Talk:The Road/Archive 1

Archive 1

apocalyptic fiction category

I would move this to the apocalyptic fiction category, but I don't know how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.9.44.203 (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Agree, if you're reading a section called "plot summary" I think it's fairly safe to assume there are spoilers. TastyCakes (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Finally, read Wiki's policies on Spoilers: basically this is an encyclopedia and thus should cover the plot regardless of if it spoils it for someone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.34.219 (talk) 06:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Isaac?

{{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)

Nuclear?

of course it's nuclear. any moron who has read the book will conclude no other reason. and it's not that mysterious anyway, it's not as if mccarthy intentionally made the reason for the apocalypse ambiguous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.175.139 (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

I agree the exact cause of the disaster is not identifyable, and I doubt it is important. It's a thought experiment of what would happen if all life is wiped out and nothing grew and people had to survive on what is left. Everything has died, plants, animals, microscopic. Nothing decomposes really, except some toxins perhaps in cans. And given that all life being wiped out being caused by anything except human activity, that's all we need to work with. It is hard to imagine a tradition atomic holocaust wiping out all life, so let's not worry too much about the cause. Just the consequenses. Robauz (talk) 06:18, 6 May 2009 (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)

We do know that McCarthy associates with scientists , by which I gather his reading habits include , apparently, books such as ... The Nuclear Winter: The World After Nuclear War, Sagan, Carl et al., Sidgwick & Jackson, 1985. On the other hand much of the same consequences could befall the earth from a 'meteor' swarm strike. Does not seem to be a KT dinosaur killer asteroid the consequences of which would have taken out everything leaving no room for an after story at all. From reading the novel it seems the Nuclear Winter scenario but be it natural or man made is ambiguous.--aajacksoniv (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Why does everyone insist that there is no reference to radiation? There is very little explicit reference to anything so technical, yet we can infer a great deal. Most particularly, the sterility of the environment and the man coughing up blood strongly suggest that there has been a significant amount of radiation. The novel is also set some years afterwards - we know that the boy was born after the event. I am not saying that there should be a reference to radiation in the article, but those arguing against the nuclear holocaust explanation (which seems totally obvious to me, by the way) are wrong when they assert there is no reference to radiation. In addition, even if the man is aware of it, he is obviously prepared to risk his and the boy's life in other contexts as a trade-off to maximise their survival chances (e.g. sleeping in the snow with no fire so as not to attract others), so why not this too? He may have determined that through the towns is their best or only way south. 219.90.244.87 (talk) 08:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Patrick Bateman

It doesn't matter what anyone thinks happened. If the book does not state the cause, then you don't state one in the article. End of story. It also doesn't matter if there are similarities to any form of disaster. Why? For all we know the author is including lots of details that are an amalgam of many types of apocalypses. If the book doesn't state it, you don't. You don't interpret the material in the book and write it in the article (that is original research). If someone in an interview mentioned something, you can reference that.24.190.34.219 (talk) 06:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

If this was a nuclear holocaust then why did the author have the father and son experience an earthquake? 82.35.129.246 (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Because earthquakes don't just stop just because a nuke and/or nukes went off, actually, it might even increase their frequency —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.109.25 (talk) 03:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is completely obvious that the cataclysm was multiple nuclear bombs followed by the nuclear winter. Notice that the man saw the flash of light and then heard multiple impacts before filling the bathtub with water. Also, the clocks stopped, and the electricity was out "already".

