Talk:The Road

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Novels
Literature Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the Science fiction task force. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments

I would move this to the apocalyptic fiction category, but I don't know how.

Contents

[edit] Spoilers

This page spoils a very recently published novel -- this is not The Grapes of Wrath we're talking about here -- so for the time being at least it should contain spoiler warnings.Larry Dunn 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I came to this page hoping for background information and accidentally learnt of a major plot twist. Perhaps it was my fault for being nosy, but I do think spolier tags are justified! --121.45.115.9 04:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Many people would agree, but first, this is no longer a recently published novel, and second, the "spoilers" come in a section clearly marked "plot summary". Plot summaries are expected to include the plot points. You may wish to check out WP:SPOILER.--Cúchullain t/c 07:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Isaac?

Template:Spoiler Why on earth is Isaac the best biblical parallel to the father-son relationship in The Road? It occurs to me that Isaac, the son that Abraham was willing to sacrifice out of piety, is about as far from the son in The Road as any human being can be. The father gives all (including his life) to keep the boy alive. It's one of the things so uncharacteristically touching about this McCarthy novel. Thoughts?Larry Dunn 21:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed. Larry Dunn 21:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, Isaac or more properly the Adekah, gets inverted in this book. We have a father who will not sacrifice a son. That's how the parallel functions. It's an astute one by the way.Slagathor (talk) 21:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear?

The book contains no mention of nuclear weapons.


Yes, and the article specifically states that. The book does not use the word nuclear but the worldwide destruction and ash generation could be caused by nothing else.
Please sign your comments. Larry Dunn 16:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't really care for the Original Research leap being made here inferring Nuclear Holocaust, let the reader make up their own mind, we dont' need to present that. LilDice 00:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you're confused about what original research is. To see more about it, look here: Wikipedia:No_original_research. This article does not say that it was a nuclear war. It says that the cataclysm has some of the earmarks of nuclear war. It specifically says that the book does not state what the cataclysm was. Read some of the reviews of the book to see the reasonable inference that it may have been a nuclear war. Also look at the wiki articles on nuclear winter and nuclear war. The article says that the catacylsm has some of the earmarks of nuclear war, and this is verifiable, not original research. Larry Dunn 15:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
The problem here is that the trademarks of Nuclear winter are also the trademarks of the so-called End Times of Judeo-Christian mythology. It would be best to either mention both options or to simply reassert the idea that it is an unspecified event that caused the destruction of the world.Slagathor (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Larry, I'm a bit confused why you removed the inline reference, I realize it is also at the bottom, but I chose that link because it is a review that mentions nuclear winter. What's the harm in citing something? LilDice 02:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. The article has a wikilink to nuclear winter, so the reader can go there and find out facts about it. You don't need to independently verify that the story contains aspects of nuclear winter -- they are in the novel, and the wikilink provides those indicia.
Even if we did need to verify the reference to nuclear winter, the voice review really would not do it -- the reviewer for the voice is no more an expert on nuclear winter than you or me. Larry Dunn 14:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Well I suppose we're in a strange situation. I don't normally write Novel Synopsi, so I'm going off my normal wikipedia behavior, which is don't come up with anything at all on your own, restate and organize what printed/reputable media/sources have said. I suppose in the case of a synopsis the novel itself is the source. Now for the record, personally I believe the cataclysm in the novel was a nuclear war. But I do find it interesting McCarthy never explicitly names the disaster. I suppose you can't really draw a line at this point though. Consider the case that he never names the ocean the Atlantic Ocean, though we all assume it is, and I wouldn't have a problem listing it as the Atlantic Ocean in the geography section. I'm rambling a bit, but I guess as long as we respect the novel and note that the disaster is unspecified that's cool, unless of course some other purists come in and insist we don't speculate at all on the disaster :) LilDice 15:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I hear you. It's not well-trod territory for me either, and I never put anything in an article unless it's sourced. But the source here really is the novel. I think the language in the article is basically sufficient -- it says that some of the benchmarks of nuclear war (and nuclear winter) are in the book, and it also says, specifically, that the cause of the disaster is not directly described in the book. I agree on the Atlantic Ocean, BTW, and struggled with whether to take that out as well. But it seems that some of the references to their journey make it clear that the trip is through the Southeast to the Atlantic (I accept the analysis in the geography section, and I'm not from the southeast). Maybe the language should be couched to make it a little clearer that it's speculation?Larry Dunn 22:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Some reviewers have suggested that a meteor could have caused the holocaust, resulting in firestorms, global ash, destruction. Those who feel that this is the holocaust point out that there is no radiation, or at least no worry of radiation, and there is no radiation sickness. The worry seems to be the ash, not radiation. On the other hand, there are points in the novel where it is suggested that man was responsible for the cataclysm. I also remember a section, where they meet the old man, Eli, that suggests that The Man was not sure how the holocaust started. Eli suggests that he anticipated the cataclysm. The Man asked him about this, but Eli answered that he didn't specifically guess this would happen, just that it would be something. This suggests that the destruction was manmade.
The point is that McCarthy never explains what happened, and that it's not important. The importance is that the world has been destroyed, that the world is covered in ash, and that humanity was involved in its destruction. While there is speculation as to what caused the holocaust, perhaps the review should stress the fact that the specific cause is unimportant and may not even be known (by us or by the author). Agoodall 04:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it is important to the book how the world ended. If, for example, I am correct and the event is the Eschaton, then the Father did not get taken up during the Rapture. This puts an entire interpretative spin on everything that happens later on. It also talks about redemption, innocence, and puts a great anti-religious twist on the book. I think it's crucial to an understanding of the novel.Slagathor (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the central contention of your comments -- that the precise cause is not important to the story. And I do think the article reflects that. That said, the disaster does set the mood for the story, and frankly, there's no way that a meteor strike could burn down all of the cities in the USA without completely immolating all the people too. McCarthy makes it fairly clear that the cities were all systematically struck -- the city where the man was living was struck and glowing red, the cities they visit have clearly been struck as well -- the countryside somewhat less so, although the resulting fires affected everything. That's the kind of selective global disaster that one would expect from a nuclear attack rather than a meteor or other singular-point disaster.
Radiation would no longer be a factor roughly 8-10 years after a nuclear war (roughly the age of the boy), at least not one that immediately kills in the short term. As the wiki page on Nuclear fallout says, "Fallout radiation falls off ('decays') exponentially relatively quickly with time. Most areas become fairly safe for travel and decontamination after three to five weeks." It also says that most of the people who die of radiation poisoning will die within 6 weeks of initial exposure.
And also consider that we have no idea what effect radiation is having on all of the characters on the story. We have no idea whether there is a "total lack" of radiation. It's not like any surviving radiation would have a color or shape, or smell, that could be commented on.
I may wind up reading it again (I'm still recovering from the first reading!) but I do distinctly recall that McCarthy refers to the disaster as having been brought on by the hand of man. Anyone recall those passages? Larry Dunn 22:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I think this happens during the conversation with Elijah. I don't own the book so I can't check. LilDice 16:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The same conversation where the Elijah is clear that he doesn't know anything and lies in order to hide who really is? That conversation? Nickjost 23:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The total lack of radiation leads me to think it may have been a meteor. Also feasible is a cataclysmic explosion of the Yellowstone caldera, this would produce mass fire storms, plenty o' ash, a protracted winter etc.

