While I was reading,I was near constantly wondering what exactly "carrying the fire" meant. Obviously it has something important to the world, and at the end it was shown that the boy wasn't alone in his burden. I'd guessed that being a "good guy" meant that you carried the fire, but McCarthy never actually says what that means. I would say it's some sort of religious thing, with the mention of God in the story, but that has as little evidence as anything else. It seems like a sort of loose end to me, mentioned but never fully explained.
Compared to On the Road, this story is a much quicker read. When I was reading OtR, I often had to stop reading for a while just to let my brain process all the detail that the book provided. It was so full, you almost had to draw it out, or you;d just end up lost in the images. The Road, on the other hand, was, while not boring or vague, a lot less "full". There was a great deal of detail, but it didn't leap out of the pages at you. It was a great deal more subtle, sitting in the background, supporting and filling out the plot. However, the places in The Road weren't as big of a part of the story as they were in OtR. Both styles are equally compelling and well done, but McCarthy's style tends to lend itself to a "lighter"(despite the story being so dark) read.
1 comment:
I was just mentioning to someone how much more quick, light, and fun The Road was too read. It really does seem like the contradiction of the century but it's so true. And by more fun, i don't mean better than On the Road. On the Road was so much more dense and you were just thinking thinking thinking while reading and it wasn't so much fun as interesting and challenging. But The Road made me think afterward opposed to during reading and i think that's what made it so quick a read.
Post a Comment