Movie vs Book

     Having both read the book and watched the movie "The Road," I can now analyze the similarities and differences between McCarthy's (the author) and John Hillcoat's (the director) decisions. Even if it isn't always just like the book, I enjoyed the movie despite its unsettling nature. Surprisingly, the movie went by really fast much like the book did, which I didn't expect. However, I think I was more invested since it was very accurate and I knew where in the book each part of the movie was.

**********

Similarities:

    Right away, I was shocked by how accurate the dialogue was in the movie so I could easily pinpoint each event from the book. The movie also did a good job at reflecting the simplicity of the dialogue between the man and the boy. Both the movie and book rely heavily on this dialogue to portray the relationship between the man and the boy and follow the plot as they travel. 

    In the movie, Hillcoat does a great job at making these conversations between the two characters a crucial piece to the morality of the story. The boy is always the one making sure that they are still the "good guys" and carrying "the fire" within. The movie is able to show how the boy is always trying to convince the man to help the people they come across on the road. Both of their emotions are portrayed perfectly in the movie, such as when they are arguing about leaving the thief behind and taking his clothes (the only thing he possessed).

    Another part of the book that the movie did well was how burnt up and empty the world is at this point in time. The world looked just as dead as I pictured it while reading the book, which helped the storyline develop. There was no direct sunlight because it was hidden under clouds and ash in the air. The movie almost appears to be black and white at first glance, which shows how Hillcoat did such a great job capturing the bleakness of it all.

    Both the book and the movie do an excellent job of highlighting how sad the story is. Even having already read the book, when I was watching the movie I still felt emotional at certain parts even if I knew they were coming. Such as when the man nearly shot his son to save him from suffering a terrible death, or when the man died at the end.

    That's another aspect of the movie that was similar to the book: the importance of saving his son to the best of the man's ability. He saved his son not just by keeping him alive as long as possible, but also by being willing to shoot him with their last bullet remaining to save him from suffering horribly if he were caught and eaten/tortured by the "bad guys."

    It's a very emotional scene when the man is holding the gun to the boy's head while they hide from the "bad guys," waiting to see if he needs to pull the trigger to save his boy. The terror in the boy's eyes was reflected well in the movie, along with the father's hesitation since it seems like a crime to kill such an innocent angel, who doesn't deserve to live in such a horrific world.

Differences:

    Unlike several other movies that have been made based on novels, "The Road" is one of the most accurate ones I have seen. Therefore, most of the little differences between the book and the novel aren't very important and the overall meaning and plot of the book remain the same. Many are interpretation differences that are mostly insignificant. There is only one change that I think could have been a little more meaningful had it been done like the book.

    This change would be where the boy met the new man after his father died. In the movie, he met him on the beach three days after his father's death, rather than on the road when he finally left his father's side in the book. I like the version where he meets him on the road since it circles back to what the road symbolizes. Especially since everything that happens to them on the road evolves their character.

    It isn't a very significant change, but since the road represents perseverance it would make more sense for the story to end on the road rather than the beach (like the movie did).

    In addition to meeting the man on the beach, the father also died on the beach rather than in the woods like the book. Again, this isn't a major change but I think I prefer the way the movie did it instead of the book for this part. The beach seems more peaceful of a resting place than the woods, even if the sea is no longer blue, the burnt-up woods wouldn't have been any better. It's also meaningful since they had finally reached the coast, which was their initial goal throughout the novel.

    Another difference between the movie and the book was made as a way to integrate the flashbacks more naturally into the movie. In the book, they were scattered toward the beginning to give some backstory of the boy's and the man's trauma. However, in the movie, the flashbacks of the women are really the man's dreams. This change makes the story less choppy so we learn this backstory without interrupting the present day. We still learn mostly the same information in a more natural way, so I agree with this interpretation of it in the movie.

