It's the end of the world as we know it

What that made me think of was that religious prophets have a propensity to preach in the end of the world. Whether it comes through visions, dreams, or whatever form that the revelation comes through most prophets foretell the end of the world. Truly this is how the man must have felt. The world as he knew it ended, there was nothing left. He looked at his son and he saw a future that he had no part of. This was the end of his everything.
Prophets also tell of what comes after the end of the world, they tell of a rebirth. A time where things become better than they were before the end. The man may have had trouble believing that life could continue but he believed in his son. He hoped that his son would have a new beginning even if he did not truly believe. The end of the story when he is found by the good people I see as a fulfilling of prophecy in a way. Armageddon came, the earth was completely destroyed and there was nothing left. From the ashes however came hope which I believe is personified in the boy.

Yes I am, he said. I am the one

On the journey with the boy and his father, you see how they draw upon each other. The man keeps on surviving for his son and the son needs his father to survive. The father plays a lead role in keeping them moving; His plan to get to the coast is mapped out. He is constantly looking for new places to find food. Although the boy is scared, the man drags him on towards survival. But then the thief takes what the man has used to survive “the cart”. I think reality hits him in a hard way at this point in the book. Just like the part where the man tries teaching the boy to use the gun, the man is not ready to die; his journey must still go on. He feels violated that someone tried to change their path. The passage in the book where the boy tells his father that yes he is “the one who has to worry about everything” is a transitional moment for the father and son. The father is going to die and the son knows so. This is a moment where the son is trying to tell his father that he will have to go on without him eventually. And now is the time for him to help with the worrying. He needs to know how to use the gun, hunt for food, keep warm…The boy knows that he will have to take over the duties that his father has done for him in order to survive after his father leaves him. It’s like the boy is telling the father, “Now is the time to teach me all you know. I will be the one who has to worry about everything.”

There is a God, and the man is his prophet.

In this book I feel there is a constant turning of the tide. One moment the man is in danger of death, but then suddenly the boy is sick . They are starving,yet they find food. The man calls on God then the next moment he curses him. There is a push and pull, a love and hate, a calmness in the calamity. The man worships the boy, and sees him as evidence of truth and light. I felt it was only fitting that in the end the boy would revere the father in the same light. When the book says, " He tried to talk to God but the best thing was to talk to his father and he did talk to him and he didn't forget." I feel this was because the man was his best example of a faith driven individual. The man never gave up, he kept on with the struggles at hand, and then when death was overtaking him, and he could no longer care for the boy he had faith that, " Goodness will find the little boy. It always has. It will again." The boy was a witness that his father's faith, produced a miracle. He was found by other good people.

The Beginning in the End

I really enjoyed the final pages of The Road, especially the last paragraph. It truly speaks of hope, of continuity and of the beginning that can come only when the end has passed. There is so much wisdom in the realization that nothing will ever be 'put back' to the way it was, it can only move forward. I relate this to hope because that is what the boy represents to me. Earlier in the book there is a comment about the the earth continuing on even after all of the people are dead. Though it is a valid point, the earth will 'heal' itself after all of the people are gone, it will do that even if people continue to live. The conclusion of the book represents the alternative to death, which is to keep the 'fire' alive, to keep hope alive.
I feel like this paragraph is the little boy speaking. There are references made to maps and it seems that would be a natural relation he makes to his father and to the journey that they made together. It is a map and yet a maze because the future is probably uncertain and unknown. To think of the boy in the future being able to have this perspective on life is what keeps the 'fire' going for me because it means that hope never died.

Goodness will find us or The Spark Of Humanity

I found the conversation on the pg 281 one of the most moving in the entire novel. It kind of reinforced an idea that has been growing in my mind since the beginning of the book and though I am sure it is obvious to everyone, I wanted to light on it a little. I think part of the fire the man and the boy are carrying is the Spark of Humanity left inside them that the whole world seems to have lost. It's an interesting idea that when stripped to its bare essentials, mankind chooses to devour itself both literally and figuratively. People lose their sense of morality and compassion for the raw means of survival. And they do survive as in living and breathing, but a much deeper and important part of them dies and it will never be brought back. I think that's the real tragedy. Dying would be favorable to reaching a point past caring and compassion. The man and the boy have shown that the only reason to for living is our love for one another. I also like the idea that no matter how dark the world gets there will always be those who carry the fire, the Spark of Humanity. There will always be goodness in the world that nothing that destroy. A fire that nothing can smother.

Prepared for the inevitable

When the boy says, "I am the one" I believe the author wants us to read in between the lines. This conversation between the boy and the man happens about 30 pages before the end of the book. In the beginning, indirect talk about wanting to die, or feeling like he couldn't do it anymore was common from the boy. This is exactly opposite from the man who became more and more discouraged as time went by. As the book goes on the boy grows through experience and through the many little lessons from the man. He grows in understanding of the true nature of his situation even though he doesn't understand the past. This moment in which he tells the man, "I am the one" is evidence of his growth and preparedness for the future. I think he understood that in the end, despite what his father would tell him, he would inevitably end up alone. In the end, he would have to fend for himself. This is why he was the one that had to worry about everything. Everything that was happening at that time would affect his eventual future alone. I am confident that the boy in the beginning of the book would not have been able to do that. But by the end, it was evident in the dialogue between the boy and the man that he was getting ready.

billiards

The passage about trout and what the narrator sees in them is an important part of the story, because trout are mentioned earlier in the novel (I can't find the page but I believe the man was watching them swim through the water) to me suggests the trout have some significance, a message McCarthy is trying to convey. I believe what McCarthy is saying is that human life is only an unfathomably small part on the grand scale of the flow of the cosmos. "Patterns that were maps of the world in it's becoming" - Everything that makes up the universe is contained "in the deep glens" of the trouts patterns, where everything is "older than man and hummed of mystery." Nothing can be made right again because the universe is indifferent to the suffering of man. The mystery (maps and mazes) of the cosmos befuddles man and guides him to a greater understanding, but through that understanding our own violent nature can lead to our self destruction. However, it is here that the significance of "the fire" emerges. The human spirit can overcome himself and transcend the seemingly chaotic nature of the universe, refusing to be stamped out against all things including ourselves and pass on the flame.

Am I Lost?

You know how when you want an answer about a problem you have, but you use a hypothetical friend as the subject of the story? That's what I see the boy doing in this scene. The boy wants to know what will happen to him. In a way he's asking the father, 'what's going to happen to me? am I going to ever be OK? am I lost? who will find me?' The Boy knows that his father is going to die soon and he will not have that constant companion with him to teach him. He needs to know what will happen when that life force that hes know his hole life is gone. What will find him when that day comes that he's lost. If you've ever been truly lost in life, whether metaphorically or physically, your concern is to make sure you are OK. Life is uncertain most days, and myself like many, are living day to day with a hope of achieving a long term goal in life. When my day to day routine is interrupted by a tragedy or a problem my world is turned upside down and I am left to figure out how to get back on track.

The boy doesn't want his father to die, and he doesn't want his life to change. That uncertainty is what drives the child inside all of us to ask the questions, 'Do you think he was lost?But who will find him if he's lost? Who will find the little boy?' The reassuring we are looking for when asking comes with the Man's answers,'I think he's all right. Goodness will find the little boy. It always has. It will again.' "You may be lost but you will be found and you will carry the fire always because that is what I taught, and because you are good, and they are watching you."

A Reflection of himself.

The little boy asks his father about the other little boy because it is a reflection of him. The son sees the young boy as a reflection of himself. He is seeking encouragement from his father in a round about way. Trying to decide where he is supposed to go and if he is going to be "okay." The little boy is looking for the fire within him which in this case is self-confidence and trust in himself. After his father is gone he is going to be that lonely little boy he saw in the beginning of the book.