A Yellowstone supervolanic event would have been recorded and well known. The people in the book dont seem to know what caused it and it happened very fast without any warning. Plus the soil seems have been sterilized as nothing will grow except mushrooms - volanic eruptions wouldnt do that. Some have suggested the cataclysmic event could have been a Gamma Ray Burst from nearby star. If a burst is close and hits at the right angle it could kill off nearly all life on Earth unless its 1/4 mile below the surface or more. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray_burst#Mass_extinction_on_Earth

Another possibility might be a Coronal Mass Ejection from the Sun. If enough material were ejected it could raise the temperature of the Earth drastically for a short period. Anoymous JAN-16-2007

That's the point, though -- nearly all life was not killed off by the attack itself. Why would a coronal mass ejection target a city, but not the area (presumably a suburb) where the man lived? Would a gamma ray burst do that? I doubt it -- it would affect the entire surface of the earth uniformly, city, suburb, and country.
Also interesting is that not all cities were completely wiped out. Only some were. McCarthy talks about people who lived like rats in cities going underground and hunting for canned food. Meanwhile, other cities were virtually melted by the disaster. That's more like a nuclear attack than a natural disaster.
We come back to the point that the story certainly does not require a precise description of the catastrophe. The important part is that it happened. That said, the attack seems to have come from a man-made source, as the cities seem to have been the focus of the disaster. (Please sign your comments.)Larry Dunn 16:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I have to go with Gamma Ray Burst based on this description of what it would do. The man and his son after traveling (even far from cities) describe an Earth where nothing at all is growing even years later - except fungi. The Earth has apparently been sterilized. If people were sheltered when a moderate burst hit, people might survive. Like others have said, the actual cause is not part of the story but the nature of the book leads people to wonder what could cause it. The book would make a good movie. Though if it sticks to the book it might be too grisly for some.

http://www.exitmundi.nl/Gamma.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.219.235.164 (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Please sign your comments. Again, the gamma ray burst theory does not explain why cities were attacked more fiercely than suburbs or towns (as recounted in the book) and does not take into account McCarthy's suggestions that the catastrophe was authored by mankind.Larry Dunn 14:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
This is a poor reading of the book. The cities are not destroyed, they're burned. The burning starts afterwards and occurs even during the course of the book (the hot asphalt in the earlier chapters). The cannibal cults burn things. We only ever have one discription of a blast, when The Man remembers the event at 1:17 (I don't believe it even says whether its AM or PM though it strongly implies AM). Nickjost 23:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The whole melted cities thing is not typical of a nuclear weapons as they tend to blast apart cities, not melt them in the way described in the book. In addition the details where the soil is sterile and nothing at all grows anywhere is not consistent with nuclear weapons. Even in a full scale nuclear war in the North, the Southern hemisphere would suffer no direct damage and eventually recover and the survivors would go there. Then again anything powerful enough to kill off virtually all life except fungi should also have killed man too. Theres loads of inconsistencies in the book, but its good nonetheless; though it does bother me when authors write about cataclysms then dont explain what caused them. ANONYMOUS 30 January 2007. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.219.235.164 (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC).


Which in my opinion makes it a glaringly awful emotional hit piece by a great writer. Great works should be consistent. He needn't have mentioned exactly what happened once, but should have privately developed the back story. Nickjost 23:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I see the edit police are at work. Since a "nuclear winter" results from a nuclear war, it's fallacious to argue that stating it in the wiki text doesn't privilege one explanation of events rather than another. Either remove it, or better, add a line that the same results are possible (indeed more so) from a global firestorm resulting from an asteriod impact. (please don't ask me to sign in by the way.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.136.124.67 (talk) 23:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It's just so simple. 1:17 refers to Revelations. It's the Eschaton. Look at the concordances, look at McCarthy's use of religious iconography. It's not a nuclear war, it's the end of time. Period.Slagathor (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

As an update to this discussion, McCarthy has specifically said that the cataclysm was not a natural disaster, or brought on by a meteor. He said that it was something we did to ourselves.

