing of a dog with four broken legs. Nights dark beyond darkness, has got to rank up there with, it was a dark and stormy night. This is not at all an isolated example. It is merely the beginning—literally. Other laudable narrative sentences include: “The Hour.” “Of a sudden he seemed to wilt even further.” “A lake down there.” 

Lest you think I am selectively picking the worst, here is the passage Mr. Cheuse used in his own review as an example of genius: “tottering in that cold autistic dark with his arms outheld for balance while the vestibular calculations in his skull cranked out their reckonings. An old chronicle. To seek out the upright. No fall but preceded by a declination. He took great marching steps into the nothingness, counting them against his return.” What McCormac is describing here is that it is dark and the man can’t see where he is going. The author is clearly a master of communication. 

Let’s also pause to consider his brilliance of dialog, and his mastery of the monosyllable conversation that make the screenplay dialog of Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger on par with Shakespeare. Nearly every conversation has the word “Okay,” which appears so often I began to think it was a pun, like a ventriloquist routine. One might conclude McCarthy is attempting to reflect a realistic vernacular into his work, except that the conversations are so stilted and robotic, as to lack even the faintest aroma of realism. There is no slang, no halted speech, no rambling. It is Dragnet. 

First dialog in the book: 
I ask you something? Yes. Of course. Are we going to die? Sometime. Not now. And we’re still going south. Yes. So we’ll be warm. Yes. Okay. Okay what? Nothing. Just okay. Go to sleep. Okay. 

You’ll note that I did not use quotes in the above excerpt. That is because neither does McCarthy. There are no quotes anywhere in the book, nor are there any tags designating the speaker, which manages to successfully make determining who is speaking quite a dilemma at times. Moreover, McCarthy never provides names to his characters this forces him to use the pronoun “he” frequently which very often leaves the reader bewildered as to whether he is referring to the father or the boy. 

McCarthy doesn’t stop with quotes. He rarely uses commas or apostrophes. It doesn’t appear as if he is against contractions as he uses the non-word, “dont” quite frequently. Nor is he making the statement that he can write a whole book without punctuation as he does, on rare occasions, use a comma or an apostrophe, (as you can see from the dialog segment I listed above,) as if he is going senile and merely forgot. As the lack of most of the necessary punctuation’s only result is to make it harder to read, I can only conclude that McCarthy, or his editor are the most lazy people I’ve ever heard of—although I am certain no credible editor ever saw this book. If they had I am certain we would have heard about the suicide in the papers. 

One might overlook the shortcomings of writing skill if the novel’s foundation was an excellent story. Sadly, this is not the case. Not that it lacks an excellent plot—it lacks a plot. Often times writers anguish over distilling the plot of a novel into a few sentences that might fit on the back of a book cover. It is often impossible to clearly convey all that a book is in such a short span. The Road does not suffer this. Instead I would imagine that if it were possible to put this book in a microwave and evaporate all the extraneous words all you would have left is one sentence: A boy and his father travel south in a post-apocalyptic United States, then the father dies. I wonder if the blurb writer for the, The Road, realized he was also providing a spoiler for the novel so comprehensive, no one need read the book. 

What the book lacks in plot it clearly makes up for in even less characterization. The father and the boy—that is about as much characterization as you will get. McCarthy doesn’t even provide names from which readers might glean some associative characteristics. We know the boy is afraid, because he says so approximately every four pages, always with the same robotic level of emotional intensity, backing it up with his many reasons, regrets and concerns as in the passage: I am scared. Likewise, the father is equally a pot bubbling over with emotional angst and frustration so vividly expressed in his response: I know. I’m sorry. 

We might as well burn all our copies of Grapes of Wrath now that we have this tour de force. 

As amazing as it is, with only an eggshell of plot, McCarthy manages to run afoul of logic. The boy and his father come across shelters packed with food and water, and yet the father insists they move on. Why? Because they must keep moving so as to avoid encountering others. Clearly staying in one place is the best plan to avoid meeting others, hermit do it all the time. Yes, other people might wander into you, but you double that equation if you too are roaming. The only argument for pressing on with the journey is to find others. 