Also, no one has mentioned that towards the end of the book the man and the boy come across a city in which the buildings are at an angle, the windows melted down the side of the buildings. I believe this is the last city they come to. I interpreted that as a city that was more directly impacted than the smaller ones they pass by on their State Road which were more impacted by the nuclear winter than the nuclear blasts.Samantha1961 (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Once again, there is absolutely no indication in the book about what kind of disaster occurred. And it's not important; unlike any number of other works with a post-apocalyptic setting, the novel is not concerned with creating a credible post-apocalyptic scenario. In the Rolling Stone interview it is implied that the author himself thought of it as a natural disaster (it says something along the lines of "it's a natural disaster, but he doesn't really think humanity would make it even that far - he thinks we'll do ourselves in long beforehand.") But even that isn't obvious within the book itself. And since it's not obvious, and evidently no critics seem to be particularly concerned with identifying it one way or another (thankfully), it is a moot point in a Wikipedia article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, am I the only one that read the part where he flashes back to the clocks stopping (EMP) and then going to his window after the flash of the bomb? If this was some meteor and he was close enough to see the impact, he wouldn't have survived. Most likely nothing would have within god knows how many hundreds of miles. The explosion happens, he sees it, and turns on the bathtub to start collecting water (which is a real life tip in the event of a nuclear attack). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.27.247 (talk) 04:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the disaster is some kind of event not previously imagined. I don't think it is nuclear,not even rats or cockroaches survive. Not a single living thing other than humans survive - no natural event or known technology, even nuclear, could have that effect. Reading the book it seems as if everything else on the planet has been 'microwaved' - immediately and completely burnt through. McCarthy has deliberately left it unspecified but it seems to me that the disaster is caused by some kind of new 'wonder technology' that goes horribly wrong. In the book he is asking the question 'what if we f**ked up so completely that we managed to kill every other living thing on the planet?'. Neelmack (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

In the 1950's this novel would have been placed in the genre of science fiction for dead sure. It is still true that George R. Stewart's Earth Abides (1949) or "The Long Tomorrow" (1955) by Leigh Brackett , Ward Moore's Lot and Lot's Daughter (1953,1954) and many many other post apocalypse SF novels and stories are just flat labeled science fiction. Had I read The Road in 1958 it would have probably been sold by the science fiction book club. For some reason that passes beyond my understanding classifying works of art such as Dr. Strangelove or The Road as SF has gone out of style. The old SF ghetto stigma holds on!--aajacksoniv (talk) 11:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

"If they give you ruled paper , write the other way." ... Juan Ramon Jimenez

If that does not apply to the science fiction that MaCarthy wrote (and even his other prose) I don't know what does!--aajacksoniv (talk) 03:19, 25 January 2009 (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)

" People who like genre fiction in fact expect certain conventions to be present...." then would you say that the works of such writers as Theodore Sturgeon, Ursula K. Le Guin, Philip K Dick, Cordwainer Smith, Kurt Vonnegut (just to name a few)who's works also transcend the genre should be removed from the ranks of science fiction writers?--aajacksoniv (talk) 11:39, 24 January 2009 (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)

There has been no apocalypse. The Road is set in a post-apocalyptic world, therefore presumably either a) taking place in the future or b) taking place in a bleak parallel universe. Both possibilities make it a science fiction book, albeit a very stylized one. Case dismissed.78.28.67.169 (talk) 13:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Read the above discussion to see that no one agrees this is science fiction. However, we all agree it is post-apocalyptic. I don't personally think we need the (sub)genre in the first sentence, but I'm evidently in the minority.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"no one"? That's rather an insulting and contrafactual assertion, O he who is named after Ulster's greatest hero! --Orange Mike | Talk 19:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

So now its not even post-apocalyptic? What the hell, man? Think about it for a second. Have you read the book? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.28.67.169 (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Orangemike, I should have said "we don't agree that this is science fiction, as some argue it is and others argue it isn't. However, we all seem to agree it's post-apocalyptic fiction. Anon, I don't know where you got the idea that I don't think it's post-apocalyptic, I just don't know if it needs to be addressed in the first sentence, as I don't think it's truly a work of genre fiction.--Cúchullain ^t/c 11:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

So I guess I repeat this here: In the 1950's this novel would have been placed in the genre of science fiction for dead sure. It is still true that George R. Stewart's Earth Abides (1949) or "The Long Tomorrow" (1955) by Leigh Brackett , Ward Moore's Lot and Lot's Daughter (1953,1954) and many many other post apocalypse SF novels and stories are just flat labeled science fiction. Had I read The Road in 1958 it would have probably been sold by the science fiction book club. For some reason that passes beyond my understanding classifying works of art such as Dr. Strangelove or The Road as SF has gone out of style , I thought we had grown up!. The old SF ghetto stigma holds on! Say it is not so. The Road is as superior example of post-apocalyptic science fiction as I have ever seen.--aajacksoniv (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Finally reading this whole thread... I don't understand the controversy ... What John W Campbell started in 1938 , excellent prose science fiction and 'general literature' are, at this late date not a disjoint set. Science fiction--aajacksoniv (talk) 13:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