The son turns to his father for comfort. He wants to know that he is g0ing to be saved and that he's going to be alright. The boy asks what is going to save him and the father responds goodness will save him. Personally goodness comes from only one source and that is God. I think that father is telling his son that God will save him. The father believes that the boy is not lost. He has the fire, the faith, the hope, the goodness to keep on the path that will lead him through the hard times. He believes his son is goodness.

The Little Boy

At first I thought the boy was just talking about the boy he saw but at the very end when the father says goodness will find the boy and that it always has and that it will again I realized the father was talking about his son, and that the the son was possibly asking about himself. The boy probably was asking his father if he will be alright, if he is lost, and expressing that he feels like he is lost. I believe the boy was trying to get reassurance from his father that he will be alright. I do not believe the son purposely used the little boy he saw as a metaphor for himself but the father made it turn out that way when he said his lat few words to the boy. I believe the father purposely said those words to reassure and comfort his son and to make him believe that he is going to make it and live on despite his father not being there.

The Road, Final Set of Prompts

Interpret/respond to one of the passages below. Don't just restate the passage with different words. Please try to discuss it in a way that sheds new light on it for the rest of us.

1. You're not the one who has to worry about everything.
The boy said something but he couldn't understand him. What? he said.
He looked up, his wet and grimy face. Yes I am, he said. I am the one. (259)

2. What will you say? A living man spoke these lines? He sharpened a quill with his small pen knife to scribe these things in sloe or lampblack? At some reckonable and entabled moment? He is coming to steal my eyes. To seal my mouth with dirt. (261)

3. He lay watching the boy at the fire. He wanted to be able to see. Look around you, he said. There is no prophet in the earth's long chronicle who's not honored here today. Whatever form you spoke of you were right. (277)

4. The dripping was in the cave. The light was a candle which the boy bore in a ringstick of beaten copper. The wax spattered on the stones. Tracks of unknown creatures in the mortified loess. In that cold corridor they had reached the point of no return which was measured from the first solely by the light they carried with them. (280)

5. Do you remember that little boy, Papa?
Yes. I remember him.
Do you think that he's all right that little boy?
Oh yes. I think he's all right.
Do you think he was lost?
No. I dont think he was lost.
I'm scared that he was lost.
I think he's all right.
But who will find him if he's lost? Who will find the little boy?
Goodness will find the little boy. It always has. It will again. (281)

6. She would talk to him sometimes about God. He tried to talk to God but the best thing was to talk to his father and he did talk to him and didn't forget. The woman said that was all right. She said that the breath of God was his breath yet though it pass from man to man through all of time. (286)

7. Once there were brook trouts in the streams in the mountains. You could see them standing in the amber current where the white edges of their fins wimpled softly in the flow. They smelled of moss in your hand. Polished and muscular and torsional. On their backs were vermiculate patterns that were maps of the world in its becoming. Maps and mazes. Of a thing which could not be put back. Not be made right again. In the deep glens where they lived all things were older than man and they hummed of mystery. (287)

Moment of Clarity

It was definitely a moment of panic for the man as they ran out of the cellar of the cannibals’ house. He had to make quick decisions, not just about escape, but the really big decisions and moral choices we discuss.

Is it better to commit suicide rather than be eaten?

Should I force the death of the boy to prevent him from being eaten?

This was his surreal thought process as he was in flight or fight. I believe he was delirious in reaction to the situation. In some ways, it seems as if the man didn’t really know what he saw during this whole event. The writing moved so quickly and blurry, I could hardly keep up; a very good depiction of how quickly he had to judge the event. He was forced to think of situations that are way beyond the normal father psyche such as, crushing his own son’s head with a rock.

I feel like this passage was a strong step forward to the introverted mind of the man. It really let the reader catch a glimpse of how twisted this world is making his mind.

“Blessed. He began to believe they had a chance.” (114)

Life in the Fire

As the reader, I hope that the boy and his father reach the coast, that they find some way to keep living. I believe that the boy will live, though. The boy seems to symbolize a new start because he hasn't experienced the past as the man has. He still sees good in things, such as Ely, and the boy he saw in the small town.

But for me the end is more than who dies. It's what lives. If the boy and his father die, I won't lie, it'll make me sad. But what lives after they're gone is their faith, their perseverance, their hold on things good in an evil world. Maybe this is the fire that the boy speaks of that they carry. The fire is hope when nobody would be surprised to find that they had given up, the value of being good, of the safekeeping of morals and standards and virtue.

Are your fathers watching?

To me the question, "Do you think that your fathers are watching?" could mean many things. On the one hand, it could be following this motif about god. Is god watching, does he really care what we do down here? Is he keeping record of our actions? Is he weighing us in his ledger? Or is it that god doesn't really care? Does he just look to our hearts to see our intent? Or does he not give a rat's behind about our actions, well-being, or even our existence?

On the other hand, this could be about our earthly fathers where the same questions apply. I have often wondered, as I'm sure all children do, whether my dad really cared about me. Maybe I was just an accident that he's raising for the sole purpose of getting me out of the house as soon as is humanly possible.

"Against what?" Now that is the question of the century. What scale would a god use to judge us on? If we are judged against Jesus Christ, like the Christians believe, then we won't fare to well. If we are judged according to the Koran like the Muslims believe, I doubt I'll do well there either. If the Hindu's are right and Krishna has the final say, who knows, because Krishna is incredibly fickle, and he is extremely unpredictable. Or is it more like being judged against ourselves. Will god look at us and say "You progressed, you tried to better yourself, and for that you will be rewarded." I won't pretend to know.

Then there is the final line. "There is no book and your fathers are dead in the ground." Which could change everything. Is he talking about god? Is he talking about your ancestors? I don't know, and I think that the answer is different for everyone who reads it.

Beauty in Life

It is interesting to realize that all of the novels we have read have focused in some way on the beauty that is life. Whether it is that horrifying kind of beauty that we discussed pertaining to The Things They Carried or the miraculous beauty Pi sees in the lightening storm, it deserves to be put into words that adequately portray what is seen or felt. In The Road, I see a continuation of that underlying theme of beauty, whether it be horrifying or not.

The fragmented text that we discussed in class is still present as you continue reading the novel, but I definitely see the poetic turn that takes place. The words of the Papa begin to paint a picture for me in which I see the desolation but also the beauty. One phrase that I especially love is on pg. 139. They find the bunker of hidden riches and describe it as "the richness of a vanished world." I love the picture that paints of them making their way through a grey and morbid world, only to come upon an oasis in the midst of hell. I can just imagine them standing in that bunker gazing with unbelief on shelves upon shelves of food and supplies. I imagine in movie form that violins would begin to play and the music would reach some sort of crescendo.

The "Star Wars" theme may also be appropriate for this moment.

There is also a great amount of beauty in the words he uses and the sound they make as they come together. "Waste of weeds," "loved ones lost" (180). There are examples on nearly every page of McCarthy's use of poetry in describing this ruined world. I think that poetry is just as fitting as the fragmented text because the story is both of those things: there can still be beauty in what little remains of that "vanished world."