Considering that the only way we can presently do that in a single rapid event is by nuclear war, and that so many of the hallmarks of the cataclysm seem post nuclear, it merits as least a mention. So I've added a mention to the article. Larry Dunn (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Source on this Larry (that McCarthy has stated it's man-made). Lil' Dice (yeah, I said it!) - talk 02:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
He added this source: [1]. However, McCarthy wasn't talking about the disaster in the book when he said humans will "do ourselves in first". The Times took the quote from the Rolling Stone interview, in which McCarthy was describing how he thought we'd really go out. In fact, that interview implies The Road's disaster was a meteor, and he even spoke to scientists at the Santa Fe Institute about how that would work. He did change a number of things for dramatic effect, notably the ash and the lack of new plant life. I had planned to add some stuff from that interview into this article but I lost the issue.--Cúchullain t/c 18:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not the author who implies in the interview that it was a meteor strike, actually the opposite. A prime reason stated for removing the text about the similarities between this event and a nuclear war was that it could possibly have been a meteor strike -- while that's already been pointed out to be implausible based on the description of the catapstrophe in the book, the author mentioning the likelihood that an apocalypse will be brought on by man just underlines that. There's no reason not to point out the similarities between the book cataclysm and a nuclear war, particularly because a meteor strike would not cause a similar disaster, and a nuclear war would likely cause just the sort of results that this book describes. Larry Dunn (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, whoever keeps putting that nuclear crap in should stop it. The quotation is from something that is NOT a valid external source. It's not citation worthy even a little, so knock it the hell off. Besides... if it's a Biblical catastrophe--and it is--that too could be read as being brought on by humans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.164.86.12 (talk) 09:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms

I've added a section pointing out the criticism of the writing style used in the book as well as a rebuttal to said criticism. I thought that since it's an important aspect of the book that it should be noted. Hopefully it sounds neutral. Magicflyinlemur 22:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm reverting this, you need to cite criticisms on both sides, reading it now it is full of Weasel Words. LilDice 22:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh, I think I did. I pointed out the most commonly used argument for the writing style. Fan of Cormac McCarthy or not, it is significant to the book and as such should be on the page. Nevermind, it's useless arguing with you people. Magicflyinlemur 03:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Magicinflyinlemur, you need to cite them, you just can't say, some people say this, or some people say that. You need to link to a published criticism. I'm not against criticism, but the criticism needs to be verified. See WP:Verifiability. LilDice 03:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've spent the last couple of hours reading reviews (there are no literary journal articles on The Road yet). I have yet to see one complain about the writing style, the only place I see that is on the Amazon review page, which isn't a good source. LilDice 15:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Amazon is a legitimate source of public opinion. While I disagree about his style, I think it works well, I'm still flabbergasted that this won the Pultizer when there's obvious contradictions in the back story (cannibalism in late stage as societal choice, all life being dead except humans, humans setting fires to coals, etc.). There are legitimate critiques of the work. It seems to be caught up in a wave of premature emotion right now due to the story of the father and son. This is a sloppy work done by a crack writer. Nickjost 23:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I know I'll set off the bigots again, but bluntly: this is what happens when a scientifically-illiterate writer writes a science fiction novel. He doesn't know or care about the idiocies in the set-up; it's all about the mood and the horrible set-pieces and the emotional burden of the father-and-son story. Mundane reviewers who also aren't bright enough to understand the impossibility of what is described were so moved by the emotion that they just ignore that stuff. No editor of even the worst science fiction publishing imprint would have bought this thing because of the idiocies involved. --Orange Mike 13:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
This page is not for discussion of the novel's merits. However, I'll bite anyway. I think it's silly to say McCarthy doesn't care or idiocies set up. He's always been known to do quite a bit of research on his novels, particularly his Western novels. What he wasn't prepared to deal with was rabid fan-boys. As for this thing not being published by the worst science fiction publisher, who cares. It's obviously not a traditional science fiction novel and McCarthy is still the best living American writer, like it or not. Lil' Dice (yeah, I said it!) - talk 01:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, McCarthy must be the best living American writer... or, it could be that he omits punctuation, explanation of the cataclysm, explanation of how there's some living people and yet no ants or bugs or plants or fish (all of which are more robust than homo-sapiens!), explanation of how for the first time in history in the presence of adversity people revert to mass cannibalism and a whole slew of other things simply because he wanted to write a book about a man and his son in a world of horrible adversity in which they can only rely on each other; which is promptly disproved as soon as dad dies. I guess the important lesson in this book is that the distrusting father's continuous fear (and attempted murder) of everyone else in the world resulted in a life of misery and torture for his son that was eradicated as soon as he died and got out of the way. The problem is for those of us who actually think about sciences such as physics and biology, the glaring omissions and unresolved fallacies mount and mount throughout the book until it's so distracting we can barely concentrate enough to decipher the laborious, unaccredited, unaddressed, unpunctuated dialog. But by all means, let's delete the criticism section, because it's clearly biased against the emperor, who is clearly wearing the most amazing invisible clothes I've ever seen in my life. His "Crossing" books were interesting though, and I thought the dialog in them was supposed to be period/setting specific. I guess it's just laziness after all. Krep 02:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
None of these criticisms are even remotely valid. The novel's event was NOT a nuclear war. It was the Eschaton. The Eschaton explains everything.Slagathor (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to make two points about this argument. 1) Orangemike suggests that the novel is flawed because the author clearly has no knowledge about science. This is flawed on several accounts, the first being that as we are given no concrete description of the event causing the situation of the novel, it is difficult to say that the science on this is flawed (this is perhaps due--as Slagathor points out--to the unnecessary assumption that the cataclysm involved is nuclear in nature). Secondly, McCarthy is known to frequent science conferences, is friends with many scientists, and regularly proofreads their work. So, he probably knows something about science, enough at least to know his limitations and avoid giving a the cataclysm and resulting effects the sort of insultingly faux-scientific explanations we see in much (though certainly not all) science fiction. Finally, to read this work for concrete scientific details about the cataclysm seems to defeat the purpose of reading the novel, it seems to fail to see the cataclysm as the mcguffin it is, it sees the cataclysm as the point rather than the setup to the point. 2) Slagathor contends that the cataclysm is the Eschaton, backing up this assertion with the fact that the book makes reference to Revelations. I may be misunderstanding Slagathor's point, and if so I apologize, but this supposition seems to suffer from its own set of problems. The primary problem is that simply because a reference to the bible is made, does not mean that the events of the novel must or even should be interepreted Biblically (this seems to be a common problem in McCarthy criticism). For instance, using the example of Cat's Cradle that Slagathor brings up, we can see a work that yes does reference the Bible, but does so in order to satirize it (as well as a variety of other ideas). That is, if one is writing a "post-apocalyptic" story, parallels will naturally be made to the most influential model of apocalyptic though in Western cultture. The point being that there are many different forms of apocalyptic imagination in the early 21st century--nuclear, religious, pestilential, biological, technological, supernatural, etc. The novel does not seem willing to commit to any of these. Likewise, his previous books frequently reference the Bible, and yet these references seem to do very little, by which I mean that the novels do not commit to a Biblical vision, but instead seem to present these references in an agnostic context along with the various other means by which humans create meaning--their myths, laws, social systems, etc. So, if we say that the cataclysm is the Eschaton, this presents a problem with the final passage of the novel, in which the child is being cared for by a religious woman, whose views can at best be described as trite, cliche, even childish attempts at ascribing meaning to the meaningless. If we read this as critical of religion, then we must then read the interpretation of the event as eschaton as itself unsatisfactory, as it merely reiterates the pat interpretation of events made by this character. Anyway, just my two cents. (Oh, andd I'm not suggesting any of this should be added to the article, that would be original research; I'm just being argumentative) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.81.250.130 (talk) 01:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WTF Oprah's Book Club