"The difficulty--the infinitude of SF--lies in the obdurate fact that it is both formulaic and something more than a genre. It is a mode which easily falls back into genre. The model is flexible changing with the times. New designs are forever produced. SF can be conventional and innovative at one and the same time." Brain W. Aldiss -- Trillion Year Spree--the History of Science Fiction--1986--pages 14 and 15. --aajacksoniv (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's the same prejudice as when Vonnegut made his famous (originally bowdlerized by the New York Times) remark about having been put into a drawer labelled 'Science Fiction' which many critics mistake for a urinal. See, for example, Harold Bloom's recent argument that Doris Lessing had written SF and thus could not be taken seriously as a writer. Michael Chabon has been writing SF for years, but doesn't get shuffled off into our ghetto, even though The Yiddish Policemen's Union did win the Hugo (and other SF awards). --Orange Mike | Talk 16:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You know I never knew what really to think about Vonnegut and his view of science fiction. I know he knew Ted Sturgeon (and from what I can tell admired him greatly). It was hard to tell if Vonnegut was not being somewhat coy. I know that SF writer James Blish admired him very much, when Vonnegut's first novel Player Piano came out, Blish did all he could to sing his praises when no-one knew who Vonnegut was. In the end being ghetto-ized really didn't amount to a hill of beans as far as Vonnegut making a living as a writer. I am guessing that Gore Vidal maybe never knew that Messiah was considered science fiction, I am sure he didn't give damn!

So what did Harold Bloom have to say after Lessing won a Nobel? --aajacksoniv (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

He bemoaned the "pure political correctness" of this award to an author of "fourth-rate science fiction"!Associated Press. "U.K.’s Lessing wins Nobel Prize in literature: Swedish Academy notes author for ‘skepticism, fire and visionary power’" MSNBC.com Oct. 11, 2007

Could someone please explain to me HOW exactly is this NOT science-fiction? I mean, there hasn't been a cataclysm of the kind described in the book. Look around you. Hence, it either takes place in an alternate reality OR the future. Both are tropes of science-fiction. Point proven. Moreover: POST-APOCALYPTIC is a sub-genre of science fiction itself. So basically agreeing that it is post-apocalyptic fiction (anyone here doubt that?) is also agreeing that it is science fiction. What's the big mystery? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.196.224.38 (talk • contribs)

Some people insist (for complex reasons having to do, I believe, with SF's plebeian origins in vulgar pulp magazines and among engineers rather than belles lettres and the hallowed halls of academe) on restricting the label "science fiction" to only the most cliched and stereotypical manifestations of the genre. Uniquely among arts, SF is judged by only the worst the genre has to offer. Better SF works, from 1984 to the works of Octavia Butler, are often "rescued" from the taint of science fiction by claiming them for less tacky categories such as "speculative fiction" or merely "literature". Those within the field who have the effrontery to point out that a "legitimate" work such as The Plot Against America is actually SF are sneeringly told to go back to our genre ghetto and quit bothering our betters with our peasant pretensions. "All genre fiction is vulgar crap. If a book is not vulgar crap, obviously it is not genre fiction." --Orange Mike | Talk 13:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Orangemike, it sounds like you have a problem with the critics themselves, not with our reporting of what they say in this particular case. As such this is not a discussion for this talk page. It has been demonstrated above that enough critics - and the Library of Congress - do not consider The Road science fiction that we should not classify it as such either. User:88.196.224.38, edit warring is not appropriate, regardless of your personal classification of this book as scifi.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I have explained my reasons above and still find them quite adequate. I have not gotten any meaningful reply. So, my question again. How is this not science fiction? (You say that there is no consensus here that it is science fiction, while leaving out the fact that there obviously isn't any consensus that it is not science-fiction either) In fact, there does seem to be general consensus that this is a work of POST-APOCALYPTIC FICTION. That makes it, by any definition, critical, academical etc, a work in a sub-genre of science fiction. It is also my understanding that something "sub" still is a part of the larger whole, however specific it may be. Thus making The Road a science fiction book. Sorry, but its true. Guilty by association, as they say.88.196.227.2 (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