Beautiful Disaster

Poetic language is used for both horrific and beautiful things. O’Brien used very poetic language when he described Rat killing the baby water buffalo. Using poetic language to describe horrific things makes the scenes all the more heart wrenching. By using poetry the emotions in a situation are brought out more fully. Poetry is beautiful, cannibalism comes from the darkness within a person. Somehow when these two collide emotions are felt. The beautiful language makes the scenes all the more intense. At the same time it almost makes it seem dreamlike or nightmarish. Which is what the boy and father are living in a nightmare. The world is ash. Of the few people left on the earth most of turned into creatures from nightmares. The little boy knows nothing of a real world filled with beauty. The only beauty he sees is the fire in him and his father. The poetic language is also used to portray the fact that no matter how dark things are there is still beauty and love to be found. In The Road this beauty and love is found between the boy and his father. There is nothing more beautiful than a father sacrificing himself for his sons own life.

I wanted to respond to the post about "Ely" because there is a lot of conversation in this section compared to other parts of the book. Ely seems to me a contradiction of sorts, even the way he talks. At one point he seems as if he's an expert on things and then the next minute he doesn't know anything, and then you find out his name isn't even Ely. I think Ely does represent the worldview, because the world, its ideas, the media, the"facts" keep changing. But I think the conversation revolves more around what purpose does the human race have now that the world has ended, and that is why I think God is brought into the conversation. Because I believe, even in this book, that God brings a active purpose to people and their lives. Again I feel a contradiction in the way Ely says, "There is no God and we are his prophets" even though this gives an idea that the end of the world, and the fruitless existence that they seem to be living is testament that there is no God, Ely still gives God a form. They are still talking about God. They talk of God and they talk of the Road. These two subjects keep being brought up in the story so these are the subjects that I feel McCarthy wants to keep alive. When the man says, " What if I said that he's a god." This shows me that the boy is now the man's purpose. That whatever religious beliefs he might have had have been transferred to the boy. The boy is now what he worships, idealizes, loves,and whom he serves. As if the relationship between the boy and the man wasn't already intense, McCarthy brings it to a whole new emotional level.

The Pervasive Threat of Danger

I'm not going to answer any specific prompt, I hope that's okay, because I had another idea that I wanted to talk about, that I paid attention to during the second portion of reading.

As I delved further into the book, I became aware of McCarthy's use of danger, of fear. The sense of danger is a part of the atmosphere of the whole book, and the world that the father and son travel through. What McCarthy does so well in his writing, is that he never actually shows you the danger, just the evidence of it, and in that way he comes the tension going, that no matter where the father and son go, there is the possibility of violence and death coming from any source. The feeling of constant threat lingers over the characters, and over me as well. Each time the father is checking out an empty house, my own threat level rises and I wonder to my self and say, "Okay, is the house where they run into some bad guys?" McCarthy keeps building the tension of lurking danger, and I know that some where in the book all that stored tension will be released, whether it is through the death of the father, or both of them, or by the completion of their journey.

Another source of the constant danger that fills the atmosphere of the book is cannibalism. I think that there is a dread or horror of cannibalism that is stored in the collective unconscious of the human race. We are abhorred at the thought of eating another person, and we wonder what could drive a person to do that. In the book, cannibalism is the fulfillment of the constant threat of danger. Although we never see the act of cannibalism, McCarthy gives us suggestions and evidence of it, and then he lets our imaginations do the rest of the work and fill in the grisly details. For example when the father and son leave the road and hide because they are being followed, and they watch three men and pregnant woman pass down the road, I had a fleeting, horrific thought that the woman was the food provider. I was even a little disgusted with myself for having the thought, and then my disgust rose a little more when I discovered that I was right. As I read the book, I find myself becoming more suspicious and distrustful, like the father. My feelings as I read are a reaction to the reality and atmosphere that McCarthy has created in his book, and that is what writers want to achieve, to pull you into their world and experience it.

Well, that is about all that I have left to say. Don't let the cannibals get you on Halloween.

What is he sensing?

When it comes to them traveling road I trust the fathers intuition completely, but when it comes to him searching the homes the two of them come across I do not. The more the son complains about the house the less I just the father. At the beginning the houses they searched nothing happened, but then they came upon that one fateful house with the cannibals. At that part the son complained more, he was more scared then usual and his fear was proven right. The next houses the two of them come to the boy is still scared but not as much as the last one. I wonder what is the source of this boys fear, why is he scared of houses so much. Because of that event at the house every time they approach a house and the boy starts to complain and you can sense the fear in him, I'm always on edge anticipating something horrible to jump out at them.
I think the reason why I trust the boys feeling then the fathers when they come upon houses is that children seem to sense more, like a six sense, when it comes to certain things. Maybe it's because he is so innocent and I just get unnerved when he gets scared. Parents have one as well, for instance the father knew they where being followed long before they had any evidence of it. So what's the deal. Maybe the fathers senses are exercised in one direction and the son's in another, it that makes any sense to you. What do you think? And do you get the same feeling I do when they come to another house?

Around the Next Corner

While most of us always hope for a happy ending, my heart is waiting for death around every corner. We have traveled through the bleak world with them fighting for survival, hiding from the "bad guys" and trying to find the food and shelter they need to live. Through it all, the father's coughing gets worse, and we know in our hearts that it is just a matter of time (and not years) before he is going to die. The son is too young to have the intellectual ability to survive on his own and not physically capable of surviving on his own. Most important, he doesn't want to use the gun, so he would easily fall victim or starve, whichever came first.

Their existence is in a world that is filled with ash and death. Nothing is alive, no plants, no wild live, only other human beings, so we don't have a lot of hope that they will find some deserted island with no other human beings that will offer any natural solutions to their lack of food and water. Even if the ash clears, there has to be an incredible amount of contamination and if by some miracle the earth does start to rebirth itself, how long before it is safe to consume. If this was a nuclear explosion, will the radiation kill them before starvation? And it was volcanic in nature, it is acidic and stifles growth.

For me, the love that permeates their relationship, and the faith they both demonstrate as they continue through this journey is deeply moving. Death is inevitable, so if they both died I'd be sad for a second, but their relationship, constant display of faith, their display of charitable decisions in the light of immenent danger, would outweigh the sadness and leave me with a sens of respect for their humanity. There are only two ways this story could end on a sad note: (1) if they fall prey to the "bad people" and (2) if the father dies leaving the son to starve to death. Death is not sad, rather the journey we have traveled and the paths we chose along the way.

To Read Ugliness

McCarthy's style of describing dark and horrific things with poetic and beautiful language reminds me of two other novels I have read which do much the same thing. One is The Book Thief by Markus Zusak, the second is The God of Small Things by Arundhati Roy. Both of these books feature extremely disturbing and heart wrenching scenes of human suffering but both like The Road, also feature language that is amazing.

The passage in question, pgs 180-181, with men who eat your children, and squids ink uncoiling is one of the most amazing passages I have ever read. Disturbing as it was I went back and read it several times purely for the language. I think that using language like this is McCarthy's way of drawing you in and burning the words into your mind so they stay for a while imprinted for you to carry with you for the rest of the novel.

Another reason for using such vivid language is to make sure you feel exactly how you are supposed to. Saying the landscape was barren would not hit as hard as the poetic sentences McCarthy uses to show you exactly what you are supposed to be seeing. It's another example of a book that teaches you how to read it. I love McCarthy's language. It is absolutely necessary for this novel. This book is incredibly disturbing to me. It would not be nearly as much so, without McCarthy's way of writing. Each beautiful sentence clenches my stomach and leaves me breathless with all the things I have "seen."

The Road, Second Set of Prompts

1. In class last week we discussed how in an allegory, the characters are often symbolic of certain traits or virtues. Having read further, what do you believe the boy represents? Point to specific examples in your answer. In particular, pay attention to moments where the boy seems to see or understand things that his father does not.