I am certain I am being too kind here, but given that this is a Pulitzer Prize winning, Oprah Pick, National Bestseller, I don’t want to ruffle too many feathers. Of course, Duchamp's toilet (Fountain) was once voted "the most influential modern artwork of all time".


----------



## ashel (May 29, 2011)

I couldn't finish it. I admit I didn't try very hard, because of all the awful. From what I've gathered from people who call it brilliant, it's this very awful quality - the mind-numbing, unrelenting desolation in prose form - that supposedly makes it brilliant; the feelings of utter waste that it evokes in the reader mirror the waste of his post-apocalyptic funworld. 

Or something. I've asked people about this before, too, and I never get a really clear answer.

It could also be pretentious dreck at the same time. Either way, I can't be bothered.


----------



## balaspa (Dec 27, 2009)

I can only respond as a reader.  I loved the book.  I read a book to be entertained, I was.  At the same time the book also haunted me and the images and feelings invoked have never left me.  I had also read No Country for Old Men and Blood Meridian from McCarthy, so I was prepared for the way in which he plays with punctuation, and it didn't bother me.  Other books, such as Trainspotting, by other authors also do away with punctuation for quotes.  I, too, have played with it in my own works.  

So, basically, I found myself compelled and caring about the main characters. I found myself moved and affected by their fates.  I wanted to finish the book. 

I wouldn't want every book to be like Steinbeck.  I wouldn't want every book to be like any one author.  I like diversity.  I like McCarthy's minimalism MUCH more than I ever liked Hemingway's.  I'd read The Road again anytime over Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises.


----------



## RedTash (Aug 14, 2011)

genevieveaclark said:


> I couldn't finish it. I admit I didn't try very hard, because of all the awful. From what I've gathered from people who call it brilliant, it's this very awful quality - the mind-numbing, unrelenting desolation in prose form - that supposedly makes it brilliant; the feelings of utter waste that it evokes in the reader mirror the waste of his post-apocalyptic funworld.
> 
> Or something. I've asked people about this before, too, and I never get a really clear answer.
> 
> It could also be pretentious dreck at the same time. Either way, I can't be bothered.


What she said! I really wanted to like it. Stephen King's The Stand is one of my faves.


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

Out of the seven McCarthy books I've read, I think _The Road_ (followed by _No Country for Old Men_) is his weakest novel. Before it came out, it was proclaimed as his masterwork, but that should be held by _Blood Meridian_. _The Road_ wasn't bad, per se, but it fell well short of greatness. He wrote weakly and truncated compared to his earlier novels and I missed the writing of a great English prose stylist. I've heard one critic say he wrote his last two books with the movie deal in mind and that's what, at the heart of the matter, makes _The Road_ an inferior novel.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

I didn't hate it, but I wasn't a big fan either.  One of the few cases where I liked the movie better than the book (I read the book first).

I just didn't care for the writing style.


----------



## SteveDW (Aug 15, 2011)

This was clearly a case when breaking all the rules worked in the author's favor.

I enjoyed the book and got a sense of how desolate and bleak the world was that may not have been as easily conveyed had it been edited to include the polished (i.e. grammatically and punctuationally, if that is even a word) formatting we have come to expect from published fiction.

Steve DW


----------



## Ty Johnston (Jun 19, 2009)

Michael, it's not just you. My reaction wasn't quite as heated as yours, but I read the novel in a day, then was kind of like "What the eff? That's literature today? That's an award winner?" I'm also a fan of pulp literature, so I don't expect everything I read to be some kind of flowery prose, but in my opinion calling _The Road_ high literature (which has been done) is a disservice to the term "high literature." McCarthy's intent might have been there in a Tolstoy/John Gardner moralist sort of way, but there was no story, at least nothing that couldn't have been written just as well if not better in 10 pages.


----------



## James Everington (Dec 25, 2010)

You know what? You're allowed to like or not to like The Road as you see fit, but I never understand these kind of postings where someone says something like " cannot [...] explain its appeal beyond the latent thought that they "ought" to like it. To do otherwise would mark them as uncultured and ignorant".

Yeah. Because it couldn't just be I liked the book and saw value in it could it? No, I'm _pretending_ because I'm scared of being marked as ignorant. You see this argument all the time and it doesn't make sense (I mean, why would the _first_ person say they liked it then?)