If you read through the discussion above you will find your answer. The bottom line is, with a few exceptions the critics find that this book does not meet the conventions of the science fiction genre. Therefore, we should not list it as such. Post-apocalyptic fiction is not necessary a subgenre of science fiction - would you call Left Behind science fiction? The bottom line is, this is not a work of genre fiction – at least, meeting the conventions of a genre is not the author's primary concern – and therefore the genre is not important enough to an understanding of the novel that it ought to be mentioned in the introduction.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Fine, we don't mention it in the introduction then, although post-apocalyptic is indeed automatically science-fiction. Also, it is absolutely irrelevant weather the authors "primary" concern was to "meet" the conventions of the genre or not. The conventions just have to be present. And as far as "The Road" goes, they are.88.196.224.3 (talk) 13:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. Any work, "post-apocalyptic" or otherwise, is genre fiction if it conforms to the conventions of the genre. The Road does not meet the conventions of the science fiction genre; this has been argued by myself, the majority of users here, and, most importantly, by the vast majority of reliable sources we have looked at. If you can find evidence to contradict this (namely, evidence demonstrating that most critics do consider the novel scifi) please bring it up here. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia by edit warring, the page will have to be locked and you will face a block.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You are the edit warrior here, Cuchullain, with your unsupported assertion that a novel is not part of a genre unless it conforms to your narrow interpretation of the supposed conventions of that genre. This is the old "talking squids in space"/"it can't be sci-fi, it's good" misconstrual of the genre (which Lessing herself later backed away from). If you're going to claim that a body of liquid in a valley is not water, you need some backup for your claim. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, come off it. All I've done is restore the page to the status quo arrived at by consensus on this talk page. Or do you disagree with the policy that the burden of evidence is on the editors wanting to make a disputed claim? Surely you aren't saying that the burden of evidence should be on anyone who happens to disagree with Orangemike, and that they are "edit warriors" for taking action against disruptive editing. As for your extreme defensiveness about sci fi, as I've said your problem is clearly that the critics are not saying this is science fiction, not that we are interpreting critical consensus incorrectly.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Listen, Cuchullan, what you consider to be "the conventions" of science-fiction, are in fact very small (and by no means all) fractions of them. As for your talk about "this doesn't conform to..." etc. The conventions of science fiction are clearly there IN THE BOOK! Read it - namely, a huge cataclysm that DESTROYED OUR CIVILIZATION, which is actually really important to the setting, the mood and the story. Come on, man. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN AN EVENT LIKE THIS! Hence this IS science fiction by definition! It is revisionist, yes. And original, no doubt. I agree with you on that completely. But who the hell says that science fiction can't be inventive or original? Do you DARE to tell me that science fiction CAN'T be innovative?! Where is it explicitly stressed that it has to be a rigid, static genre with a short list of fixed tropes, boundaries and motifs? Nowhere. Science-fiction has always been a fluctuating genre, on the edge, trying out new things in perhaps some recurring ways. There have been many science fiction authors who have broken rules and overstepped "the" conventions, and yet remain excellent science-fiction authors nevertheless. My advice to you is: actually READ some good science fiction before you try to argue about something you obviously don't understand yet. 88.196.228.64 (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh really? If this is so obvious and inherent to the novel, why haven't the critics picked up on it? Or the Library of Congress? No one has ever said that the novel isn't speculative, but the fact is that whatever genre you may decide it belongs to isn't important enough to an understanding of the book for us to classify it as such. I don't see the fact that some type of cataclysm has occurred in the plot is enough to classify the novel as genre fiction, and neither do the clear majority of critics. For those of you who disagree, your cause would be better served by you digging up some actual sources than by your hand-waving assertions that this must be science fiction because you say so.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