2. The man doesn't kill his son when the moment comes (after they enter the cannibal's house/base and find the prisoners) even though he believes they are going to be caught and eaten. Then he teaches (reminds) the boy how to kill himself and gives him the gun, but he doesn't end up leaving. Interpret this scene (110-114). Why doesn't the man kill his son? Why doesn't he leave? Does he just freeze? Is he delirious? Ground your answer in the text. Don't just speculate.

3. When the man and the boy meet "Ely" on the road, he tells them, "There is no God and we are his prophets" (170). What does this mean? Do you think McCarthy believes this? In other words, is this the worldview of the novel, or is it at odds with its worldview? Relatedly, what does the man mean when he asks Ely, "What if I said that he's a god?"

4. McCarthy writes in a lyrical style that is quite poetic at times. Last time we decided that the fragments were appropriate for the book's content. By that same logic, then, do you feel like the poetry is at odds with the content? (Read pages 180-81, for example, the paragraph that begins "They began to come upon from time to time small cairns of rock by the roadside." This paragraph, like so many others, is horrifying yet beautifully-written.) Is it a mistake to describe horrific things with beautiful language? What effect does this have on you as a reader? Why do you think McCarthy chooses to write in this way?

5. In class last week we discussed the tension between survival and altruism, and we also discussed the themes of love and charity. How are these elements developed in this section of your reading?

6. On 196, there is a paragraph that begins, "Do you think that your fathers are watching?" Interpret this paragraph. Who is speaking, and to whom? What does it mean?

7. In literary fiction, there is no guarantee of a happy ending. These characters may very well die at any moment. At this point in the novel, do you believe that these characters are going to reach the coast, that they are going to survive? If so, what has led you to that belief, that faith? If not, what has led you to doubt? How has your belief risen or fallen as you've read? What would be your reaction if they did not survive, if your faith were not rewarded? Or, conversely, what would be your reaction if they survive despite your doubts?

Cigarettes

I translated the “fire” as hope. I think this book so far has been mostly about hope. For the man and the boy, anytime they encounter hope such as an abandoned trailer or house, they find very little substance and a lot of ash. Ash is the remnant of fire.

The book depicts a world that used to be full of hope and fire, but is now left with despair and ash everywhere.

Keeping the “fire” allows them to not debase themselves and merely become vultures. It pushes them to go south. The vultures that approach them on the road do not have the fire. They do not have faith in the south. They only have faith in remaining and picking off the survivors.

The south is full of uncertainty, and the man fears it is also filled with ash. But because of uncertainty, there is a psychotic hope instilled. It is the same feeling when they walk into a house or gas station. They fear it is filled with only ash, but they know that if they don’t step in, they will never know what they are missing. The south is a giant imaginary house, and if they don’t go, they will never know what they are missing.

With Love

I certainly agree that this is a love story, it was poignant for me when I was reading about how much the man loved his son. McCarthy uses actions and situations to show the love the man has for his son. This is obviously reciprocated. One of my favorite parts was the scene where the man uses the last of the cocoa for his son. His son then makes his dad share part of it, even though he had selflessly given up the cocoa his son equally selflessly made him share it. The man obviously lives for his son and would have given up long since without the love he feels for the boy. Something I really liked was when they had to empty out the shopping cart, one of the things found in there was a toy truck, and this was just one of a few toys that the man hauls around with him. It would have been easy enough to give him only one toy, or not take the trouble to haul any toys around at all and yet he still wants to provide in every way possible for his son. Even in the midst of such difficult circumstances.

Fragments

The fragments McCarthy uses to write the book lead you to understand the fragmented life of both the man and his son. Their lives are unstructured in every aspect and he gives us fragments to better understand their broken day-to-day life and their personal experience on the road: Pieces of dreams, experiences, road, towns, people, animals, ash. The road they travel is fragmented; by creating the writing in a fragmented sense McCarthy is creating the setting of the road, giving emotion to the road that the man and his son travel on.

He also introduces the reader to a sense of scavenging. While the man and his son are scavenging, McCarthy leads the reader through all of the bits and pieces he gives us to understand the story, and in a sense, scavenge what we learn and read survive to the end with the man and his son.

just keep reading...just keep reading...

As I'm reading The Road, I ask myself, "what keeps me from putting this book down and not picking it up again." The story has no apparent plot. You start out following Papa and his son on their journey. In Life of Pi you get the history first; what brought the author to write the book, who is Pi and what was he like before his journey, etc... Also, in The Things They Carried you expect it to convey war stories. I didn't know what to expect with this novel.
The narrative engine for me is our natural curious nature:

• who are the dad and son and where did they came from?
• why are they traveling this 'road' and what may this 'road' stand for?
• what is going on with the world?
• why are they considered the 'good people' verses the 'bad people'?
• who are these bad people...are they people?
• why is there ash everywhere?

I'm not sure I really have any answers to any of these questions. This may be why the book is written in third person. You have a distance from it. You are looking in on this adventure of a boy with his father and you are asked to draw a conclusion as to what you feel about the above questions. By only giving glimpses to the past and short climaxes of encounters with other "beings", the story can be applied to any parts of your life. One of the main things I have drawn from this class is applying parts of a book to your own life. Analyzing what it means for yourself. Many of us haven't been a soldier in war, been stranded in the ocean on a lifeboat with a bangle tiger, or all alone dragging yourself down an ash-covered road. But we are able to use these extreme circumstances to reflect on our own lives.

Carrying "The Fire"

The will to live is a gift and is fueled by a belief in a higher being. This book shows me that the will to live is a fire in and of itself that is helping the Man and the Boy to push forward. They strive for a goal (reaching the coast) and work everyday to achieve that goal.The Man speaks of God and about God to the boy. in one instance on page 77 the man tells the boy, My job is to take care of you. I was appointed to do that by God. I will kill anyone who touches you. do you understand? The way I understand the Fire is and why these two characters are different is because, everyone else has given up on God, they don't believe in him anymore, and they aren't moving around the country with a purpose. The fire is faith, love, hope, purpose, God.

the demon haunted world

In The Road we know some world altering event has happened and has killed all life on earth, but what is the cause? The description McCarthy gives of ash and weather seems to point to nuclear winter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter. This makes sense for me as I was thinking it would have to be a nuclear holocaust or impact. A massive eruption also fits. However I feel there are significant pieces of information in the text that point towards a nuclear holocaust. On 52 we learn the clocks stopped at 1:17, in addition to the power going out before they hear/see the noise and light from the detonation, things caused by nuclear weapons. On Page 32 The man says “On this road there are no godspoke men. They are gone and I am left and they have taken the world with them.” Whatever happened was caused by man. McCarthy is saying something about potential religious contribution to an apocalypse, on the road they find immolated bodies posed in their dying positions or as he describes “like failed Sectarian suicides.” Bodies immolated where they stood, same with other objects like tires and cars indicate an instantaneous death for the victims.

Importance of Narrative Style

The first thing I noticed as I started reading The Road is the lack of punctuation and the chapter structure I would normally expect in a novel. I think that this is not only one way that McCarthy teaches you to read the novel, but it also represents what he wants you to feel from the novel.

The Papa is very aware that the world as he knew it is no more, that his known reality has morphed into a sort of dream reality and that nothing is ever going to be the same again. That is very much the feeling that was conveyed to me by the format of the text as I read The Road. Not to stray too far off course, but it is important to note that language, whether verbal or written, is a direct reflection of desire and learned ideologies. The sort of absent-presence that is conveyed via the third person writing format speaks to me of the deterioration of language that I would expect to occur in a post apocalyptic setting, such as that shown in The Road. The Papa speaks of things that give him hope, such as seeing his wife again or the peace that might come with death. Yet I get the sense that these are an empty sort of hope because, though he is desirous for his life to end and to see his wife again, it would mean leaving the boy alone which presents no hope for him at all. The text without punctuation and format is, in a sense, reflective of that empty hope that is evident to me in the character of the Papa and that emptiness is what stood out to me as a reader.

