This will be the first of random book reviews that'll be nothing like a New York Times book review. Gone is the ten thousand word analysis. Instead, here is a book review like you'd tell your friends.
First up: Cormac McCarthy's The Road.
Review:
Really? Really now? I just read 280 pages for that? People walking in an ashtray of life? Thanks for the ambiguity. I loved how you left everything wide open and couldn't make a hard decision in the book, Cormac. My grandmother would've called you indecisive and then slapped you off the back of the head. Seriously, next time try to make up your mind and decide on something. No character names...no development...no plot details...no explanations. No problem, I guess. Since you didn't decide on anything, Cormac, you didn't have to worry about writing much of a story.
Here's the entire story in amazing, pin-point detail: A father and son walk in a world of ashes. Pop is pissy. Son is sweet. Pop gets a cough and dies. Son goes off with another man and keeps walking. The end.
With all the ashes in the story the book was as much an anti-smoking advertisement than a book. Joe Camel is probably more disappointed than I am. The Marlboro Man is probably weeping an emphasematic cry of sadness, too. And so am I, and I don't even smoke.
You are OUT of your MIND! This was an excellent read and an amazing book... just ask Cormac McCarthy himself, and he'll tell you - great book!
ReplyDeleteAll kidding aside, I thought this was one of the most compelling and harrowing reads I'd had in a long time.
The two main characters didn't get names because they didn't need them. Who were they interacting with besides each other? No one. They also didn't get names because they were not characters in a situation allowing them to adapt and grow. Think about the environment they were in, this is not a place for development. It's survival only, and McCarthy was arguing that in survival only situations we as humans do not evolve, in fact we devolve... and pretty damned quickly.
The most important thing the father taught the son in this book was how to commit suicide with the gun in case they were about to be taken hostage. They even ran "suicide drills" to make sure the little boy knew what he was doing.
The plot couldn't develop since niether of the characters could. Also,since there was no "think time" for the characters. Everything was "survive" "eat" "move" "find sun, shelter, safety." All three of which didn't exist.
I thought this was a bleak read, but still an incredible. Perhaps you wanted something funnier but of the same idea. I suggest EMERGENCIES by Neil Strauss... trust me, you'll love it!
I disagree with a few of your assertions.
ReplyDeleteThe son was evolved. He doesn't follow your argument (and Cormac's?) that humans devolve in such scenarios, thus not needing character or plot development. He was the antithesis to his father. If anything, he acted like the stranger he meets at the end of the book...someone else who seemingly had evolved, too. The son is the focal point of the story. He alone could've allowed for more plot development. Cormac just chose to let the reader feel like an outcast to the story for no other reason than author's prerogative. If that's the only reason he has for leaving the plot paper thin, then it's a paper thin reason for making a book out of it.