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

James Everington said:


> You know what? You're allowed to like or not to like The Road as you see fit, but I never understand these kind of postings where someone says something like " cannot [...] explain its appeal beyond the latent thought that they "ought" to like it. To do otherwise would mark them as uncultured and ignorant".
> 
> Yeah. Because it couldn't just be I liked the book and saw value in it could it? No, I'm _pretending_ because I'm scared of being marked as ignorant. You see this argument all the time and it doesn't make sense (I mean, why would the _first_ person say they liked it then?)


Agree.

That's just as annoying as the opposite where people who like something bash those who dislike it as "ignorant" or say that they "just don't get it."

Both those attitudes are why I don't spend a lot of time discussing things like movies, books, music etc. At the end of the day, all that matters is whether I enjoyed it or not.


----------



## ashel (May 29, 2011)

James Everington said:


> You know what? You're allowed to like or not to like The Road as you see fit, but I never understand these kind of postings where someone says something like " cannot [...] explain its appeal beyond the latent thought that they "ought" to like it. To do otherwise would mark them as uncultured and ignorant".
> 
> Yeah. Because it couldn't just be I liked the book and saw value in it could it? No, I'm _pretending_ because I'm scared of being marked as ignorant. You see this argument all the time and it doesn't make sense (I mean, why would the _first_ person say they liked it then?)


The sense I get is that, typically, yes, this suffices as a response. But when the overall critical reaction to something is so extremely, diametrically opposed to your own experience, it's very human to feel...bewildered. And my response - as I assumed was Michael's - to bewilderment is to ask, "but _why_?" And part of that is trying to explain, and make the case for, your own experience.

Besides, sometimes the emperor really doesn't have any clothes. There have been literary hoaxes. I mean, one could get into a thing about whether the intent of the work is as relevant as the reader's experience of it, but it will probably become a boring discussion pretty quickly.

Anyway. It doesn't, or shouldn't, hurt to ask.


----------



## Marc Johnson (Feb 25, 2011)

I thought I was the only one who didn't like The Road. Good to know there are others out there. It's not the worst book I've ever read. It was short and since I didn't like it, that worked in its favor.


----------



## patrickb (Nov 22, 2008)

I read it, thought it was 'ok' - 2 1/2 out of 5 maybe and I too thought 'THIS won the Pulitzer!'?


----------



## Casper Parks (May 1, 2011)

I read, The Road and enjoyed it.

Famous authors often getaway with altering grammar and punctuation rules.


----------



## mscottwriter (Nov 5, 2010)

I didn't hate McCarthy's prose, but I really was annoyed with his world building.



Spoiler



In a post-apocalyptic world in which *nothing* grows and most food has already been consumed, it would nearly impossible for all of those people to survive. And the fact that the bandits were keeping people alive yet chopping off their limbs to eat them is ridiculous. It would be like keeping a cow alive while carving off pieces of it to eat. Cruelty aside, that's the point since the living animal would need to consume calories in order to survive? If cannibalism was being practiced, the entire human 'animal' would be butchered and cured.



McCarthy should have consulted someone who knew how to write sci-fi.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

mscott9985 said:


> I didn't hate McCarthy's prose, but I really was annoyed with his world building.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


One off the top of my head thought on that...



Spoiler



It's been a while since I read it, but it seemed like it was small groups of cannibals--so there's only so much meat they could eat at one time.

There also was no electricity I believe, and thus now way to refrigerate meat to keep it from spoiling. And how many people today no how to cure or preserve meat?

So I suppose an excuse for that would be cut off what they could eat at that time, and keep them alive so the rest of the meat doesn't spoil before they're ready to eat it!

But yeah, even that sounds like a stretch and I doubt he wrote that for any reason other than the shock value in showing how far some humans had sank in the aftermath of the apocalypse. That they were not only eating people, but doing it the most cruel way imaginable.