Yet something keeps me turning pages. Perhaps it is the fact that McCarthy gives you just enough information to understand the surface of what is transpiring but there is enough left unsaid that leaves room for a variety of possibilities.

A book that says a lot, with a little.

When starting to read The Road I had no real idea of what I was getting into. However within the first few pages I was drawn in by McCarthy's masterful writing skills and prepared to settle down to take the journey it presented. I think the way it is written speaks a lot about what you are supposed to gain from it. It's written in third person, the man did this, the boy did that, but somehow that doesn't make it any less personal for me. It's true you don't see inside the man's head but i think you greatly understand the way he feels. The entire book is written with a tone and emotion that you can feel without it being spelled out word for word. The dialogue is a prime example. The conversations between the man and the boy are fairly simple. But in its simplicity of the words their is a great amount of significance and tension. It reminds me of the chapter "The Man I Killed" in The Things They Carried. Just the bit and pieces dialogue coming from Kiowa to Tim. He doesn't say much but in the little he says you understand clearly what is going on. This way of writing ensures that we as readers are here to stay.

To Love Reading The Road...

The novel, The Road has intrigued me in a very strange way. I only read to hope to find out what has happened to the world. This book is written in a unique form. It is almost just memories that come to mind and are jotted down like a journal almost. There are clues throughout the passage where you find out if you are reading about the past of the present. The author teaches the reader to be ready to jump back and forth. It is as if someone is schizophrenic or something because it is a very real and intense story, but it is told in third person. I suppose McCarthy wants the reader to be an observer of Papa and son not actually get inside the mind and become either of these characters. Obviously the author thinks the story will have a greater effect if it is told from a lookers point of view.  The novel is written to give bits and pieces of memories. The story is written in a memory type setting and we only experience what the third party member wishes to tell us. 

I also wanted to touch on how this story could be considered a love story. I think it is a story only driven by love. There is a love for another person that drives survival. The mother of the son completely gives up on love and wants to die instead of live. Papa on the other hand does everything because of his love for his son. The novel thus far has not explained what has happened to the world, but so far I can tell that there is not very much love in the world only sadness and death. I think McCarthy makes perfect sense by claiming his novel is about love. I would not consider it a romantic love story, but about the love that ties families together. The type of love that gives strength to survival. 

The Road, First Set of Prompts

I've turned the blog to ash. I'll leave it this way while we read The Road. Below are your prompts for Thursday. I know some of you have read ahead, but for the sake of those who have not, please refer only to the first 88 pages in your responses.

1. The Road has no chapters, no quotations marks, and very little punctuation. There are fragments everywhere. Why would McCarthy use this style, and how does he teach us how to read The Road so that we are not thrown by his narrative techniques?

2. Unlike the other novels we have read, The Road is written in third person, and McCarthy does not delve deeply into the mind or emotions of either the man or the boy (who are not given proper names). Instead, McCarthy relies very heavily on description to create emotion and to reveal character. In other words, the emotion created by description is somehow transferred to the characters themselves and to the situation. Point to places where description, and particularly the setting, stands in for/creates the emotional substance of character.

3.
What is it, Papa?
Nothing. We're okay. Go to sleep.
We're going to be okay, aren't we Papa?
Yes. We are.
And nothing bad is going to happen to us.
That's right.
Because we're carrying the fire.
Yes. Because we're carrying the fire. (83)

Interpret these lines. What do you think "the fire" is?

4. In an interview with Oprah, McCarthy said that The Road is "a love story to my son." Based on what you have read so far, can this book really be considered a love story? Use examples from the novel in your response.

5. Talk about the kairos of the novel. How does the post-apocalyptic world McCarthy creates play on the contemporary realities of terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, genocide, or other pandemics? What about the novel seems particuarly relevent in 2009? Please use specifics from the novel in your response.

6. The action of The Road moves very slowly. This is not an action-driven plot. What, then, is the narrative engine? Why do you keep turning the pages? How does McCarthy maintain your interest? Again, please use specific examples.

7. Do we know what has happened to the world and to this family? Does McCarthy give us any clues? (If you answer this question, please ground your answers in the text; don't just throw out speculations.)

Thank you. See you on Thursday.

Estragon

I’m not going to lie. This wasn’t my number one favorite books. I was grateful for Daniel’s comments about it before about how it really doesn’t make much sense. I think that prepared me for it. The only thing that kept me reading was either the change in characters, like the entering of Pozzo and Lucky (hoping one of them would be Godot, or the little boy). Other than that, I felt like I had to try hard to get to the end.
While reading, I was trying to look for the genius behind the story. ‘If it wasn’t a good book, then Daniel wouldn’t have assigned it’ I would tell myself.
For myself I tend to attach my mind to repetition. Repetition helps me find and understand the symbolism in a story. I’m sure this book is FULL of symbolism, but my mind only wrapped itself over one thing. I felt that Estragon represented a type of person inside all of us. That person tends to forget his/her purpose in life. I began to really notice it in Act II when Estragon would say, “Let’s go!” then Vladimir would have to remind him that they were waiting for Godot. I didn’t count how many times he said it but every time it got clearer and clearer. I can definitely see some of myself in Estragon in this case. The Hecticness of life goes on and on until I feel like a robot, and someone else has to remind me, “Remember, you’re doing this!” I also noticed the repetition behind Estragon telling Vladimir that it would be better if they parted. I think this symbolism applies to many people. How many people are striving to get out of something, some rut, some position or condition, and don’t? They think about it, even mention it to others on occasion, and even though it would be for their betterment, they never buckle down and do it. In class someone mentioned how the Estragon and Vladimir brought each other down. In regards to this idea, I totally agree. Sometimes, we need to back off of our ‘Estragon tendencies’ and just do it.

Old Age

Reading this play is like spending the weekend with my parents. For the last three months I have been talking with my parents about my trip to visit them this coming weekend for their 68th anniversary and my dads 90th birthday. Sunday when talking with them about the weekend plans mom mentioned that dad vacuumed the house and my guest room the travel trailer in the backyard. Then when I asked about sunday 6:30 dinner dad asked if I was going to be there. I relived all of my conversations with them in the last few years as I was reading about waiting for Godot. It is a lot of repeated conversations, sometimes within a span of only 5 minutes. And sometimes the stories get blurred and the players interchanged.

I started reading and was completely lost, put it down and reread it a week or two later and it actually started to make more sense as I was able to keep the characters straight. I'm not sure what the author was trying to portray, but it was very real to me and symbolic of the changes that many of us will go through as life passes us by. Our memories fail, body changes, and we get lost in our purpose. My mother had a difficult adjustment over several years of back surgeries finding her purpose in life. She lived with an inner sadness waiting for her Godot which was the magic surgery or pill that would bring back her youth and her life.

I wondered too if Pozzo was symbolic of life and how it pushes and pulls us forward. Sometimes we get lost in the middle of too many rules and lose our strength to define our own destiny. He also portrays the perfect abusive master who feels that the slave or person they are in control of has no capacity to function on their own, no right to opinions or freedom. We have witnessed this through slavery, verbal and physical abuse and other controlling situations. And in the end, Pozzo ended up no better than his "dog" who had to now lead him through the darkness toward nowhere. Abuse makes everyone a loser.

All the potential symbolism aside, reading for face value, it was very hysterical visualizing the various characters lost each in their own space going around in circles.