Very strange, anyway I'll start adding to this article as well as the main McCarthy article.....so weird. LilDice 02:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The quote in this section was originally taken out of context and I'm still not sure if the whole thing should be in quotes since its directly pulled from an article. I put the quote back in context, but someone else might give it a look. In the article, the surprise from the "academic community" (I'm not sure if that phrase fits since one professor is quoted) is directed at his appearance on the show, not at the selection of the book.Joshua Friel 00:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genre

This is clearly not a science fiction book. The Road is speculative fiction. It is closer to Dystopia than it is to science fiction, yet I would reject either of those. The current info box should be changed. Josh a brewer 21:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make. It is a dystopian science fiction novel, one of the forms that speculative fiction takes. --Orange Mike 21:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I've read and taught science fiction. McCarthy's writing simply transcends the genre. It should not be put in that box. Speculative fiction just seems more accurate. (Granted, some speculative fiction is dystopian or scientific, but this book isn't either.) Furthermore, some people here seem to want to put it in apocalyptic fiction, and that seems appropriate as well. A Dystopia usually deals with a society gone bad, and there isn't much society left in The Road. Does that make more sense? Josh a brewer 20:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm leaning with Josh on this, what elements of Sci-Fi does The Road contain? I can't think of any. LilDice 02:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
"[[R]ealistic speculation about possible future events, based solidly on adequate knowledge of the real world, past and present"? It's a novel about a possible future, albeit one in which the nature of the disaster is deliberately left vague. Good SF, like all good genre fiction, may "transcend" the genre, but does not thereby cease to be part of that genre. I hope, Josh, that you don't use a "all SF is crap" definition when "teach[ing] science fiction"! (Paging the late Kurt Vonnegut: "I have been a soreheaded occupant of a file drawer labeled 'Science Fiction' ... and I would like out, particularly since so many serious critics regularly mistake the drawer for a urinal." Many commenters on this topic seem to be among the "serious critics" element.) In my experience, bluntly, "speculative fiction" is often merely an academic euphemism for "I want to teach science fiction, but everybody knows that stuff is junk." --Orange Mike 17:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Josh never said all SF is crap. Simple fact is McCarthy transcends about every genre he writes in. Blood Meridian is more than just a Western, No Country is more than a thriller. I guess the real question is, does the simple inclusion of a setting in the near future make something Sci-Fi? LilDice 19:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sensing the assertion that if a genre novel is good, it is no longer part of that genre, implying that genre=crap. And, yes, if a novel 1) takes place in the future; and 2) that future is noticeably different from the present, I'd say that it is SF, in addition to whatever else it may be. (And please refrain from the use of the pejorative "sci-fi"!) --Orange Mike 20:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not that it's "crap," it's that it is written in a certain form in order to appeal to devotees of that genre. There are certain conventions. Some genre fiction is very good indeed -- there's no value judgment going on here, as far as I can see. See wikipedia's very good definition of genre fiction to see why this book is not genre fiction, or speculative fiction, for that matter. It is virtually impossible to characterize, in fact. By the way, most sci fi fans I know are very embarrassed by the attempt to "clean up" the genre by calling it "SF" rather than "sci fi." Larry Dunn 22:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I certainly concur that books, like people, often don't fall into neat little pigeonholes. I just see no rationale behind the idea that a well-written book which belongs in a certain genre must be removed from that genre if it is good and appeals to people who don't think they read that genre. As far as your "sci-fi"-loving friends: I'm sorry to hear it. I suggest you might want to talk to some science fiction fans as well as "sci fi fans"; try a good convention such as Wiscon or Readercon. --Orange Mike 23:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
To the contrary, many books do fit into neat little pigeonholes. That is what genre fiction is. People who like genre fiction in fact expect certain conventions to be present, and are disappointed when they are not. Please see the wiki article I cited before -- it's a good source to help understand genre fiction. As to my sci fi fans, please don't be sorry to hear it on my account -- I'm better off that way, believe me. I personally prefer people who embrace the conceits of their hobby. Larry Dunn 03:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Alan Cheuse of the Chicago Tribune and NPR, and Alan Warner of The Guardian, among others. And if you will listen to bloggers, try this, which starts out, "Shhhh, don’t tell anyone, but a science fiction novel just won the Pulitzer Prize for fiction. --Orange Mike 03:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The contextualized quote from the Guardian is this: "The vulnerable cultural references for this daring scenario obviously come from science fiction. But what propels The Road far beyond its progenitors are the diverted poetic heights of McCarthy's late-English prose . . ."
This source does NOT call it science fiction. Cheuse is a good source. He's wrong, of course, but I grant you one good secondary source backing up your contention. I will not listen to bloggers. Josh a brewer 03:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