----------



## J.L. McPherson (Mar 20, 2011)

I think McCarthy is very much an acquired taste, like liver. I happen to enjoy liver and McCarthy, now I wonder if I would like McCarthy's liver....?

seriously, I can completely understand why some folks wouldn't enjoy _The Road_ or like McCarthy's strange and creepy prose. I don't think it was his best work, _Blood Meridian _ takes that cake.


----------



## Gastro Detective (Feb 17, 2011)

It's not just you.

McCarthy is severely constipated.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Michael, my reading opinion is different from yours, yet I do understand your problems with The Road.  The punctuation and word building didn't bother me very much.  I found the writing and words and plot to be as bleak, hopeless and dark as the very lives of the man and the boy.  I can't say I enjoyed reading it.  I can't even say I liked it very much since it was such a black and dark story devoid of hope.  To me it was a story where I threw out the usual reader conventions, since to me it was a story of utter despair which I thought the words, dialogue and plot (lackof) reinforced.  I think Cormac was trying to write the blackest story he could.  The 2 colors on his palette were black and gray.


The Plague by Camus was a dark story, yet Camus used a full color palette.  Yes, some things are terrible but there is humor and personalities and dialogue and fleshed out characters and most of all...hope.  The Road is hopeless.


Though I read it without problems it is not a story I would want to read again.  I don't think The Road deserved all the awards, prizes and critics raves, but that is my humble opinion.  When I heard they were making a movie of The Road I thought that someone in Hollywood was nuts.  People are not going to line up to see a movie so bleak and depressing and of course--it was a flop.


----------



## Casper Parks (May 1, 2011)

jackz4000 said:


> Michael, my reading opinion is different from yours, yet I do understand your problems with The Road. The punctuation and word building didn't bother me very much. I found the writing and words and plot to be as bleak, hopeless and dark as the very lives of the man and the boy. I can't say I enjoyed reading it. I can't even say I liked it very much since it was such a black and dark story devoid of hope. To me it was a story where I threw out the usual reader conventions, since to me it was a story of utter despair which I thought the words, dialogue and plot (lackof) reinforced. I think Cormac was trying to write the blackest story he could. The 2 colors on his palette were black and gray.
> 
> The Plague by Camus was a dark story, yet Camus used a full color palette. Yes, some things are terrible but there is humor and personalities and dialogue and fleshed out characters and most of all...hope. The Road is hopeless.
> 
> Though I read it without problems it is not a story I would want to read again. I don't think The Road deserved all the awards, prizes and critics raves, but that is my humble opinion. When I heard they were making a movie of The Road I thought that someone in Hollywood was nuts. People are not going to line up to see a movie so bleak and depressing and of course--it was a flop.


I'll agree. Rented the DVD, great actors. If you do watch the DVD, make sure to check out special features. Like the book will not read it again anytime soon, it is a movie I would not watch twice but enjoyed it.


----------



## youngadultfiction (Jul 28, 2011)

I couldn't stop reading the book. Of course, it was my first McCarthy book so i have nothing to compare it against, but to me finding a book that breaks the rules and doesn't make it easy for you is ok. Some people like a challenge, some don't. And i agree that his writing is hard to get into at first, but if you stick with it you will be rewarded.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

I found the OP's review constructive. 

I watched the movie on HBO...but I didnt make it to the end. Fell asleep. And this is one of my very favorite genres.

I have the book on my bookshelf waiting to be read, but was less encouraged to do so after the movie. Am even less encouraged now.

It's not really the criticism of the minimalistic style or lack of punctuation (really? How arrogant. There's 'bleak,' and then there's making me work too hard to figure out what you're saying...or "leaving open to interpretation.")

But the lack of plot? Of answers at the end? The movie seemed that way. If the book is so directionless that it doesnt complete the plot? (As it sounds like, but I dont know)...then I cant be bothered. I want a real ending, an answer. Does the book deliver this?


----------



## James Everington (Dec 25, 2010)

I don't think the canalbalism and it's ultimate pointlessness are a failure of 'world-building' in a typical sci-fi sense. Rather, it was all part of the point of the book - the canabalism _is_ pointless and those doing it are as doomed long-term as those they are eating.

That's the whole point - this isn't an end of the world book where there's actually a sliver of hope; this is _really_ the end of the world, and humanity is as dead as a fly in a room in which you've just sprayed bug-spray - but like the fly, it just hasn't stopped moving yet.