    One thing that was excluded from the movie was when the man was exploring the boat in the ocean. It shows him swimming to it, but not his actual findings. I wish they had added the scene with the flare gun and the boy since it was actually a heartwarming moment. The boy was excited about it and they shot it at night "to celebrate" what he found on the boat for them to use. But in the movie, the man has the gun but it isn't highlighted/important since the thief came while the man was on the ship so he's distracted by that when he reaches the shore.

**********

    Overall, the movie was very accurate compared to the book, which made both works meaningful. On second thought, I wouldn't say I "enjoyed" it since it's not my type of movie and it is very dark, but I respect the amount of effort that went into it in order to keep McCarthy's and Hillcoat's styles similar. I would recommend either one to anyone who knows what they are getting themselves into.

Meaning of Work as a Whole (p215-end)

     Due to a great deal of foreshadowing, McCarthy's readers are most likely able to figure out at least part of the ending of this book. Leading up to the end, the man grows sicker every day as he begins to cough up blood more frequently. The worse it gets, the more the reader can assume that he is going to die in the end. His illness overtakes him and his death leaves the boy alone in this post-apocalyptic world to survive on his own. However, it is unexpected (at least for me) that the boy is not entirely alone after his father's passing. Almost immediately after, he comes across another man, who is part of a smaller group trying to survive much like him and his father were.

    Like his father had taught him, the boy is very hesitant to trust the stranger and holds his father's gun at the ready upon first meeting him. But the stranger is able to convince the boy to drop the gun after continuously reassuring him that they are the "good guys" just like his father was. As we have seen throughout the novel, the boy is the father's way of staying in touch with the moral part of his soul; only killing/harming others when absolutely necessary. 

    I did find it odd though, that almost immediately after his father died the boy disregards his father's last wishes to keep the boy safe. The man tells him that he "needs to find the good guys but [he] can't take any chances," (278). However, at the same time, it reflects the differences in their characters. The boy is definitely unsure at first since his father had taught and influenced him to be, but it doesn't take much convincing to get the boy to willingly go with this new man.

    From a survival standpoint, it makes more sense for the young boy to be with at least one other rather than by himself since he would most likely die shortly after being on his own. But from an analytic point of view, the boy has been viewed as a religious figure by his father throughout the novel; an innocent angel. Metaphorically being the closest thing to God as anything else on earth, we as the readers trust that the boy is able to tell the difference between the "good" and "bad" guys.

    His ultimate fate is unknown since once he says goodbye to his father, the boy's ending is mostly up to the reader to decide. We hope that this group is the "good guys" and that the boy survives, but we don't know much about his future.

    It is interesting to note that the boy meets the new man while on the road (I have analyzed this road as a symbol of perseverance in my earlier blog posts). The boy's desire to push forward for his father's sake leads him straight back to the road since he decides to keep going rather than give up. Everything that has happened on this road has given their quest meaning or a new view of their goals.

    They come across a man who has been struck by lightning, who the boy desperately wants to help. But the man reassures him that there is nothing they can do to help so they have to continue. This is the beginning of the boy's understanding that they can't help everyone and have to look out for themselves first.

    Ely, who they met on the road earlier, left the man wondering if the quest was worth it since they very well could be close to the last beings on Earth. The man believed in God because of his innocent son, but Ely made him question this belief slightly as his days became worse (170).

    The thief snapped the man back into reality in terms of not letting his guard down and reminding him that his number one priority is their survival.  Although at this point, the man knows that he is going to die so he is doing his best to leave his son with the best chance he can to continue the journey on his own. So much so that he initially steals the thief's clothes and shoes, leaving him with nothing at all (257). The man's actions reflect the importance of survival and what lengths he'd be willing to go to save his son.

    One thing that this novel seems to highlight, is how survival instincts will almost always win over the common good. The boy is really the only truly innocent soul in the novel, but even he learns that staying alive is often not accompanied by kindness. The man teaches the boy what he can before he dies, and reminds the boy to "do everything the way [they] did it," no matter how the boy may be feeling about it (257). He comes to understand what is at stake, but still remains the innocent angel on the inside.