Structural Elements

When first reading this play, I tried making sense of it, tried to grab some kind of meaning. We talk in class a lot about symbolism. What do the shoes mean? The tree? Lucky on a leash? I haven’t grasped the meaning to these items but I’m sure they need to mean something. I noticed that Vladimir keeps taking off his hat, looking in it, putting it back on, taking it off, looking in it….It just goes on and on. There is a part in the book where they find Lucky’s hat and then Vladimir and Estragon swap hats, around and around, till they end up throwing one of them on the ground.
The tree also holds some kind of symbolic meaning. In Act 1 the tree is bare, as if it is dead. Then the next Act 2, the tree has leaves. Vladimir and Estragon, both times, comment as to whether it is a weeping willow.
What is it?
I don’t know. A willow.
Where are the leaves?
It must be dead
No more weeping
After putting aside the urge to find meaning to this play, I really appreciate the structural elements of it. Vladimir and Estragon’s discussions just flow as if they are one person’s thoughts, but then they are choppy and confusing when an element of sorrow or frustration between them arises. An element that really stuck out to me was when Estragon repeats himself, such as:
(P.40 back and forth between Vladimir and Estragon)
All the dead voices
They make a noise like wings
Like leaves
Like sand
Like leaves
Silence
Rather they whisper
They rustle
They murmur
They rustle
Silence
They make a noise like feathers
Like leaves
Like ashes
Like leaves
Long silence

I'll do anything to pass the time.

I thought long and hard about this book, and I’m still not sure how I think about it. On one hand, it could easily be dismissed as gibberish, and on the other hand, it could be seen as a true work of art.

More important than my stance to the play, it really brought up questions to me why people do the things they do. Why did Beckett write this, and why did he write it the way he did? He could have easily added an event that would request a resolution. He could have easily placed a more apparent theme. Yet, he didn’t…

I relate this to my own writing; why do I write, and why do I write the way I do?

I concluded that goals in writing come down to personal aesthetics. Beckett wrote “Waiting For Godot”, obviously not to appeal to our senses, but rather to convey an idea or concept. My aesthetic, however, is to appeal to my senses in new and welcoming ways. I choose this aesthetic because I can’t imagine simply enjoying nothing. I can’t bear the idea that the goal isn’t appealing. I can’t bear it, because I am waiting for Godot.

The Joy of Waiting

When first reading Waiting for Godot I felt I had walked in on a conversation between an obsessive compulsive codependent crazy couple. But the great thing about crazy is that sometimes its contagious. I found the more I listened to them the more I understood where they were coming from.It was like listening; in fact I felt I could hear their accents. As I became part of their conversation I became a part of the waiting. I wanted Godot to show up as much as they did. As a reader I wanted Godot to shed some light on who they were and what future road they might take once Godot showed up. But as the story progressed I made up my own version of who they were, where they had come from. I was the one creating a back story, I started answering my own who, what, and why. I think that is one of the things that is great about some stories is that some stories let you get in with the creating process. It can be about waiting for God,or a friend, a stranger, even an event that will change the way you live, think and feel. I think the things we wait for and the moments we spend waiting for them are just as important a as when they finally arrive.

ugh...

In all honesty I had a hard time even making myself read this play, and that's saying something. I never had something make me soo frustrated and in the end make me loose all interest. The play never seems to get anywhere, and once they start getting me interested in something they would all the sudden start talking about something entirely different, like turnips.I liked what Mallory commented in her post when she said one of her favorite lines is "Lets go.Yes lets go." and they do not move. She goes on to say that she herself says that and she remains unmoved. I can relate to that. I feel that there are times when we are all just sitting there waiting for something to happen. We don't do anything to help the progress and we dont work for it, I just expect it to happen. With all that waiting and sitting we end up going nowhere fast and living at a standstill.

A Pedestrian Story For Pedestrian Life

Here is what I got from Waiting for Godot. The whole play is two guys waiting for Gotot. They have a few visitors and a few leaves grow on a tree, but nothing else really happens. Godot doesn't even show. The prompt asked us to focus on the reading experience, not what everything actually means. My experience with the reading was that there were some really interesting sayings, really interesting comments about life. I am not aware of what certain parts mean, but find meaning from little things they say.
The back cover of the book gave me a clue. It mentioned existentialism (the idea that life itself has no meaning). So the actual story of Waiting for Godot was pedestrian but still offered lessons to learn. Sometimes life is the same way. It is pedestrian and boring, but can still be filled with meaning if we look hard enough for it. We can take lessons and meaning from the experiences of everyday life. It doesn't take a monumental experience to find meaning.

On! Back! And On Again!

I have felt repetition to be a powerful literary tool that can give power and tension to piece but only when used sparingly. Waiting For Godot's use of repetition is redundant, frustrating, and spins the reader into circles. But I suppose that is what it is meant to do. I cannot honestly say that I have any grasp for what the play meant. But perhaps that is a tool to create tension also. The reader thinks they are hitting some brink of understanding, getting towards the part where everything unfolds only to be called "back!" again. One interesting thing about this play is that is all in the present, all in the "now" there are vague references to the past but none to give you a solid impression of the exposition. There is also no future. The play may reach a climax and have a falling action but if so it is not apparent. Everything is them just waiting, and that is everything and nothing. So I read on, moved forward, got called back, read on, moved forward, got called back read on. And I have not I idea if I got anywhere.

Is it God or just a mad man?

Is it about waiting for God or just about a man who has multiple personalities? I do not know. From the very beginning of the play I was convinced that this was a story about two personalities inside one person’s head, Estragon and Vladimir. Throughout the play the two cannot seem to separate from one another even though they claim numerous times that they would be better apart. Their anxiety seems to rise when they are separated for a time and sometimes Vladimir has to speak for Estragon because Pozzo doesn’t hear him. Estragon doesn’t remember anything outside of the interaction with Vladimir, almost like he doesn’t exist without him. Towards the end of the play when they saw Pozzo for a second time the idea of maybe this was an allegory for those who are waiting for God popped into my head. The men stay in the same place and are waiting for this person, they do not remember when he is coming, or details for it but they continue to wait. A couple of instances it talks about how nothing happens in their lives, it’s the same things over and over again and sometimes they want to give up. Also throughout the whole interaction with Pozzo it gave the illusion that time had passed between them, more than just the couple of days they talk about. So I am stuck with a dilemma. What does this play mean to me? Is it a deeper story about the journey of those who wait for God to appear or is it just a simple yet entertaining play about one man with two personalities? I believe it is both. This play just like other stories I read, it is what I need at the time. I believe that our unconscious mind makes stories we read fit into the situation we are in at the time and this time I think I needed both. 

Running circles around my head!

When I read I naturally look for the underlying themes of the text. This is probably the most frustrating thing I have ever read! I started it expecting something along the lines of Pi and O'Brien. I ended it thinking why in the world did I even read that. I have gone back and reread some of the parts to try and understand what in the world is going on and the most I can figure out is that they are waiting for Godot. Yeah I could have got that from reading the title. Its really frustrating because one of them will start to say something really profound and then all the sudden they will start fighting or talking about turnips. It is the strangest thing. There is never any progress made at all. It reminds me of learning about circle stories in elementary. I never quite could understand why you would write a story to have the characters end up back in the same exact place. I feel the same way about this only no one ever moves they just continue to sit there waiting for Godot. One of my favorite lines is "Let's go. Yes, let's go. (They do not move)." I laughed when I read that because I feel like sometimes that is exactly what I say and then I sit there unmoved.

ON!