And there are multiple noted sources specifically saying that the book is not a science fiction genre work -- such as the New York Review of books, and other works. Larry Dunn 17:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I just searched through a bunch of journal indexes. I couldn't find the New York Review of books full text article specifically saying The Road is not science-fiction, I also did not find an overwhelming consensus calling it Science Fiction. I did find some reviews in a few Science Fiction journals however and some other passing references. I think it's clear The Road is not typical science fiction or genre fiction, however if anything that takes place in the future is considered science fiction by definition I don't think it's harmful at all to add SF as a genre for this article. It's worth noting that amazon includes The Road in SF & Fantasy categories. I think Orange Mike is taking this a bit to religiously, none of the editors here are up to anything sinister or political, it's just The Road is not a typical SF novel. So anyway, sorry for rambling i say include it but not as the first Genre. LilDice 20:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
LilDice, here is the quote from the NYRB:
The Road is neither parable nor science fiction, however, and fundamentally it marks not a departure but a return to McCarthy's most brilliant genre work, combined in a manner we have not seen since Blood Meridian: adventure and Gothic horror.
The Newsweek review, and most other reviews in the mainstream media, do not refer to it as science fiction, and certainly not as genre science fiction. In fact, here's how the Library of congress categorizes it:
1. Fathers and sons-Fiction. 2. Voyages and travels-United States-Fiction. 3. Regression (Civilization)-Fiction. 4. Survival skills-Fiction.
On the other hand, I just grabbed Gibson's book Count Zero and looked at the Library of Congress subject and, lo and behold, it is listed as "science fiction." Larry Dunn 21:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Larry, then that's what we should report it as, Orangemike is fighting a religious battle here. I simply want to be accurate for the encyclopedia. LilDice 22:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, let's all cool off a bit. Let's Assume Good Faith here, and see it as a difference of opinion. I would suggest that the LoC is a good arbiter to determine whether the book is a science fiction work or not in cases like this. Larry Dunn 22:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
My religion is Quakerism; science fiction fandom is just my ethnicity! As a fan, a writer, a critic and a member of the fannish community, I will admit to a high level of sensitivity on this topic. Like Vonnegut I observe that there seems to be a willful insistence in the mundane world of literature that science fiction is inherently crap. (I reserve the term "sci-fi" for such material, even though I know the guy who re-invented and popularized it.) So when somebody like McCarthy, Margaret Atwood, Philip Roth, Octavia Butler or Doris Lessing creates a good work of science fiction, there appears from our side of the fence to be an eager rush to deny that such a work can be SF. (Octavia, bless her, never denied she wrote SF; and Doris was even gracious enough to be guest at the 1987 Worldcon). Written science fiction seems to be unique in being judged on the merits of 1) its worst exemplars; and 2) non-written works: comic strips, films and television productions that assume the mantle of "science fiction" without undergoing the editorial scrutiny that written SF receives. --Orange Mike 20:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This book is not set in the future. As far as I can tell, and one member of the McCarthy forum has argued this quite well, the "event" took place in the 1970s. There is no indication that the time setting is in the future. It is a work of the imagination. Orange Mike has yet to cite any passages in the book that sound like science fiction. I've read the book twice now, and I'm still not sure how it could be called science fiction. It is an inventive story about a boy and his father. Any evidence, Orange? Josh a brewer 21:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that theory. So it's either set in the future, or in an alternate reality; either way, definitely science fiction rather than mainstream/mimetic/general fiction. Do you believe that to be SF a work must have aliens, rockets, rayguns, etc.? That would eliminate many classics of the field. --Orange Mike 21:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Have you READ this book?Josh a brewer 21:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. What's your point? --Orange Mike 21:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Mike, I think you're condescending a bit, I doubt any of us subscribe to that juvenile view of SF. However, I see from your userpage you are a super-fan of SF, so your definition of SF is obviously more broad than the average reader. However, as I posted above it's probably still considered SF in the very broadest sense of the word. What we really need to arrive at is does the mainstream literary community classify it as SF. What about something official as to how a library would classify it? LilDice 21:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah, but therein lies the problem. As I've kept pointing out, "the mainstream literary community" classifies anything which is both good and science fiction as "literature"! Try looking for Vonnegut, Nineteen Eighty Four, Brave New World, etc. in the "sci-fi" ghetto sometime. I even encounter efforts to "rescue" Tolkien and Octavia Butler from having to hang with my kind. --Orange Mike 21:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC) (uppity untermensch who doesn't acknowledge that Dalits should stay in our ordained place)
May I suggest you fight your religious battles in the mainstream literary community. We're simply trying to report accurately the genre of a novel based on WP:V. LilDice 21:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
My point is that you haven't made your knowledge of the book clear. Cite a passage (w/ page number please). In any case, we need consensus among secondary sources, and we don't have that. Furthermore, just because The Road is non-mimetic and/or non-realistic does not make it science fiction. You clearly have a personal investment here. I like science fiction, but I know when I'm reading something that isn't science fiction, and I have a hard time believing that you read the book. Josh a brewer 00:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I teach science fiction at the university level, and this, my friends, is what we call soft science fiction.Slagathor (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geography

