It's difficult to put this book down once you reach the middle. I can't help but feel cold and hungry as I read about the father and son trying to stay warm and find food.
I read this book a year ago, and it still bothers me that the mother left them. I don't think I could have left, but I'm not in the same frame of mind as she would have been in. We don't know what happened to her, but I assume she died in the woods from the cold or starvation. Her other solution wasn't any easier, but the thought of my child being alone in such a world would have been worse than taking his life. I don't know if I could do that either - maybe if the situation was so bad, but then how do you judge that? We also see the father wrestling with this thought. What would you do?
The event that destroys the world is not revealed, but we are given pieces of information; p.52, "The clocks stopped at 1:17. A long shear of light and then a series of low concussions." I would guess a nuclear destruction, but it could be something else - the sun? Why is everything burned? What do you think happened? Does it bother you that the author does not explain this?
Some reviews on Amazon mentioned that they did not care for his writing style or the fact that none of the characters have names. I think the story still reads well, and proves that writing does not have to be perfect to be good. By reading this book again, I am noticing less of the horror and more of the love and hope between the father and son. What are your thoughts so far?
It's interesting that you're seeing less horror and more hope the second time around. I read it a few months ago and definitely felt that horror...but kept at it because I felt there was an important message there.
I guess I assumed that it was all-out nuclear destruction (ugh), although there were still so many buildings standing that maybe that wasn't it at all. I kept wanting the author to explain, but I understand why he didn't - my guess is to make the story universal, no matter what happens in our future.
I thought the mother killed herself (wow, all this ambiguity!)...and to be honest, I totally judged her for it...to leave both your husband and your child, when you still have them both and they're what matters most...though of course I've never been in that situation, so I don't know. I think that war probably brings out the best and the worst in people, though.
Posted by: amanda | January 18, 2009 at 11:52 PM
I think the man, the boy, and the mother are stand-ins for the Holy Trinity and how McCarthy feels they act toward each other. I think it is important to notice the rare appearances of the mother to really make the connection on that part. She never talks to the boy and her only part in the book is just giving birth to him. After that, the man cares, nutures and protects the boy. She only talks to the man and tries to re-affirm, not affirm, what he has already planned.
Another connection is the fact that the boy wants to save every one while the man remains indifferent and suspicious of every one.
It doesn't bother me to not know how the world was destroyed. The only thing that matters is how the landscape mirrors what the man sees. He sees the death and destruction while the boy seems to have an urge to stay somewhere and re-build. The boys always seems to be somewhat bullied by the man to try to see the same thing he does (the binoculars).
I don't want to write any spoilers yet, so I leave off with that.
Posted by: cloudcover | January 22, 2009 at 08:10 PM