In all honesty my brain didn't even think about dissecting this play. As I read it I found my self laughing through it all. I had sympathy for Lucky and I felt for Didi at the end. I made a bizarre connection between the boy's brother and Gogo. The boy's brother is beaten and so is Gogo. Didi is obedient to Godots commands to be at the tree tell he comes, and the boy is also obidient to Godots commands to deliver the message that he will not come. Also, I found it very bizarre the bit about happiness, how a new day will start out so full of hope and end so drained of hope.

Near the end theres a rather funny part when Pozzo comes back, blind. I found my self giggling at the bit were all the characters fell over. Then I was brought to reflection by Pozzo's last words in the book. He says, "Have you done tormenting me with your accursed time! It's abominable! When! When! One day, is that not enough for you, one day he was dumb, one day I went blind, one day we'll go deaf, oneday we were born, one day we shall die, the same day, the same second, is that not enough for you? They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more. (He jerkes the rope.) On!" No matter the termoil in life, and no matter how many times you fall, just move one and don't bother with time. Over all, I didn't understand the play, but it entertained me.

Waiting for Godot "Prompt"

Some of you have been waiting (im)patiently for me to post the Waiting for Godot prompts. In a way, this actually mirrors the action of the play, or lack thereof: Will he post the prompts? Will everything be clearer when he does? What if he never posts prompts? Will that effect my grade? Can I have a carrot? Did they beat you? (Of course they beat me.) That's a turnip. Coat! Whip! Stool!

First of all, don't worry if you don't "get" the play as you are reading it. That's part of the experience of reading it or seeing it performed. Waiting for Godot can be called an anti-allegory, where everything appears to mean something but does not definitively point to anything. So my "hint" to help you read it is this: focus on the reading experience itself even more so than the meaning of the text. At what points do you feel most inside of the play? At what points do you feel most pushed out? Do you, at times, feel like you are beginning to understand, only to have the play undercut you? Do you feel frustrated with the play at some moments, wishing you could put it down, only to come across something funny or poignant that draws you back in? Pay attention to these ups and downs and you will be getting somewhere. In a sense, Gogo's lines on page 43 are true: "Nothing happens, nobody comes, nobody goes, it's awful!" But in another sense, the play means a lot: form, tone, concrete details, and colloquial speech all have meaning in and of themselves, and Beckett's use of them shows how much "meaning" is inherent in elements that do not clearly stand for something else. He shows how we are always looking for "the meaning" of a text when much of the meaning is the text itself.

If you choose to write about this play on the blog, give us your honest reaction to the reading experience. These reactions should go beyond "I don't get it" and "This is weird," but you should not feel any obligation to interpret the theme of the play or analyze its symbolism or come to a conclusion of what it's all about (though you may attempt this and are encouraged to do so if you if you would like). As long as you write something interesting, it will be fine.

The Better Story

From the get go I knew there was going to be some twist at the end of the book. Most books aren’t able to reveal the outcome early on and still be able to influence the opinion of the reader that the book is a good read without a good final twist. At the end of The Life of Pi, Martel gives us two different stories that force us to decide which one is true. In my opinion, Martel chose to write the better story for his book (yes this is referring to the one with the animals).

The reason I have this as my opinion is solely because of the rich insight it provides into Pi and his character. Assuming the human story was true, we would learn about Pi from his perspective as the book is written in 1st person. It would be good of course and we would undoubtedly learn a lot about him. However, the animal story brings something additional to the table. From the animal story, as told throughout the book, we learn about Pi and his character from both his 1st person voice and from Richard Parker. This is kind of like having Pi from two perspectives: his personal thoughts and feelings about himself, and also his personal thoughts and feelings from someone else’s perspective. We are more able to fully understand Pi and his changes from human instincts to more animal instincts.

No matter which story is true, all can agree that Richard Parker and Pi are remarkably similar. I’m really happy that Martel chose to write the animal story so we can learn about Pi from two different characters. For myself I felt like I connected with Pi, Richard Parker and their relationship. Because I think we naturally make connections with those types of relationships, both in literature and in our own lives, Martel chose the proper story to write about.

Animals please

Throughout the story like I had mentioned in class, part of the reason I continued to read was because of the idea that there was a happy ending to the story. When I heard the other version of the story I had a really hard time with it. I was actually really let down and almost hurt. Although the story with his mother was more realistic in the sense that it is more probable of a scenario then Pi living with a tiger I preferred the story with the animals instead. After I let it settle in more and began to put my feelings aside I finally grasped the reality of his journey more. It is a beautiful story that is put in a way where it isn't focused on the cruel reality of his mother dying but rather the journey and necessary options Pi had to face and deal with. It gives you an image of Pi that you would not have been able to see if he just told you the flat out truth of the situation.

Sirens

The carnivorous island was the most pivotal point in the book. I felt it was a metaphor for the religious context that this book offers, specifically regarding agnostic declaration.

In the beginning of the book, it tells of Pi’s search of religion and his formation of ideas concerning religion or lack therof. He explicitly criticizes agnostic beliefs; the belief resting on so much reason rather than faith. Reason is very comforting to the human mind. When things make ‘sense’ we do not concern ourselves with uncertainty or fear or the journey. We simply acknowledge the question and leave it blank.

Staying on the island is a metaphor for renouncing agnostic beliefs. He had a choice. The island held the requirements for survival: food, freshwater, and shelter, where as to leave on the boat meant an abandon to the comforts of the island. Reason would have led him to remain there forever till his eventual death, but he chose not to remain; he left as soon as he caught glimpse of the sad fate that would await him. Dry, yeastless factuality. He would stop the questioning, and simply accept this island as the way to live. He uses the words “half-life of physical comfort and spiritual death” (ch.92) regarding the island and he chooses to return to the ocean, knowing quite well that choice meant physical discomfort and yet a spiritual life.

For Love of the Better Story

This is one of my favorite endings to a book that I have ever read. I’m not sure why I love it so much beyond the fact that the concept of the “better story” intrigues me. I had to pause and think about the two endings and the way the stories intertwined. If I were thinking of just the concept of the better story I would go for Pi’s story that includes Richard Parker. However I have to take into account the other ending as well, the Japanese businessmen took for granted at first look that it was true. I loved Pi’s remark that just because it was outside of their realm of experience does not mean that because it is improbable it is impossible. Everything in Pi’s life up to that point had prepared him to be capable of dealing with just such an event. Yet to survive for 7 months in a lifeboat with a tiger, one must question the factuality of the story.
While I was considering whether or not the story was true I thought of The Things They Carried, how Tim O’Brien talked of story truth and of happening truth and I realized that in the end it doesn’t matter to me whether or not Richard Parker was living on the lifeboat. I, like the Japanese businessmen in the end decided that I would believe the better story. ‘Mr. Piscine Molitor Patel showed astounding courage and endurance in the face of extraordinary difficulties. Very few men can claim to have survived so long at sea, and none in the company of an adult Bengal tiger.