----------



## mscottwriter (Nov 5, 2010)

> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> But yeah, even that sounds like a stretch and I doubt he wrote that for any reason other than the shock value in showing how far some humans had sank in the aftermath of the apocalypse. That they were not only eating people, but doing it the most cruel way imaginable.


Yeah, that's what I was thinking. James, I think that's what you were talking about, too.

But, still... If you're going to write sci fi, then write sci fi 

I also agree that "The Plague" was a much better example of this kind of thing. I really liked Camus's book.


----------



## ashel (May 29, 2011)

If people feel like reading books that destroy a piece of your soul while examining the uglier truths of humanity, may I suggest "Blindness," by Jose Saramago?


----------



## scottnicholson (Jan 31, 2010)

I loved The Road. As a recipient of a few of those "worst book ever" assessments myself, I love writing terrible books that inspire people to write multiple paragraphs about them! Far better than the mediocre kiss of death "this was nice..."


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

9MMare said:


> But the lack of plot? Of answers at the end? The movie seemed that way. If the book is so directionless that it doesnt complete the plot? (As it sounds like, but I dont know)...then I cant be bothered. I want a real ending, an answer. Does the book deliver this?


No, the ending of the book is more or less the same as the movie.

There's not much plot to it, it's really just about portraying the hopelessness of life after an apocalyptic nuclear war.


----------



## Libby13 (Jul 31, 2011)

Maybe I'm being cheesy here, but does the fact that you finished the book, logged onto kindle boards and wrote a lengthy response to it mean that the book was effective?  I know you're also reacting to its awards and reviews but given the sheer volume you had to say, I would say something about the book touched you in some way.  Just a thought...


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

That doesn't mean it was effective though.  I know I often times end up writing longer rants about a book or movie I hated and feel like I wasted my time on, that I do raving about a book or movie I loved! 

I try not to though, as I realize that ranting about it just means I'm wasting even more time on it!


----------



## Christopher Hunter (Apr 11, 2011)

I snorted that book like a line of cocaine. The formatting was strange, but I was lost in the words, lost in the characters, and lost the story. "The Road" took me to a place I didn't want to go, but it was simply impossible for me to look away. It's understandable how some will not like it, but books don't win Pulitzers by mistake.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

Christopher Hunter said:


> I snorted that book like a line of cocaine. The formatting was strange, but I was lost in the words, lost in the characters, and lost the story. "The Road" took me to a place I didn't want to go, but it was simply impossible for me to look away. It's understandable how some will not like it, but books don't win Pulitzers by mistake.


I can see the truth in this post too. I do love the genre, but there are _ALWAYS _ those characters that are glorified, that are 'right', that _prevail_. It's easy for the reader to put themselves in that place.

In a way, such a bleak and likely realistic picture is worth 'experiencing.'

Thanks.


----------



## AzureHorizon (Aug 18, 2011)

I don't agree with a review of The Road pulling out lines and sentences and then... what, throwing them to some amateur authors to mull over and criticize? _The Road_ is very much a book about context -- all of those sentences serve a meaning within the setting, the characters involved, and the plot in general.

To criticize the lack of grammatical punctuation is to consistently follow some sort of literature status quo, which I totally and completely disagree with. Would you have done the same for T.S. Eliot and the awkward, disjointed _The Waste Land_? I am not saying the two works are similar, but their lack of form and rejection of perpetual norms is what make both of these works so acclaimed.

_The Road_ works fundamentally as a minimalistic exploration between two individuals -- family, the one's carrying the fire -- through a world that hates and despises them, that is so hopelessly filled with darkness and mire that it seems as if any chance of finding a silver lining is totally lost. The plot works in its analogues to our modern times -- economic depressions, horrible genocides, worldwide hunger and impending societal collapse across many countries in the world... which is exactly why it won the Pulitzer. And for every "awkward, grammatically obtuse" quote you seemed to cherrypick from absolutely random parts of the novel, there's a paragraph like this:



> He walked out in the gray light and stood and he saw for a brief moment the absolute truth of the world. The cold relentless circling of the intestate earth. Darkness implacable. The blind dogs of the sun in their running. The crushing black vacuum of the universe. And somewhere two hunted animals trembling like ground-foxes in their cover. Borrowed time and borrowed world and borrowed eyes with which to sorrow it.