To the person who shouted "THERE HAS NEVER BEEN AN EVENT LIKE THIS! Hence this IS science fiction by definition!" I would simply ask that you remove the word "science" and see if this alters your statement in the least. There has never been a god named Adonis, yet the myth is not science fiction. There has never been, in your words, "a huge cataclysm that DESTROYED OUR CIVILIZATION," nor would anyone categorized the account of Noah and the Flood as science fiction. There has never been a Mr. Darcy, so is Pride and Prejudice science fiction? Just because something "unthinkable" has happened in a narrative does not mean that narrative is necessarily of a certain genre. There are no martians, no flying saucers, no time travel, no mention of cosmology per se, and the only line that deals with science is when the father is about to kill the bad guy. One brief mention of specific human anatomical features does not make this novel of speculative fiction or Dystopia into science fiction. Is it science fiction because it describes nature? Find me a McCarthy book that doesn't do that, yet none of them are science fiction. Josh a brewer (talk) 00:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It's only not Science Fiction because the publishers didn't wan't to market it as Science Fiction. There's still a huge stigma on labeling something as Sci-Fi in terms of publishing and marketing. (Even though, yes, the book is - among other genres - Sci-Fi).24.190.34.219 (talk) 06:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and DEMAND that this book's article list it as Post-Apocalyptic Fiction. The Road has a place on the "List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction" page, therefore, that should be noted in the article. I can think, and I believe the readers of the novel would agree, that "Post-Apocalyptic" fits this book better than Speculative Fiction. I would go as far as to say that the article is MISLEADING by not including this as the official genre. Pringlex (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You won't get very far making demands. That the novel appears on the thoroughly uncited page List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction is not sufficient to indicate that this novel is a piece of genre writing. As has been pointed out repeatedly, the vast majority of reviews do not discuss The Road as having a specific genre, and sometimes specifically reject such categorization.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that inasmuch as the book is fiction, and clearly takes place after an apocalypse, it is not a stretch to call it post-apocalyptic fiction. That label seems to offend some people, but speaking logically, that's what it is. 173.71.190.118 (talk) 13:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

It's more likely Tennessee than Texas because "See Rock City" signs mentioned in the novel are typically located the Appalachian Mountains. Just because a randomly found coin is Spanish doesn't mean it has to be located near the Texas/Mexico border. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.17.237.186 (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure you can even claim it is america that it is set. They head south. But do they head east or west. It is in the northern hemispere I think, but apart from that, it is everywhere. Robauz (talk) 06:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe there's a mention of the United States in the book, in the context that the states don't exist any more and that they certainly are no longer united. 173.71.190.118 (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

You are wrong. No need to panic. I am sure this has happened before. The book mentions a long shear of light (nuclear detonation). It mentions the clocks stopped (EMP created by nuclear detonation). Lots of ash, stuff melted (nuclear detonations are very hot). There are other signs, but you seem to be stuck on the bible which is not mentioned or even eluded to. You seem desperate about this point. Not sure why. Hospital Ed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.70.122.132 (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2009 (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)

I cannot believe that you cannot distinguish between references to the Judeo-Chrstian Bible and a story which makes allusions to it without being intended to be literally representative of it. It would be surprising if in such times as those portrayed in the novel, surviving humans wouldn't be deeply disturbed and make religious allusions with some frequency. But there is absolutely not one shred of evidence to support the view that the novel is meant to be directly representative of the "Eschaton". On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence to support the view that it's meant to be a nuclear holocaust, although the "NPOV" nazis seem hell-bent on preventing it from being mentioned in the article. 219.90.244.87 (talk) 08:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Patrick Bateman

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)

Apparently this would be a shocking display of bias and opinion which would ruin the whole article. It would also overlook the apparently legitimate views of religious nutcases. I agree with you. 219.90.244.87 (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Patrick Bateman

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)

Eschaton?

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

to the Eschaton of Christian belief (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)

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)

The thought occurred to me that it's the first step toward the language of Russell Hoban's Riddley Walker. 173.71.190.118 (talk) 13:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen any writer do this before. And I think it does, in fact, draw attention to the text unnecessarily. His lack of proper English punctuation is something the reader notes constantly. At least, I did. The bizarre grammar is also more of a detraction than an addition. For the first few pages I couldn't believe the damn thing had won a Pulitzer!Samantha1961 (talk) 14:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Goes to show that good writing is about more than prescriptive punctuation rules. Plenty of great writers have done similar, not least of all James Joyce and William Faulkner.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is the importance high?

