How do you respond to the view that the story in The Road is weakened because so much of the characters’ history is untold?
Cormac McCarthy does not weaken the narrative in the road by revealing little of the past of the characters, the road in fact being thrown almost fully into mystery as the characters are unknown and yet stalked throughout the novel by the reader. McCarthy decreases the level of emotion and empathy between the reader and the two characters of the “boy” and the “man” by giving them no names, this is perhaps the biggest part of the characters being in the mind of the reader, the part to which tells you who speaks and also who is being referred to as the lack of name gives little to no direction as to who the speech is directed to, are they speech to each other “Yes. Like us.” Where the speech is clearly defined to the two of them or are they speaking directly to the reader “Are we still the good guys?” with no reference from one to the other. The memories shown are also extended beyond the length of time that the same actions would take in the current time so as to make their importance known to the reader, this shows that an amount of history to the characters which is needed to be known is understood by the reader.
The history that is explained is sporadic and has little linear quality. For example the death of the woman, and the memory associated with it are placed before the birth of their son, who is able to speak in the previous memory “She’s gone isn’t she”, this promotes confusion of the reader and makes the character of the father show which memories are more important to him, that the death of his wife is more important to him than the birth of his first and only son. The routine of these memories are that of either large quantities of description e.g. “Gold scrollwork and scones and the tall columnar folds of the drapes at either side of the stage”, action e.g. “She was gone and the coldness of it was her final gift. She would do it with a flake of obsidian.” Or speech e.g. “You have no argument because there is none. Will you tell him goodbye? No. I will not”. These memories can focus on one aspect or a small amount of two but in none of the memories shown is there ever a blend of all three.
The language used in the memories which strengthen the story of the road are filled with questioning and confusion, as though the man’s mind is mixing the true memories with his current thoughts and moods, “What am I to tell him?” commanding the memory as he wonders this in the time at which he is set. When describing the memories to his son, the fathers words are laced with regret and longing for the past constantly being reminded of the things which happened in his past, when talking to his father the son asks if he had any friends and if he remembered them to which the father responds “Yes. I remember them … They died”
The past is widely explored in the novel and the statement is incorrect, not only are the relevant memories for the story of the apocalypse there to make sense of what happened to the world but they contain the character of the wife who impacts the man drastically, but it’s not just the memories which explain the past but the conversations between man and boy which take place and the locations to which the boy is taken and shown.
No comments:
Post a Comment