    Showcasing the many ways that one can react under such circumstances is a major takeaway from this novel. We see how some will resort to cannibalism, murder, theft, and abandonment to save themselves (which I have explained in previous posts). The book isn't suggesting that we should physically prepare ourselves for this type of event because it could come at any moment. Instead, it is analyzing the survival instincts that we all possess and how these instincts will show themselves when our lives are at stake.

    As the boy learns how to survive, the reader learns with him as this idea is developed throughout the novel. Much like him, we learn first hand how brutal some desicions they have to make are, such as when they had to leave the man in the road after he was struck my lightning or leave Ely behind because there was nothing they could do for them.

    Overall, I believe that, in a grueling way, this novel shows the reader the extreme things that someone would be willing to do to stay alive and protect their family. Even though these actions may have once seemed unfathomable when the world wasn't in such a horrible state, they have now become a crucial part of their survival. The moral part of this book is also important since the man and the boy have to survive in a way that still makes them the "good guys" in order to keep the connection between the two of them because that is the only good that they have left to hold onto in this world.

Why AP? (p148-215)

     Since this book was allowed for this assignment, I assumed that it was AP-worthy. However had it not been part of this class, I might not have figured it out so easily. This book is not difficult to read since the diction is more simplistic and clearer to understand. Therefore this book would qualify as an AP reading for different reasons.

    AP level novels are far less plot-based than other fiction books and focus more on developing literary elements and devices to form the story. These types of college-level books (or other readings) tend to focus on things such as character development, imagery, tone, repetition, and other literary devices. 

    The structure of The Road is very unique, but is unique enough to make it AP level?

    As discussed in previous posts, the point of view seems to be leaning more towards the man rather than the boy (but it is still in the third person). Therefore this structure seems to mirror the man's character and mindset: continuously thinking about what to do to stay alive, each thought jumping from one to the next, haunted by his wife's suicide.

    This connection McCarthy creates between the stucture and the characters takes this book to a higher level of literature. Even though, at first glance, it seems as though this journey is just event after event, seemingly a more plot-driven novel. But the simpler word choice also makes it more likely that much of the book is just the man's thoughts written on paper. 

    I will say that The Road seems to focus on the plot the most out of the books I have read this year in AP Literature, but I don't think it makes it any less of an AP-worthy novel.

    Another aspect that adds to its legitimacy as an AP book, would be the personal conflict within the characters. Both need to learn how to cope with the world around them even after having experienced massive trauma. The man is terrified of losing his son much like his wife, who was poisoned by fear to the point where she took her own life to escape.

    The flashbacks the man experiences about his wife (towards the beginning of the book and referenced more in my previous posts) show how that event is still impacting him today. While coping with that, he has to make snap decisions to keep them alive to the best of his ability. He's willing to do anything for his son, even kill someone else to do it, but his son also is what keeps him tethered to his humane side.

    The man's constant conflict between staying alive at all costs and staying one of the "good guys" is what makes this trip down the road both a physical and emotional journey.

    The imagery in this book can also be significant at times, since it often if decscribed in a way that connects the present world covered in ash, to the old world before tragedy struck. As they continue to travel, they come across houses where the man can see past the ash they are covered in and into what it must have once looked like:

"They entered the drawingroom. The shape of a carpet beneath the silty ask. Furniture shrouded in sheeting. Pale squares on the walls where paintings once had hung. In the room on the other side of the foyer stood a grand piano." (206)

    Despite the destruction, the man could put together how the room used to be when it was lived in, which is one of the ways that he stays connected to his past. 

    The road acts as a symbol of hope and the need to keep pushing on through even the darkest of times. Their constant return to the road to push on day after day no matter the circumstances develop this symbol further. No matter how cold or hungry they became, "they plodded on, thin and filthy as street addicts. Cowled in their blankets against the cold and their breath smoking, shuffing through the black and silky drifts," (177).