Just out of curiosity, but why is the importance of this book rated "high"? I mean, sure, it got a prize, but does that make it so important? 24.123.3.106 (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

By a prize you mean the Pulitzer, that's not like a trophy from your little league coach, seriously. In the scheme of novels, I'd say it's pretty important. --IvoShandor (talk) 08:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

A large number of thinkers -- critics, literary figures, and readers -- consider it highly important. People even cite it for political causes, following an environmentalist interpretation I consider utterly daft, but showing significance nonetheless. Estemi (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Collapsing this, but it could be simply removed outright, as this is not the place for discussion about the book, but for discussion about the article, and how to improve it. UA 18:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

As a personal observation this is the best post-apocalypse novel I have ever read. An odd thing,in the same year it won a Pulitzer, it did not make the finalist list for the Hugos. --aajacksoniv (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC) Read the section up at the top under "Genre"; according to those who watch this article, this is not a science-fiction novel but a work of litrachoor and thus is not eligible for the Hugos (which of course are restricted to frivolous works about talking squids in space). --Orange Mike | Talk 18:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC) You consider Earth Abides by George R. Stewart, A Canticle for Leibowitz by Walter M Miller (a Hugo winner by the way), The Long Tomorrow by Leigh Brackett , and many other highly sophisticated and intelligent science fiction post-apocalyptic novels associated with talking squids in space?!--aajacksoniv (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC) I should have read your comment more carefully and followed the hyperlink! Sorry--aajacksoniv (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC) On a more serious note: the science fiction readers who nominate and vote for the Hugos did not consider this a very good novel, and it got a fairly small number of nominations. The style; the lack of information as to the nature of the disaster; the attitude of all the characters; the scientific, economic and sociological implausibilities: none of these is calculated to endear you with genre readership. That may say as much about the subset of SF readers who vote on Hugos (especially Best Novel Hugos) as it does about this particular SF novel: remember that even at the heyday of the New Wave movement in SF, New Wave works seldom won Hugos; the only novel winner that I'd class as New-Wavish was Stand on Zanzibar. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC) It's not Science Fiction because the publishers didn't wan't to market it as Science Fiction so why would they have submitted it to win any Sci-Fi awards like the Hugo. There's still a huge stigma on labeling something as Sci-Fi in terms of publishing and marketing. (Even though, yes, the book is - among other genres - Sci-Fi).24.190.34.219 (talk) 06:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC) SF or not, the acclaim this book has gotten just shows the sorry state of American literature. The book is OK, just OK. I agree any SF author could've knocked it out over a weekend, and likely had more fun with the telling. As a meditation on aging and death, its too depressing for my taste. And minimalist: it reads like a treatment for the world's most depressing movie. And I am a McCarthy fanatic - I've read Suttree, Blood Meridian, Outer Dark and Child of God multiple times each. I do think he's a bit burnt out - the Oprah interview was silly and disappointing (I'm not an Oprah basher). His best works are behind him; about 25 years behind him. 98.246.183.207 (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Other Books

Books that are similiar to The Road are Nevil Shutes "On the Beach". Set in Australia, the world is dying due to radiation poisoning following nuclear bombs. The final families deal with how they are dying. Recommended reading. Currently Terry Brooks "Armageddon's Children" series also dealing with post-apocaleptic world.1jagfan (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)1jagfan.

Perhaps there should be a link to the Wiki page: List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction --aajacksoniv (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Communes?

McCarthy explicitly mentions 'communes' in the novel several times, especially the encounter with the one handed man who steals their cart. I wonder what this means? Some could be cannibal communes , tho those gangs in the novel seem to sort of nomadic or descended into only feral owners of 'food' prisons. One wonders if McCarthy means there are some 'civilized' communes? I don't know if one could cultivate Fungi and Root tubers in such an environment? John Christopher has this being done in his post-apocalyptic novel The Death Of Grass (aka No Blade Of Grass)--aajacksoniv (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• SPOLIER*

I thought the man at the end who resuces The Boy was intended to be taken as a member of one of these communes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.198.220.139 (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The communes were walled off and protected themselves, presumably from the cannibalistic marauders. Samantha1961 (talk) 14:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Biased comment

I'm removing the lines "This raises the question of whether maintaining such seemingly pointless nobility in such a situation, while admirable, is ultimately suicidal, at its core a failure to adapt to a changed environment." (a comment on the man and boy's belief in the survival of some form of Ethics in the post-Apocaliptic world.)