And I can see, underneath all the confusing plot and minimalistic descriptions, the most chilling and bleak interpretation of modern society I've ever read in a novel.

God forbid you ever read _Only Revolutions_ by Mark Z. Danielewski, the formatting alone would just drive you up a tree. I for one am all for pushing conventions, ignoring them all, and changing the way we write entirely. _The Road_ feels, very much, like a statement that keeping one train of thought, one rigid ideology ("we are the good guys"), makes you blind to the "absolute truth of the world."


----------



## James Everington (Dec 25, 2010)

genevieveaclark said:


> If people feel like reading books that destroy a piece of your soul while examining the uglier truths of humanity, may I suggest "Blindness," by Jose Saramago?


Very much with you on that one, that is a great book. Although I think there's a tint of dark, absurd humour to Saramago books too, and they're certainly not striving for realism as far as I can tell. More like weird fables.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

AzureHorizon said:


> I don't agree with a review of The Road pulling out lines and sentences and then... what, throwing them to some amateur authors to mull over and criticize?


Anyone has the right to record their reactions to a book they read. You may not agree with their opinion, and may not understand their reaction, but it's perfectly valid to the person who had it.

Incidentally, who you callin' 'amateur author'?  I'm not an author. . .neither is 90% of our membership.  I am, however, one who reads _a lot_! (Also true of most of our membership) And I usually do have reactions to what I read, even if I don't usually share them.

As to _The Road_ I've never read it so have no direct comment. Though perhaps it is illustrative that, despite the publicity the book has recieved, I've never read anything that has convinced me that it's something I would enjoy.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

9MMare said:


> In a way, such a bleak and likely realistic picture is worth 'experiencing.'


That's why I actually liked the movie more. The book and movie are really just about "experiencing" the bleak and hopeless reality of post-apocalyptic survival

For me, the movie was much more effective of doing that in an emotionally jarring way. But that's just me. I don't have a very visual imagination when reading, so movies are much more effective in "painting a picture" for me than books.

The main advantage of books is really getting inside of character's heads and thoughts, and telling more detailed stories than can be done in 90-120 minutes in a movie. But those two things aren't really relevant here as the book doesn't really get inside the characters much, and most everything that happens in the book is in the movie (though some things are changed a bit).

So my humble recommendation would be to rent the movie or watch it on HBO, and read the book afterwards if you really love it. Though I know that won't be a popular recommendation on this site as I'm probably one of the few on here who's more of a movie buff than I am an avid reader!


----------



## hamerfan (Apr 24, 2011)

I read it. Didn't think it was great, but I liked it. What has stuck with me the longest from that book is the thought that he should've gotten his apostrophe key fixed before he started writing it.


----------



## John Nelson (Jun 7, 2011)

I read it and found in mildly entertaining. I was waiting for the meat... it was a vegan book. 
At the end I thought "okay, what's the point." What I love about dystopia (or post-apocalyptic) books is the road signs that show us how we got to this terrible place. _The Road_ had no road signs. I never got any insight as to how we got to this bad place. Perhaps people liked the father/son relationship. I like _No Country for Old Men_except that rules of grammar and punctuation doesn't apply to him. I guess he never sent partials to editors ;o)

John


----------



## AzureHorizon (Aug 18, 2011)

John Nelson said:


> I read it and found in mildly entertaining. I was waiting for the meat... it was a vegan book.
> At the end I thought "okay, what's the point." What I love about dystopia (or post-apocalyptic) books is the road signs that show us how we got to this terrible place. _The Road_ had no road signs. I never got any insight as to how we got to this bad place. Perhaps people liked the father/son relationship. I like _No Country for Old Men_except that rules of grammar and punctuation doesn't apply to him. I guess he never sent partials to editors ;o)
> My first published work is a dystopian thriller. I love the genre and social criticism that it contains (like Orwell and Huxley), but wasn't too impressed w/ _The Road _ as a work of dystopia. As literary fiction I guess it was good...it won awards.
> 
> John


That's part of the point of the novel. You're supposed to fill in the blanks for why the world is so bleak -- it could be a myriad of reasons, all that matters is the world has ended and hope has died.

