Question 5 McCarthy's The Road (post 2)

McCarthy's novel is a stark contrast to Kerouac's in terms of language. While Kerouac is lyrical, loud, and colorful, McCarthy's style is dark and sparse. How does McCarthy's style lend to the story itself? Cite text for support. Who is his audience? How can you tell?

McCarthy's style of writing contributes tremendously in accurately portraying the setting of the novel. In The Road, McCarthy starts off from the very beginning, referring to this unlit cataclysmic world as a barren wasteland of sorts. Everything is dead, dried up, covered in ashes, and decaying very slowly. The one thing I like about this book was that the tone was very dark and he never let the reader take a break from this, it was always there, in your face. A prime example would be when the reader talks about the rhododendron. This rose tree in particular is often used as an ornament of sorts and is in fact a pretty popular flower among gardeners. But the way McCarthy refers to it makes it seem like some decaying, shriveled up stem that shows no signs of life. Talking about the rose as if it had been ripped out of the ground and nows it is just vulnerable. I find his style of writing very interesting how he can detail very little moments or glimpses in these peoples' lives and pull the reader in very close.

At first glance this this style o writing looks very depressing but as you keep reading you gather this sense that the father wants to persevere towards the safe-haven; also referred to as the South. However the road to get there is not easy and the boy does not seem to realize that. Ever since they have been on the road,they have this stench of paranoia that has grown on them since the beginning of their trek. But what I think what the author is really trying to say is that you have to fight for what is yours. In McCarthy's mind, it seems like in this world it is a man eat man, killed or be killed type of mentality. You have to take what is rightfully yours and never let go of it or it will surely disappear. Now I am not so sure if the boy understands this but the man definitely does. One example of how the boy expresses his innocence to help people is when they notice the old man who is limping in the far distance. He was probably injured and had no place to go. All signs showed that he was desperate for food, water and shelter. Now the boy felt that by helping the man he would be doing a good turn, however not once did he take into consideration the man and the boy were low on food themselves. Dividing rations even smaller than they already are will eventually kill them too. Why the boy did not understand after the man continuously told the boy "there is nothing we can do for him", now makes sense to me. He has no concept of survival and just wants to help everybody in sight


It was really intriguing to me how his play with words was used to voice his opinion. I believe that his audience in this novel is to the young generation. We have the ability to make or break the future and it starts by taking the time to enjoy life's treasures otherwise we will destroy not only ourselves in the process but all our means of living. So this book, in my opinion seems to be a preview to what is ahead for our society if we do not change our ways. If that makes any sense.