It's only a cookie

Does this book have a happy ending? From the beginning I was skeptical about that line. Is it just happy because he survives or is there more meaning behind what Yann Martel believes to be a happy ending? This book has a happy ending depending on whether you prefer the "dry, yeastless factuality" or the "better story".
When I finished this book, I just held it there in my hand and couldn't believe what I had just read. You start the book on this up-climb of happy thoughts and continuous learning. As you read the "meat" of the story you get drawn into Pi as the character and how he evolves on this lifeboat with Richard Parker (and all the former passengers). The ending literally shocked me! I should have seen something like this coming, but you get so involved in the "better story".
The story with the humans, I believe, is the true story, the dry, yeastless factuality. That is what happened, in all its sickening ways. For me I prefer to have the “better story”, although finding out the truth was inspirational to me and needed to be told. I wouldn’t take that part out of the book.
I was able to go back through and really analyze the deeper feelings of Pi as Richard Parker. The concept of Pi actually being the tiger shows deep meaning to Pi’s worries and concerns that we thought he was just showing to Richard Parker. In order to survive he knew he needed to apply the attributes of a Royal Bengal Tiger (an animal he viewed as dominant).
Trying to understand the “dry, yeastless factuality” or the “better story” concept, I took a look at my own life. I don’t believe I have suffered an event you can call “tragic” but the death of a loved one always causes sorrow. The “dry, yeastless factuality” would be the facts of how they died, why they died, when…so forth. You need the facts to understand the situation, but when people talk of ones they have lost, they always give the “better story”—happy events; times they shared together, characteristics of that person.
Pi remembered the tragic event by replacing humans with animals. By doing this, you are able to learn from what happened without depressing, repulsive facts. I felt sadness for Pi as I’m reading the body of the story but also was able to “navigate” on to the happy ending. I felt like I was on the boat, pulling for Pi, Richard Parker, and myself to get to land. If the book was written strictly on the dry, yeastless factuality or didn’t have that hope of a happy ending, you might have just given up—jumped overboard.

Pi and the Journey

Many times in this life of mine I have heard that the journey is the thing. Even though there seems to be a lot of evidence to support that your beginning and your end is just as important as your journey. Reading the Life of Pi I can see how all the above is important, but I can't help but agree that the journey of Pi was the thing. The journey I made was with Pi and animals not humans; so that is how I will continue to read it. So there is the question why did Pi tell the story of the animals as people and Ricard Parker as himself ? I have several theories. One of them is that I'm a big fan of obituaries, maybe I'm somewhat morbid but I like seeing what seems to be important factors in a person's life. I also like to see how loved ones try to capsulize their dearly departed in just a few sentences, for many its too hard so they go with a generalized article and stick to the "facts" knowing that its for the public,but sometimes you'll find one that is unique. In my minds eye that is what Pi was trying to do, he was trying capsulate the animals in a unique way because they had meant so much to him. They were the ones that had been with him on his life's journey, and because of that they were just as human as his mother, a cook, a sailor, or himself. Also I think when something is so close to you, so personal, something you can't explain in words you create an alternate idea, even if its worst than than the real story, because then it has some distance, so if there is criticism it won't hurt as much. I think the men from the Japanese transport have our point of view that it doesn't matter which story is true because either way it was a horrific tale. It had just as much blood, grief, and hope whether it was with humans or animals.

Happily Ever After

There are some things that most would agree constitute a "happy ending" to Pi's adventure - he lived, the tiger lived, they learned to co-exist in a small space, and he went on to have a family, hopefully without any more extreme experiences. Although what Pi experienced tested all of his values, strengths, faith and understanding of life in general and probably left scars, he grew in ways that he would not have if he had lived a happy life without the intensity of this adventure. Any situation that throws us into the depths of hell help us find our strenghts and weaknesses. What would be do in the throws of starvation - eat another human being? Eat raw animals? Eat Richard Parker's feces. How much are we afraid of death. Is our faith in something beyond life on earth enough to allow us to not fear death and to let circumstances move us onto whatever lies ahead. OR, is our fear so great that we would do ANYTHING to stay alive. It is in these moments that we truly define our internal self. If we remain the same person that we are under better circumstances, we gain a confidence and self respect that will carry us through any of life's challenges with greater ease. It is through my divorces and the pain and agony of these painful exeriences that I have come to be at peace with life as it comes and have the strength to understand that any challenge that comes my way has a solution and a happy ending if I chose to stand tall.

I was very sad at the end because I too felt a sadness that Richard Parker left without any sign of attachment to the person who had kept him alive all this time. Life is like this though. When I said goodbye for the last time to my husband, he was not wanting to let go, but I knew that this was it and our paths would probably not cross again. I was Richard Parker who just wanted to move onto my future and not look back because it was painful and finished.

There was also such much intensity to the 227 days and then to have it just end left me a little frustrated because I wanted the happy ending with a little bit about what happened to Pi in his induction back into the real world. After thinking about the story, however, I realized that probably this was the only place to end the book. Pi's happy ever story was a whole other story that would not have fit. Ending the story this way also left you hanging some to ponder everything you had just read.

Pi as Richard Parker

I honestly hadn't considered what it would mean for Pi if the story with animals was actually a lie and the boat was shared by people all along. Pi as Richard Parker is a much more demoralizing story than Pi surviving with Richard Parker. It entails Pi becoming the worst version of himself, a sort of literary double that lacks humanity and decency. Pi as R.P. makes his story even more uncanny than it already is.
Assuming that there never was a tiger on that life boat, Pi went through an amazing ordeal of losing himself in his circumstances and surviving in a very animalistic way. This actually meshes perfectly with my concept of what actual survival would entail. Survival would be ugly, damaging, completely out of a person's typical realm of possibility, and something never to be forgotten but life-shaping. If this is true of his experience, Pi made an incredible journey, both literally and emotionally, and lived to tell the tale. In this view, the story does have a happy ending and Pi has been blessed for his faith in God and all His religions.

The Richard Parker in ALL Stories

The acidic-people-eating island is, to me, the inhumanity of changing into an animal. Loosing all since of human and going full animal like the cook from the second story. (I just wanted to put in my two cents on that.)

The two stories of Pi's 227 days at sea are so similar.One has all the details with an easier way to comprehend it by seeing the facts though the animals lives, and the other is cold hard facts. The hard truth is never pretty, and will never have the adventurous feeling or heart put into it because its more of a list of facts. Its heartless and humans want adventure and grandeur; we are generally disgusted by the true details.

The whole time reading the story it was hard to believe because Pi was so young and lived for so long 'by himself'. BUT after hearing the cold hard 'truth' its more believable." So it goes with God." If we are always looking for the hard fact, we will generally not like what we find. I think that's why the prophets of old taught in parables and stories. Generally people like to hear the truth with out all the gory detail. Also the everyday storytellers don't generally like telling the gory details, because they will turn there audience off.

I agree with the Japanese men, the story with all the animals is a much better story, because its not as realistic. Richard Parker is the animal with in Pi, and they worked together to stay alive. When Pi didn't need his animal instincts to survive, Richard left Pi's mind and his 'human' instincts, that he held so dear, engulfed him again. I think there a little bit of Richard Parker still in Pi, dormant. I think Pi misses that part of himself sometimes. i ask the question to myself upon finishing the book; Is there a bit of Richard Parker in me? I don't know if I want to know the answer to that thought....

Arc of Pi

I believe that Pi has changed in some ways from the person he was at the start of the story, to becoming a different person at the end. Pi undergoes his own hero's journey, just as we talked about in class. Not only is it a story technique, it also reflects life. Any time a person makes some sort of significant "journey" that person is usually changed in some way when it is over. Given what Pi went through, how could he not be changed?

At the end of the story when Pi was talking with the two Japanese men, he acted more adult like, in that he displayed wisdom beyond what you would expect from a teenager. Often at the completion of the hero's journey the hero usually returns with more wisdom, which can be a boon, or gift to his fellow men. Pi attempts to share his wisdom with the two Japanese men, but they are men of the "dry, yeastless factuality."

One way that Pi is still the same by the end of the book, is that he still retains his kindness to other people. Essentially Pi is still the same core person that he started out as. I would say that his core is built around Love. He did have to do some hard and grusome things to survive on the ocean, but he also mentions during the story that he still prayed for the first fish that he killed. After his ordeal it is Love that keeps him praying for the animals that he killed on his journey. I think Love is the one trait that Pi had at the start of the story and still retained later in his life.

For me, using the hero's journey model is a good lens in which to see the arc of development of Pi throughout the story.