There is no indication that they pass through Gatlinburg, Tennessee, though the article currently claims this. There are several things here that are not cited or established as fact. The route is nebulous. Yes, it seems to run through Tennessee and into the Carolinas (one or both) generally, but we shouldn't be any more specific than the text. Our speculation should be left out. Reliable secondary sources should be cited when they become available. This is not the place for refuting book reviews. Josh a brewer 21:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed - no evidence of Gatlinburg, a quite distinctive town, at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.136.124.67 (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If they traveled south through Tennessee than how can their discovery of articles in Spanish be explained in the latter part of the novel? For example on page 204 the father finds a coin in a field with Spanish lettering. It would seem to me that the route would have been south through Texas and into Mexico. However I'm not familiar with the geography of southern Texas or if there are any passes matching the one described in the book. However it helps to keep in mind that this is a work of fiction and that the settings can be just that, fictional. ````Jon Carmack —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.210.113.153 (talk) 06:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Haunting

Sigh - now we're getting edit warring over the use of the word Haunting in the description, I really don't feel like it's POV. Look at Moby-Dick a couple sentences in they call it a symbolic novel, that's technically POV, I say we follow similar tact and add haunting in a few sentences down, if you've read the book there is no doubt it's haunting. LilDice 20:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, calling it symbolic is not POV. NPOV does not mean that you cannot describe something. Haunting, as used here, is not a value judgement like good or bad -- which are the sort of judgments governed by NPOV, bias that flavor your opinion of a thing. And it certainly is not the opinion of just the editor adding the descriptive.
But let's look at the Wiki policy.
The Wiki policy says:
All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources).
Dozens of reviews have been published about this book and they are unanimous that the book is haunting. In fact, it's arguably the most important element of the book.
The policy goes on to say, more specifically:
Characterizing opinions of people's work
A special case is the expression of aesthetic opinions. Wikipedia articles about art, artists, and other creative topics (e.g., musicians, actors, books, etc.) have tended toward the effusive. This is out of place in an encyclopedia; we might not be able to agree that so-and-so is the greatest guitar player in history. But it is important indeed how some artist or some work has been received by the general public or by prominent experts. Providing an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations or references to notable individuals holding that interpretation, is appropriate. For instance, that Shakespeare is one of the greatest authors of the English language is a bit of knowledge that one should learn from an encyclopedia. Notice, determining how some artist or work has been received publicly or critically might require research; but that reception, unlike the idiosyncratic opinion of the Wikipedia article writer, is an opinion that really matters.
If there is a substantial body of review work on this novel that suggests it is not haunting, I have yet to see any of it. In fact, I have yet to see a review that does not indicate that the novel is haunting (or harrowing, or words to that effect). This is something that the NPOV policy itself says is "important indeed" to indicate. Larry Dunn 20:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Subjective is a better word, but I agree it's silly to argue about putting that in the lead. LilDice 21:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Calling Moby-Dick symbolic is different from calling The Road "haunting". Moby-Dick contains extensive use of symbols, and this has been discussed often in criticism and analyses of the book. "Haunting" is an opinion on the book's feel, not it's content. At any rate, a single review does not establish that "haunting" is one of The Road's primary artistic elements, it only establishes that one reviewer found the book "haunting". I think the real policy to look out for here is WP:NOR - even if it's sourced, technically, it's advancing an interpretation through a selective use of sources.--Cúchullain t/c 21:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
With regards to selective use of sources as Larry pointed out above, we're not talking one review, we're talking scores of reviews. LilDice 21:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Booklist: Keir Graff - "Hypnotic and haunting, relentlessly dark"
  • Publishers weekly - "A haunting and grim novel"
  • Village Voice - "saddest, most haunting book he's ever written,"
  • Daily Telegraph - "saddest, most desolate, most horrifying books"
  • San Francisco Chronicle - "Stunning and heart-wrenching...A remarkable and unforgettable novel."
  • and on, and on, and on.... LilDice 22:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not really fair to accuse a selective use of sources here, particularly after first accusing of NPOV. Selective use of sources would be the case if there were other sources that said this book is forgettable and/or lightweight. Are there? I've never seen one to make that claim.
Anyway, I've added more sources, which should take care of both the NPOV concern and that about selective use of sources. Larry Dunn 22:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
First, I assume by "accusing of NPOV" you really mean "accusing of POV". Second, the POV and OR problems here go hand in hand, and I think the OR problem is the bigger issue. Bottom line is, you're presenting opinion as fact here. Adding multiple sources as you've done just makes the WP:SYNT matter worse, you're selecting sources that say it's "haunting" to try and promote that view, and you're presenting it as if it was fact. (Not to mention that the multiple references are improperly formatted). As we have it the opinion that it's "haunting" is not attributed to who says that, we're just told plainly that novel is haunting and given a list of reviewers who use that word. This is not acceptible. What should be said, later in the article, is that "critics describe the novel as [haunting, sad, etc.]".--Cúchullain t/c 23:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree completely with Cuchullain; this is a gross violation of NPOV. According to WP:NOVEL guidelines, the lead should list the "distinctive characteristics of the novel, major themes, awards, and notable adaptations." This includes the genre, which is already listed as post-apocalyptic, but does not include individual reviewers' opinions on the novel's mood. "Haunting" is an unncessary, POV adjective that, in my list of cringe-worthy novel attributes, is among "enjoyable," "touching," and similar fillers. If it belongs anywhere in the article, it belongs in a new section that deals with reception and/or criticism, which could also include awards and honors. Thoughts? María (habla conmigo) 15:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Maria about the word "haunting" in the lead, obviously. I also agree that we need a new section containing criticism, reception, awards and honors received, etc. This is information that should be in an encyclopedia article.--Cúchullain t/c 19:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As per my own suggestion, I've moved the "haunting" mention and references to a new Reception section, which is small to begin with, but hopefully it will grow in time. I also created a subheader for awards and honors beneath that, incorporating the Oprah Book Club selection as well as its Pulitzer win and NBCCA finalist nomination. I think this solves everyone's concerns and also sidesteps the question of POV and OR. Oh, I've also recycled some of the external links for use in references; feel free to do the same in case other critical reception/opinions ought to be mentioned. María (habla conmigo) 00:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think your edits are a definite improvement. This book won a Pulitzer, we really need to cover reception better than we did, and the new sections are a good way to start. And I think the way you handled the reviewers' opinions on the book is the right way to do it.--Cúchullain t/c 07:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Book Image