    McCarthy seems to believe that it's human nature to sometimes take extreme measures to stay alive. Even though these instincts aren't necessary in "normal" situations, they will always be present deep down in anyon'e soul. Since the road has been least effected by this tragedy on Earth and is still a solid foundation to travel on, it represents this dark side of the human race, which will always be there much like the road seems to be.

    A significant and deep symbol like this is not found in every fiction or young adult book you pick up, which makes The Road stand out even further.

    The boy is also a significant symbol for the man, since his innocence is the connection that keeps him from giving up. The boy's character is related to the inherent innocence of children, but also a result of his father. The way he always tries to do the "right thing" so that the boy continues to see that they are still the "good guys" reflects how the boy views others and life in general.

    The man sees his son as an innocent angel; a religious figure who can do no wrong. When talking with the old man they found on the road about whether or not you'd know if you were the last man on earth, the man casually says "I guess God would know it," (170). The old man then responds with "there is no God," which is an understandable when living is such a horrible situation. However the man still believes in a God, which is most likely because of his son.

    Since his son is like an angel to him, why wouldn't there be a God too? Deeper biblical references are often in more advanced literary work, such as in the Handmaid's Tale.

    Rather than qualify to be AP worthy through complex diction, The Road is at an AP level through the connection between characterization and structure, the man's inner conflict, imagery that reminds the man of his past, the symbol of the road, and religious references. All of which are developed thoroughly throughout the novel by McCarthy. Despite its seemingly simplistic appearence, The Road has depths to it that make it an appropriate AP Literature novel.

Characters (p72-147)

     Having read about half of the book now, it would seem that the only two main characters in this book are the man and the boy, both of which have not been given a name, at least at this point in the book. We learn briefly about the wife of the man/the mother of the son when there are a few flashbacks. However, there weren't any about this woman in this quarter of the book, but she may come up later as we learn more about the boy's and the man's past.

    We aren't told much, if anything, about the man's past, but since the book seems to be more from his point of view, we are able to know a bit more about what is going on in his head. As I said before, I believe the book is a reflection of the man's thoughts which is why the book seems a bit rushed through the lack of quotation marks, and there are no chapters because his mind never rests.

    Primarily, this man shows a devotion to his son while doing his best to keep them both alive. His son is the last thing to hold onto, the thing that seems to keep him going. When he wants to give up, the thought of himself dying isn't the thing that keeps him going. It's the thought of something terrible happening to his son. I think this love for his son strengthened after his wife committed suicide. He is traumatized to the point where he fears that his son might meet a similar fate if he were to become as hopeless as she had become.

    The longer they survive, they come across more horrible sights that frighten the boy to his core. One being a trapdoor that contains a bunch of people, stored away by the "bad guys" as a source of food. When the man and the boy discover it, the people beg them for help, but the risk was far too great. Terrified for both of their lives, the man "dropped the lighter... pushed the boy up the stairs... grabbed the boy by the hand," and made a run for it (111). Instances like this show how devoted he is to his son, getting them both out as soon as possible to protect him.

    However, there was a time when he considered leaving the boy, even after all they had been through. It was soon after they were almost found by "the bad guys" since the man thought he could survive on his own. Despite considering abandoning his son, he planned on leaving him the pistol, so that he could at least kill himself rather than be eaten alive or worse when found (113). This shows that even someone as devoted as the man would consider saving himself over the boy when in extreme circumstances.

    The man decides against leaving him, once his boy's look of terror snaps him back to what matters the most, and that is trying to keep his son alive and doing whatever he can to protect him. It is possible that he will be tempted to leave again later in the book if things get bad enough, but I don't think he ever will. The innocence of the boy makes it too terrible to leave him to the evil of this new world that they are currently living in.

    The boy also loves his father in return but in a different way. The man partly loves the boy since it gives him a reason to not give up and in some way is his connection to life before the apocalypse. But the boy was born right after whatever it was that happened, so this is the only life he knows: starving and struggling to stay alive. He never really knew his mother, so he relies heavily on his father to keep them alive and learn about what is going on around him.

