Friday, August 5, 2011

The Road Post 1

While reading The Road, I was struck by the codependence that is present in the relationship between The Man and The Boy. When we look at the harsh and chaotic environment where the story takes place, we assume that, as a basic survival instinct, children would turn to their parents, or other members of an older generation, for wisdom and protection. While this is seen in the way that The Boy depends on The Man for things like food and shelter, it is also contradicted by the way that The Man depends on The Boy for the sake of his conscience and, at moments, his sanity. This can be seen in many of The Man and The Boy’s conversations, in which The Man often seems to depend on The Boy for proof that he is, well, alive.

This made me wonder - what is the source of the codependence? Has the world really changed so drastically in The Road that adults are unable to heft the burden of their newfound surroundings, and must therefore place part of the burden on their children? Is the influence that The Boy has over his father unusual, even when compared to their post-apocalyptic surroundings? Or do most parents, even in today’s world, foster such a desperate bond with their children; a bond so intense that one would think it was based upon the simple need for survival, rather than affection? I’ve yet to decide which of these options is “the truth”. Then again, maybe we aren’t really meant to decide on what is true, at least in the case of The Man and The Boy.
Posted by Rachel S. at 5:36 PM

5 comments:

Esther said...

This is a really interesting point, especially your conflict over whether the father-son bond in The Road is similar to relationships in the real world. I am inclined to say it is. Most of the parents I know rely on their children for something. From holding together their marriages to getting them back in touch with youth, children usually play a major role in their parents' lives and sanities. The families where this does not seem to hold true are often the dysfunctional families with turbulent relationships. The child was never given the opportunity to teach the parent, not even silly things like how to text or facebook, and the two end up having difficulties connecting with each other. I think the man and boy in the book exemplify this trend in real-life humans, with the differences lying in the specific needs you mentioned. I think the boy's role as the sane, moral person is not always the role of children today. However, now that I think about it, the boy's role as the person who really understood the situation and had been living in the post apocalyptic world for a greater percentage of his life than his father is similar to the situation of our generation who sometimes understand the 21rst century more than our parents and can either keep them sane amid the changes or give them a taste of a childhood different (and far-ish away) from theirs.

August 6, 2011 at 7:41 AM
Isabella Brennan said...

I agree with you. The relationship between the boy and his father is very interesting. I agree with Esther, in that, the same thing occurs in the real world. Parents depend on their children to distract them from their difficulties and children lean on their parents for support and protection. In the story the boy served to remind the father why he was still alive and to distract the father from everything that could have made him go insane. While the father’s job was pretty self-explanatory, to protect and shelter the child, the son had a more complex mission. The father did look to him a lot throughout the story as a reminder of their mission. Today, parents have a very similar relationship with their children. Like Esther said, they depend on them to be a constant reminder of why they are married and why they are working so hard and pushing for a better life.
-Sinead Brennan

August 6, 2011 at 8:32 AM
Ms. Johnston said...

"However, now that I think about it, the boy's role as the person who really understood the situation and had been living in the post apocalyptic world for a greater percentage of his life than his father is similar to the situation of our generation who sometimes understand the 21rst century more than our parents and can either keep them sane amid the changes or give them a taste of a childhood different (and far-ish away) from theirs."

Wow! Wow! Wow! How cool--I hadn't thought about this--not this way. Each time I read this book I am struck by the way the father feels for his son in terms of being an alien to the world that once was--but never as the father being the outsider in this new world--the only one the boy knows. It IS very much like our society today. You guys don't know the world as it was even 20 years ago before WWW. And we (older folks) are like muggles in this new world that you are so accustomed to. (Pardon the HP allusion.)

August 6, 2011 at 8:37 AM
Andrew said...

Wow, that's a fantastic comparison. I would have never thought of that, but I wouldn't be surprised if McCarthy was thinking of a similar allusion while writing it.

One of the quotes I marked that best shows your theory of "correspondence" is after they leave the thief naked in the street to die:
"
The man squatted and looked at him. I'm scared, he said. Do you understand? I'm scared. (the man)
The boy didn't answer. He just sat there with his head bowed, sobbing.
You're not the one who has to worry about everything.
The boy said something but he couldn't understand him. What? he said.
He looked up, his wet and grimy face. Yes I am, he said. I am the one.
"

This is one of the rougher times between the couple. The Man becomes almost angry at the child for crying, while the Man thinks that he's the only one that goes through the hardships, trying to provide for his son. He thinks that if anyone has the right to cry, it's him.

August 7, 2011 at 12:13 PM
Cecilia said...

It's true that sometimes parents do depend on their children for something and that the children are sometimes the teachers of the parents while the parents are also teaching them. Maybe this was one of the things that McCarthy was trying to show or prove because if you think about it all over the book the dad is teaching the son something that the son never would get to know or encounter again after the disaster. The son sometimes teaches the dad that what the new world will need is help from one another so that their world can survive sane not insane. I think:)

August 7, 2011 at 7:08 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Blog Archive