Someone took something out of the info template and the book cover is looking pretty freaky now. Can someone fix? Larry Dunn 21:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look "freaky" on my end. I edited the original version of the image because it had unnecessary whitespace surrounding it and therefore was not appearing correctly (at full size) in the infobox. I copied the original licensing info and description from the previous version, as well, so there shouldn't be any problem on that end. Perhaps you merely need to dump your cache. María (habla conmigo) 23:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Any Oprah backlash?

I've been hearing a lot of anecdotal statements of the book being a controversial addition to the Oprah Book Club because it's so unlike the types of books usually nominated for the club ... and so anti-Oprah demographic. Has there been any officially reported "backlash" or controversy over the decision? The article includes a statement from a professor who was surprised to see it nominated, but what about reports of grandmothers taking the book back to the store and demanding refunds (one of the anecdotal stories I've heard?). Obviously anything in the article needs to be sourced so we can't just add this sort of thing outright. Personally I think the book is great, but its placement on Oprah's list as as unexpected as if she were to have placed Naked Lunch on there or something. 68.146.8.46 12:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be terribly surprised if there was some objection or surprise from Oprah viewers. But like you say, unless there are reliable sources about it, we can't include it. Also notice that the McCarthy scholar was surprised not that Oprah picked the book, but that McCarthy was giving a TV interview after all these decades, and that he's giving it to Oprah. And I think it's also important to note not all Oprah's book selections are fluff; especially in recent years the books tend to be "high literature", including stuff by William Faulkner, Toni Morrison, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, and John Steinbeck.--Cúchullain t/c 21:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear holocaust

A few weeks back I had an edit reverted in which I pointed out that the book is ambiguous as to what happened. If you actually read the book you'll see that near the end the book starts making the catastophe appear to be more of a global impact event rather than a nuclear war, and there's nothing in the book (in response to an edit summary) to suggest that cities were specifically targeted by anything. Obviously McCarthy has intended for the actual disaster to be amibiguous. Nowhere in the book do we hear about any wars or references to astronomers seeing a big rock heading for earth or any of that. Therefore, it is not appropriate (per Wikipedia rules) for us to speculate. It's better to simply say it is unexplained and leave it at that. The reference to nuclear winter is iffy, however there's scientific discussion that an impact event might result in nuclear winter-esque results, so I think it's OK to leave that in. If by chance McCarthy has gone on record in a reputable source and stated what happened, then as long as this is cited, we can make a more definitive proclamation. 68.146.8.46 15:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This has all been gone over before, see above under the heading "Nuclear?". Lil' Dice (yeah, I said it!) - talk 16:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree, lil dice. Anyway, it's not speculation to say that the cataclysm in the book has some of the earmarks of a nuclear holocaust. Larry Dunn 19:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Except as was pointed out then, one of the earmarks is radiation poisoning, which doesn't happen. We also have The Man's family living above ground and *looking* at the blast. His eyes should have melted. Nickjost 23:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I cannot actually believe that we're having this debate. It's not a nuclear winter, it's the Eschaton. Things are selectively burned. All wild life--birds, fish, animals etc--are dead. There's a clear allusion to Revelations 1:17 and a meeting with the Prophet Elijah. There's a huge density of religious terminology and so on. The event happened before the boy was born. There's no radiation sickness. Characters even get struck by lightning. This isn't speculation. McCarthy has written about the end of the world according to Judeo-Christian mythology.Slagathor (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Slagathor, unless McCarthy or some external source explicitly mention "Revelations", "Eschaton", "Elijah" etc., we cannot put it in the article: it would be original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. This said, I find your theory quite convincing and I am happy to have read it. Unfortunately, WP is not the place for it. Goochelaar (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Fine and well. I'll do it. I'll drop a little article to Notes and Queries or Booknotes. But until then... the Nuclear Winter stuff also has to go. PS McCarthy is NOT a reliable source on this book, nor would I expect him to publish anything about his own work.Slagathor (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Let me explain a little further. By putting in a reference to Nuclear Winter, even a reference with some limiting terms, you are "poisoning" the critical well. The effects and trademarks of Nuclear Winter, after all, are also the effects and trademarks of a variety of other events, including the supernatural. But try to serious here. Do you honestly think that a writer of McCarthy's stature is going to write a straight end of the earth novel? Or do you think he will use it to forward his own critique of religion. Remember, this is the same writer who wrote Cities of the Plain. He's comfortable using religious allusion and in making those sorts of comments. I will publish on this. It's not brain surgery and it's dead easy to prove.Slagathor (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Let me repeat: I have no doubt you are right. What you say is one of those things that, once read, sound exactly right and make me say: "How possible I did not notice it?" But it had to be noticed, indeed, so WP cannot be the first place where it gets put forward.
As for nuclear winter, I was not the one to put it in, and I do not mourn its deletion.Happy editing, Goochelaar (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Make it less didactic