    Despite living in such horrible circumstances, the innocence of the boy is what makes him compassionate towards anyone that his father has not marked as "a bad guy." Earlier in the book, the boy thought that he saw another little boy in the village (84). It is unclear whether or not this was real or if the boy was mistaken, but either way, it is important. As soon as the boy spotted him, he wanted to go and help, but his father said no and that they had to keep going.

    The boy was very adamant about bringing the boy with them, but of course, it would have been too great a burden on the man to be responsible for someone else too. Eventually, the boy stops complaining, but still mentions him a bit later in the book when they come across a town with seemingly no one in it since they are all dead. Instead of being relieved that this town might be safe for the time being, the boy tells his father that he "wish[ed] that little boy was with [them]," (131).

    The boy knows that the little boy is probably dead now, but if they had taken him with him then he might not be. However, the man knows that if the little boy were with them, it is possible that all three of them would be dead.

    Another instance when the boy's innocence shines is when they come across a cellar that is stock full of food, clean clothes, blankets, and water. The boy understands how valuable it all is and how it's essential for their survival, but, being the compassionate boy he is, he immediately questions if they should take any of it since it's not theirs. He feels guilty for taking advantage of the goods that were clearly stashed away by someone else for themselves. The man convinces him that is alright by telling the boy that these people were also "the good guys" so "they would want us to [have it]. Just like we would want them to," (139). The fact that the boy asked for permission and verified that he was allowed to eat this food again shows his innocence, rather than just taking it as a way to stay alive with no questions asked.

    Something else that connects the man and the boy is the constant need for reassurance by the man that they are still the "good guys." The boy knows there are bad men and women who will kill or eat them if they were to be caught. As they become more desperate, the boy continues to ask his father if they are still the "good guys" since it has most likely occurred to the man to do terrible things in order to keep them alive. Although he doesn't because of the boy, who acts as a reminder to keep his morals even in the more desperate of times. If he were to break these morals, the man fears that he would lose the boy in some way.

    The only other character that has spoken thus far in the novel is the first "bad guy" that they came across towards the beginning. Their interaction is brief, but it gives the reader a taste of the other side of the spectrum in this new world: the cannibals and murderers that will stop at absolutely nothing to stay alive. Even though it is not preferred, the man does not hesitate to choose violence if the boy is ever put in danger, since he shot this stranger as he attempted to harm his son (68).

    

    The man and the boy will have to continue down this road and survive in a way that still makes them "the good guys" in order to keep this connection between the two of them. 

Picture Citations:

"The Road (2009)." Pinterest,www.pinterest.com/pin/568579521701142455/. Accessed 7 Mar. 2021.

"The Will to Survive." Npr, 25 Nov. 2009, www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120612276. Accessed 7 Mar. 2021.

Style - (p 1-72)

     After reading pages one through seventy-two, I have concluded that the style of The Road is very different from any other book I have ever read. The "standard" structure of a book consists of a series of chapters, and sometimes even larger parts throughout the novel in addition to these chapters. The length of these chapters definitely varies for different novels, but that is common. However, this book has neither parts nor chapters. Instead, it consists of usually shorter paragraphs that are divided by either a space or a dinkus.

    Another part of McCarthy's style that sets The Road apart from other novels is the way he writes dialogue. Typically, dialogue is written with quotation marks surrounding the characters' words so that the reader can tell the difference between that and the narrative. In this book, McCarthy integrates the dialogue into the novel without separating it with quotation marks.

    He also doesn't always have the words of a new character start a new paragraph. Such as when the boy and his father set up camp for the night and the paragraph ends with: "Oil for their little slutlamp to light the long gray dusks, the long gray dawns. You can read me a story, the boy said. Can't you, Papa? Yes, he said. I can," (7). This seemingly would pose a problem for the reader sometimes, but context clues allow the reader to figure out who is speaking quite easily, even if it isn't explicitly stated as "he/she said."