These words are clearly meant to favor a specific point of view, and one quite opposed to the view in the book itself, at that. They do not belong in the Plot Summary section anyways.

--85.136.79.149 (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It's hardly favouring a POV - that question is raised in the novel itself quite unambiguously, and the comment doesn't attempt to answer it. If it were up to some people, these articles would be nothing more than the title and the most basic plot elements, and therefore completely useless. 219.90.244.87 (talk) 08:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Patrick Bateman

Really, how noble is the father? He slams the trapdoor on the cannibal's victims. He doesn't help people when they need his help. The only thing he does that is noble is what he does not do: resort to cannibalism. Samantha1961 (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

About Juan Asensio's review of The Road

Hi. It's incredible that, each time I put this link to a great article about The Road, someone systematically erase it, with false arguments. Let me tell you that this is an excellent critic, maybe one on the best that I've read so far AND it brings to English and American readers a French point of view IN ENGLISH ! Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.198.238.205 (talk) 07:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

We don't generally accept links to blog posts. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Similarities

The book sports some similarities with another one written in 1943 by René Barjavel, titled Ravage Choronzon (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Stephen King Long March. Neville Shute On the Beach.ROxBo (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

What does this conversation have to do with improving the article? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

How old is the boy?

Is he five? Ten? Fifteen?

I truly have no idea.

Can some indication be added to the article please? Only needs an approximation.

HiLo48 (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

His age is not given. However, we know that his mother's pregnancy was before the disaster, and the book begins about 10 years after it took place. We can infer that he is about 9.Mk5384 (talk) 13:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you HiLo48 (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Correct Locations for the Movie

At the very end of the credits it says that the movie was also shot in Mount Saint Helens, Washington. Quote from the credits of the DVD "Shot on location in PENNSYLVANIA, OREGON, NEW ORLEANS and MOUNT ST. HELENS" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.24.93 (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The Road:Post-Apocalyptic fiction

This is a post-apocalyptic novel, according to the corresponding article. Post-apocalyptic fiction is a sub-genre of science fiction, wheather the reason for the apocalypse is defined or not (as in this case). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.55.21.138 (talk) 10:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Reviews

There is no evidence that Oprah Winfrey herself actually read the book cover-to-cover. Suggest remove the reference until sufficient evidence is provided. --71.245.164.83 (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

No claim is made that she read the book "cover-to-cover," as you put it. Though, I doubt she could interview the author unless she had done so. Therefore, I see no reason to remove the information. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

future of human race

I have deleted the statement that the presence of the little girl at the end of the book implies a future for the human race. Mr. McCarthy throughout the entire book, explains that there is no future for the human race; that the world is dying. The fact that there is a young girl who could procreate with the young boy does nothing to change this. Pregnant women and infants are encountered throughout the book. Repopulation is not the issue. The issue is that there is no food.Mk5384 (talk) 07:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I totally aggree with this, as this bit of wikitext was far too suggesting, and I already suggested this change but some great wiki-warlord deleted it. My point was that the article was not allowed to suggest that the cause of the disaster was nuclear (which the book implies with flashes at the horizon, rumbling, melted objects/flats etc.), but was allowed to suggest that the human race might survive. This seems a bit random to me. 130.89.165.44 (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Whilst it is never mentioned specifically, the world is clearly in nuclear winter.Mk5384 (talk) 13:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

There is zero evidence for that. Firstly the ambiguity of the catastrophe is an element of the story. Secondly there are things described in the book that rule it out, such as ships tossed up into the landscape, and the survival of humans but not a number of animals considerably less susceptible to radiation poisoning.Jenston (talk) 02:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Ships can be tossed by storms etc. (remember New Orleans), but I have to agree that the absence of *any* plant or animal life would contradict the notion that there has been a nuclear war. 130.89.165.44 (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Jesus H. Christ. It's post Catholic apocalypse left behind Tribulation fiction. All of the stuff from the destroyed ships to the absence of grass is all from the stupid book of stupid revelations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.219.175.152 (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