Would kill the article to say nuclear winter, meteor impact, or some other catastrophic event. Naming one does privilege the interpretation, and needlessly so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.136.124.67 (talk) 13:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oprah's Book Club - worthy of mention?

Why is there put so much focus on the fact that it was selected by some book club as their book of the month? No one outside of the US knows or cares about this book club. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.170.93 (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Oprah's Book Club is highly notable in this circumstance, so mentioning it in this article isn't just mere publicity for the book club or Oprah herself. That it was a selection for the book club is directly correlated to the popularity of the novel, its high number of sales, and perhaps even its choice for the Pulitzer, as has been suggested by various news sources. I've restored what has been deleted. María (críticame) 16:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eschaton?

I am very inclined toward reverting the edit the added a mention

to the Eschaton of Christian mythology (as evidenced through the allusion to Book of Revelation 1:17 on p. 52, and the appearance of the Prophet Elijah on p.161-175)

Actually, in the novel, "1:17" is the time at which clocks stopped, and "Elijah" is just an old traveller the main characters meet on the road, which gives his name as Ely.
Fascinating and convincing as this interpretation might be, it remains POV unless source somehow. Has some critic, or McCarthy himself, pointed out that "1.17" is to be read as a Revelation allusion etc.?
(Minor point: how do we cite page numbers? which edition is this? on mine, the Picador paperback one, the pages are respectively 54 and 171-185.) Goochelaar (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's very common to allude to biblical verses in a roundabout way instead of being direct. EG in the film Magnolia, a reference to Exodus is carried on hotel room numbers, the time shown on clocks and so on. In Vonegut's Cat's Cradle, likewise, specific allusions to biblical passages are made by simply stating a number (in the Vonnegut case, 43 to refer to a psalm). It's not out of the ordinary. Revelation 1:17 is a cool allusion.Slagathor (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Citing page numbers requires that either the same edition is used throughout the article, or at least that the edition is given in the footnote. This, however, is original research; unless some source can be found discussing it, it needs to stay out.--Cúchullain t/c 17:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

"The Eschaton" refers to the end of everything or to the end of time. Clearly, everything has not come to an end in the book. Time goes on. Life goes on, however feebly. I agree with Cuchullain. This "original" research should be removed. However, it isn't THAT original, because I've seen both ideas on the forum at the Cormac McCarthy website. Josh a brewer (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Easy enough to argue that everything has come to an end. For example, the Father even states that he has no idea what month it is, although he suspects that it's October. Eschatology, by the way, is not just the study of the end itself. As the Catholic Encyclopedia states, Eschatology is: "That branch of systematic theology which deals with the doctrines of the last things (ta eschata)." The Road presents a pretty consistent approach to the field. As far as research goes, it doesn't matter how many people have had a simultaneous idea, it only matters who publishes it first.Slagathor (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
This qualifies as original research. I wouldn't be surprised if McCarthy indended the Revelation and Elijah references, but it can't be stated as if it's obvious, and it must have a reliable source if it is to be included.--Cúchullain t/c 02:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
You're right about the original research criticism. I've taken steps to rectify that and have submitted an article to The Explicator. WIth any luck, they'll accept it, and then I'll be able to cite myself. That's just too funny, isn't it?Slagathor (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Great. Best of luck with the publication. If it is accepted, then it certainly belongs in the article. Which passage will you explicate? Josh a brewer (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Punctuation

So I was noticing that throughout the book, almost all of the contractions are missing their apostrophes (i.e. dont, cant, etc.), and I was wondering why this was. Has anyone heard any reasoning behind this? Just curious. -Grahamdubya (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This style is generally used by writers who feel that the apostrophe is unnecessary in terms of understanding the text, and that such "excess" punctuation can clutter the page and impact readability, or focus attention on the text rather than the image being created. It's probably a good complement to the frequent starkness of McCarthy imagery. --72.150.58.61 (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I see. I've never heard of this before, but that sounds pretty reasonable. What kind of other works do this? Is there a page for the technique that could be mentioned/linked to in the article? -Grahamdubya (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The lack of apostrophes is only for contractions involving "not". He does use apostrophes in all other contractions. I'm wondering if it has something to do with the negative, related to the view of the world depicted in the book. Cstevens51 (talk) 05:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

He says Im instead of I'm a couple of times, though I'm too lazy to find an example now. 64.252.35.132 (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)