    This is the first book in a long time that has kept me engaged enough to want to continue to read. With this book, I found it hard to put it down and rather easy to read several pages in one sitting. Had McCarthy not written it in this style, I most likely would not have enjoyed it this much so far. The most effective part of the novel that made me feel this way was the absence of chapters. At first, I thought it would make the book boring, seeing that it would feel similar to a run-on sentence on a larger scale. However, I found its effect to be quite the opposite.

    It is told in a way that even at breaking points, it never seems to end in a "good place to stop" to pick-up another time. Instead, each break makes the reader think "I'll just read one more section" again and again, but they never actually arrive at a decent place to put the book down. I find this very interesting since I have not been intrigued by a book like this for a while. As a matter of fact, it makes me want to read more of McCarthy's work after I finish The Road.

    I believe that my experience with this captivating novel is shared, which is why his style is so unique and yet popular. It's important for an author to know how to keep their reader engaged, enough to advance to the next chapter. However, McCarthy has found a different way to prevent his readers from taking breaks from his book as often.

    Another stylistic choice that McCarthy utilizes, is dialogue without quotation marks. By embedding the words of the characters directly into the narrative, it makes the descriptions and dialogue equally important to form the story and make the experience seem like one long thought process inside the man's head.

    The novel also consists of a series of flashbacks, which are woven into the novel occasionally. So far, these flashbacks have given us background knowledge about life before the catastrophic event and soon after its occurrence. We learn that the boy's mother (the man's wife) killed herself after the tragedy struck since she was convinced that "sooner or later they will catch [their family]... They are going to rape [them] and kill [them] and eat [them]," (56). Her fear overcomes everything else; even her love for her family is not enough to prevent her from taking her own life.

    These flashbacks both inform the reader of life before the present, but also reflect the point of view of the novel. It appears that most of the story is being told from the father's point of view rather than the son's. The only knowledge we know of the boy is what he physically does or says, rather than thinks. As this part of the book progresses, his communication seems to minimize to "I'm scared" or simple nods or headshakes.

    Therefore I believe the novel is written in third person limited, which would explain the scrambled style of the writing. The book seems to be a reflection of the man's thoughts, which is why the flashbacks are scattered, the dialogue isn't sectioned off, and there are no chapters because his mind never rests.

    The book isn't difficult to read since the word choice is simpler and the sentence structures aren't complicated. There are some short, some long, but that seems "standard" for a piece of writing. The simpler word choice reflects how the man is thinking, so it makes sense that it wouldn't be full of complicated sentence structures and advanced diction for the average person's thoughts.

    More symbols may come up along the way since I am only a quarter of the way through, but there is one symbol that I have picked up on: the road that the man and his son are traveling on. No matter how hopeless it may seem, how cold it gets, or how tired they become, they continue to press forward down this road, believing that life will be at least somewhat better down south.

    Therefore the road poses as a symbol of hope and how humans will resort to survival skills to continue to push through even at the darkest of times. Since the road seems to be the thing least affected by the apocalypse, it symbolizes how even when life around them is at its worst, it's in a human's nature to do whatever is necessary to survive. However, in a rare case, this is not always true because of what the man's wife did to herself instead.

    I believe that, in a grueling way, this novel will continue to show the reader the extreme things that someone would be willing to do to stay alive and protect their family. Even though these actions may have once seemed unfathomable when the world wasn't in such a horrible state, they have now become a crucial part of their survival.

Picture Citations:

Jun 27 Lessons Learned From The Road. Payton Minzenmayer, Squarespace,                          paytonminzenmayer.com/blog/wllpejweg5htfks9sb3wr7syl265rk. Accessed 17 Feb. 2021.

The Road Paperback – March 28,2006. Amazon, www.amazon.com/Road-Cormac-McCarthy/dp/0307387895. Accessed 17 Feb.   2021.