There are mushrooms for sure, they eat them at one point. Therefore there is not the absence of all vegetation. There are also snakes in a flashback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.144.104.233 (talk) 04:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the nitpicking, but mushrooms are not "vegetation", since this term generally describes plants. Goochelaar (talk) 08:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Can we please restrict editing privileges to users who are logged in? Certain IP addresses keep vandalizing this article and such a restriction would be a huge help. FruitSalad4225 (talk) 19:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The vandalism is not frequent or heavy enough to justify a call for semi-protection. We do want to encourage editing by anybody willing to abide by our rules. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Location

Various clues in the book suggest it takes place in Europe, not the US. For instance it is mentioned the man was in the piedmont at one point. And the boat is Spanish in origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.83.248.124 (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI: Piedmont_(United_States) ElectricValkyrie (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

About page 230(?), "interstates" (highways) are mentioned, suggesting the US. The boat being Spanish is inconclusive. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Very early on (page 21 in my edition) they pass a barn with "SEE ROCK CITY" painted on it, which means they are in the southeastern United States. 67.176.61.216 (talk) 08:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily; those signs used to be scattered all over the rural U.S., although admittedly they were far more common in the S.E. U.S. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Environmentalist Response=

Does this really belong here? It smacks of riding a political hobby horse. Who made George Monbiot the spokesperson for all the environmentalists in the world? Why does his opinion, in this particular instance, matter? It's a work of fiction about a cataclysm of unknown origin. If Monbiot wants to get a little extra publicity for his views by dovetailing on a successful book, he's more than welcome to it. That doesn't make his view in any way relevant to this article. I like the book and movie. I appreciate the articles of Monboit I have read. This is an open door to mischief. Jtgelt (talk) 05:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I have added the Christian response. The Christian response contains quotes from a PhD and the president of a media company. Their observations are just as relevant as the journalist picked to represent the entire world view of environmentalists. To be honest neither the Environmentalist nor Christian response has any relevance here at all. I'm not trying to be a jerk about it. There was no response to my talk entry. My goal is to provide a demonstration of the issue in order to clear up an entry that needs to be removed to get this article back to being fact based. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtgelt (talk • contribs) 04:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I think I have given sufficient time for response. I was looking at some of the "talk" issues on the WP for the movie version of "The Road."

Here is a quote from the talk section of the movie "The Road."

"In addition, there should be common-sense editorial judgement. To wit, the argument in Adbusters is absurd. Calling these companies "beasts", or that Coca-Cola drives climate change, is dubious, but in any case neither the book nor the movie depicts a global warming apocalypse. Nor is there evidence of "funding" from these companies for the movie."

Since the contributors to the WP movie article about The Road can conclude this is not a movie or book about an environmental disaster, then we should as well. In that context an environmentalist response makes no sense here. I suggest that if the contributor who added this section thinks it is important, they can add it to an article on George Monbiot.

If this section were truly noteworthy, we should be inserting the "environmentalist response" over on the movie article for consistency, which I do not recommend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtgelt (talk • contribs) 15:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Road. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070205013337/http://www.bookcritics.org:80/?go=finalists to http://www.bookcritics.org/?go=finalists

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Writing Style

I notice that not a single mention is made of McCarthy's queer writing style. McCarthy doesn't follow grammar rules of English at all; he eschews as much punctuation as possible, even occasionally at the expense of clarity. This seems to me to be something worth noting; I only mention it here instead of just including it in the article because I'm slightly afraid that I've missed something. The complete lack of any sort of mention at all is worrying.--Kierkkadon (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Our article on the author doesn't go into his style either. Probably should be covered. The Interior (Talk) 23:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I personally found the style so frustrating to read that I didn't enjoy the book. It at least merits mention. Joe Garrick (talk) 21:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

His writing style ranges from very sparse descriptions of the couples methods of survival - from memory a lot of the scenes where the man is doing something e.g. lighting a fire, making a shelter, sorting out his wound etc are all narrated in a very 'and then.. and then..' kind of way. This is then contrasted by the deeply poetical almost transcendent language which deals with the deep observations on the situation theyre in, and also McCarthy's own observations on human nature which he fits in through this 'metanarration'. Sorry, I know its vague but its been a couple of years since I looked at all in depth - maybe this could form some kind of grounding to expand on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.253.115 (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)