The father/son relationship is interesting because it's more than just a father and son traipsing through Hell... their ideas and philosophy have multiple allusions to the real world and in essence they become symbols. That's a lot of what _The Road_ is, symbols. Every instance, every character, every situation, every thought and movement.


----------



## WriterCTaylor (Jul 11, 2011)

I'm glad I found this thread. I have been intending to buy The Road for some time now, I just never got around to it. This opinion was indepth and balanced. I hate, hate, hate books with no punctuation. There is an author here in New Zealand who does that and I couldn't stand it when I read his book. I was confused as to who was talking, if anyone was even talking  and it was off-putting. Based on this thread I won't be parting with my money for this book. That is the great thing about this site. Lots of info and opinions I would not normally get to see.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

AzureHorizon said:


> That's part of the point of the novel. You're supposed to fill in the blanks for why the world is so bleak -- it could be a myriad of reasons, all that matters is the world has ended and hope has died.
> 
> The father/son relationship is interesting because it's more than just a father and son traipsing through Hell... their ideas and philosophy have multiple allusions to the real world and in essence they become symbols. That's a lot of what _The Road_ is, symbols. Every instance, every character, every situation, every thought and movement.


I agree with John Nelson about the post-apoc. genre....and the lack of social and historical background would drive me nuts (and annoyed the hell out of me in the movie). I got the book hoping those details would be filled in, at least somewhat.

I dont want to 'fill in the blanks' about what happened, that is my favorite part about SHTF and post-apoc. books.

To be honest, I'm lazy & shallow...I dislike books that rely on alot of symbolism. Let the author, or his characters, give me his/their opinions or views and I'll make up my own mind. I'm good at that! Occasionally there is a book that uses symbolism that is elegant and works for me...but not often.


----------



## Sharon Red (Jul 23, 2011)

Christopher Hunter said:


> I snorted that book like a line of cocaine. The formatting was strange, but I was lost in the words, lost in the characters, and lost the story. "The Road" took me to a place I didn't want to go, but it was simply impossible for me to look away. It's understandable how some will not like it, but books don't win Pulitzers by mistake.


Very strange but effective way to put the book, this is definitely making me want to look into it now...


----------



## AzureHorizon (Aug 18, 2011)

WriterCTaylor said:


> I'm glad I found this thread. I have been intending to buy The Road for some time now, I just never got around to it. This opinion was indepth and balanced. I hate, hate, hate books with no punctuation. There is an author here in New Zealand who does that and I couldn't stand it when I read his book. I was confused as to who was talking, if anyone was even talking and it was off-putting. Based on this thread I won't be parting with my money for this book. That is the great thing about this site. Lots of info and opinions I would not normally get to see.


I don't think disliking a lack of punctuation is enough to shy away from this book. I honestly think you should give it a chance.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Yeah, just read the sample and see if it bothers you too much to read it, rather than just totally writing it off without giving it a chance.

That's the great thing about the Kindle, the samples make it easy to quickly check things out without even leaving the house!


----------



## BellaStreet (Apr 15, 2011)

Not just you. I read it at the urging of the friend and it was a plodding, joyless, er, road. I remember thinking the author had a thesaurus so he could use as many adjectives as possible for 'gray' and 'cold'. 

Plus, I don't like depressing books and this just made me want to stick a fork in my eye. 

After making me read this, my friend (who pooh-poohs romance novels) next made me read Twilight (I liked the first movie). She has lost my trust. LOL


----------



## WriterCTaylor (Jul 11, 2011)

AzureHorizon said:


> I don't think disliking a lack of punctuation is enough to shy away from this book. I honestly think you should give it a chance.


Well, I watched the movie last night after reading this thread. I thought it was OK, but the person I was with hated it. I know there are redeeming features to every book, but the lack of punctuation really puts me off. I will consider reading it, but some of the excerpts I have read here kind of annoyed me when I read them.


----------



## AzureHorizon (Aug 18, 2011)

WriterCTaylor said:


> Well, I watched the movie last night after reading this thread. I thought it was OK, but the person I was with hated it. I know there are redeeming features to every book, but the lack of punctuation really puts me off. I will consider reading it, but some of the excerpts I have read here kind of annoyed me when I read them.


The movie is pretty bad, honestly. It's not a good barometer of how to judge the book -- the plot follows the same, but the repetition of certain phrases in the book make you feel for the characters and their situation more.

"We're carrying the fire..."


----------



## simond21 (Aug 27, 2011)

Yeah what is The Road for the just for me.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

AzureHorizon said:


> The movie is pretty bad, honestly. It's not a good barometer of how to judge the book -- the plot follows the same, but the repetition of certain phrases in the book make you feel for the characters and their situation more.
> 
> "We're carrying the fire..."


I disagree personally. As I said above I actually liked the movie a good deal more than the book--and I read the book first. I hated the writing style of the book, and seeing the hopelessness of the world in the movie had a more emotional impact on me than reading about it did.

But again, that's just me. I don't have a very visual imagination, and I'm by far a movie buff first and book worm 2nd (or 4th or 5th or whatever down my hobby list).


----------



## Jon Olson (Dec 10, 2010)

I think it's kind of an unnecessary rave-out, Michael. A simple, "I hated it" would suffice. Try Blood Meridian. Even All the Pretty Horses. McCarthy hadn't gone quite so far with his loose diction in those. Blood Meridian I think ranks right up there with the greats as a picture of what the West was really during the extermination of the Indians. It wasn't John Wayne.


----------



## mscottwriter (Nov 5, 2010)

I said before that I didn't care for the book, yet I did read it very quickly and it did hold my interest.  It certainly was haunting.  I'm just not sure I'd given it the Pulitzer.  Not that anyone would ask me, lol...


----------



## amiblackwelder (Mar 19, 2010)

On one hand- the book has merit in that it draws the feeling of utterly desolate and disengaged from the world. On the other hand- it was just boring and dragged.


----------



## GerrieFerrisFinger (Jun 1, 2011)

genevieveaclark said:


> I couldn't finish it. I admit I didn't try very hard, because of all the awful. From what I've gathered from people who call it brilliant, it's this very awful quality - the mind-numbing, unrelenting desolation in prose form - that supposedly makes it brilliant; the feelings of utter waste that it evokes in the reader mirror the waste of his post-apocalyptic funworld.
> 
> Or something. I've asked people about this before, too, and I never get a really clear answer.
> 
> It could also be pretentious dreck at the same time. Either way, I can't be bothered.


Sorry the book was pretentious unreadable prose. Who willingly wants to be depressed?


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

GerrieFerrisFinger said:


> Who willingly wants to be depressed?


I didn't care for this book, but I like the occasional depressing book or movie.

The point of art--IMO--is to make the consumer of it feel something. A book/movie etc. that can evoke a strong emotion like depression in me is a damn effective piece of art IMO. Same thing with other emotions like making me laugh or making me angry or making me happy. Just depends what I'm in the mood for.


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

Libby13 said:


> Maybe I'm being cheesy here, but does the fact that you finished the book, logged onto kindle boards and wrote a lengthy response to it mean that the book was effective? I know you're also reacting to its awards and reviews but given the sheer volume you had to say, I would say something about the book touched you in some way. Just a thought...


Eragon, Transformers 2, and The Happening all inspired plenty of anger, and trust me, it has nothing to do with being touched with any way other than in a bad place. Inspiring hatred in a character is one thing...inspiring hatred of the entire creation itself is another.

As for The Road...eh. I sampled it, read it for about five minutes, and decided I had no clue what I was reading, nor why all the dang punctuation was gone, but not always gone. I have heard it is supposed to be phenomenally better read aloud, though, so maybe I just have a tin ear.


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

Michael_J_Sullivan said:


> Okay, so don't hate me but I'm not a fan of Comac McCarthy's The Road...
> 
> Well, I confess I am.
> 
> ...


----------



## henryandhenrybooks (Sep 6, 2011)

I thought THE ROAD was brilliant!  He creates the most vivid descriptions with the fewest words of any living writer.


----------

