The man and the boy think of themselves as the "good guys." In what ways are they like and unlike the "bad guys" they encounter? What do you think McCarthy is suggesting in the scenes in which the boy begs his father to be merciful to the strangers they encounter on the road? How is the boy able to retain his compassion—to be, as one reviewer put it, "compassion incarnate"? 
Cosmo
11/20/2015 12:31:25 pm
The father and son are unlike the “bad guys” because they had promised to never become cannibals no matter how hungry they get. They are similar to the “bad guys” because they are all humans trying to survive. Although the methods they are using to survive are different, they are all trying to stay alive in this post-apocalyptic world. In my opinion, McCarthy is trying to suggest that the boy is a lot more pure and innocent than the father is. While the father has had the chance to live in the world before this darker one, the boy has not. This means that the boy does not understand how helping other people can mean risking his own life. The only thing that the boy knows is that there are people in need of help and he wants to grant them this. However, the father understand that they can barely survive themselves, so they cannot help the person without sacrificing more of their own chances at survival. The boy is constantly asking his father if they are the “good guys” and has moments where he does not talk to his father. These moments usually occur after something or someone dies. This shows the readers how even though the boy has lived in this scary world his whole life, things like death can still scare him. The boy is able to retain his innocence thanks to his father sheilding him.
CL
11/20/2015 11:30:57 pm
I definitely agree of how the man and the boy are like and unlike the “bad guys”. The biggest difference seems to be the way in which they decide to survive, the people find no other way than become cannibals. Meanwhile, the man and the boy would starve for days and be really close to death, but they would not eat a human being. I think that the man wouldn’t do that mainly because it’s wrong, but also because he has a lot of hope on his son, and maybe he thinks that making him another of those “monsters” who is chasing other survivors won’t help him have a better life at all.
Sophie Germain
11/22/2015 10:20:46 am
I agree that the author gives the boy more "good guy" qualities than his father. Because of the innocence that the boy has, he sees no harm in helping others that are in need. His father has been around longer and has seen more so he knows how much of a risk it can be at times to help others. The boy has many good intentions but he does not always understand what the consequences would be for himself. The moments of silence that the boy has had shows his compassion/sympathy for those who have not made it through the battle.
ST
12/16/2015 10:38:53 pm
I agree that the boy has been given more "good qualities" than the father. I think this is indeed because he is young and does not fully understand the world that he lives in, not to mention that it is the only world he has ever known. You can't miss something you've never had, so in this instance the boy has not had the same experiences the father has had. This has made the father more aware of the dangers of the world and that is why he is not as so sympathetic. He has literally watched society completely shift itself so he is not as compassionate as his son.
apple
11/22/2015 07:34:28 pm
I forgot to mention that the man and the boy are like the bad guys because they are all humans trying to survive. This is obvious, however, it does make a difference when you acknowledge this idea because it makes the bad guys seem not so bad. The "bad guys" just have a different method of surviving, and it seems like they were doing much better at surviving than the man and the boy. When considering the setting, there is no living things anymore besides humans, so eating other humans is not really surprising or "bad". I agree that McCarthy wants to demonstrate that the boy is much more innocent over his father because of their experiences. The boy doesn't know that helping these people along the way can end their lives, but the father does because he experience life before.
Drew
11/22/2015 10:26:24 pm
I agree that McCarthy makes the boy out to be more caring and humane than his father. I do agree that its because of the age and experience difference, the father has more likely seen and had to deal with different events that has changed his innocence where the by still retains most of his innocence. This innocence can portrait him to be more caring but in reality it may just be blinding him from the consequences that can be brought upon him if he did act on his intentions rather than listening to his father who knows what can happen to him.
The Supreme
12/20/2015 10:02:23 pm
I agree with your statement on what truly separates the man and the boy as good guys from the bad guys. They survive by scrounging around for scraps instead of going out and hunting other people. However I have to disagree with how you say the boy does not understand that helping others can risk his own life. All his life the boy has only really had his father to look out for him and provide for him. The boy simply wishes this kindness he is given on other people. He understands that by helping someone else he may risk his very life but he simply just does not care.
Chicken101
11/20/2015 07:36:11 pm
The man and the boy are different from the “bad guys”, because even though they are struggling to find food to eat to survive they still are humane enough not to resort to cannibalism. Even the boy, as young as he is, hates the thought of doing such a grotesque act to people. This is seen, “We wouldn’t ever eat anybody, would we? No. Of course not... No matter what. No. No matter what” (McCarthy 128), it’s like the boy wants the man to promise they will never harm another like that. The reason that the man and the boy are like the “bad guys” is because they are both trying to survive in this post-apocalyptic world. I think that McCarthy wants to show the readers that even a world filled with disaster and a lack of hope, there is still some innocence out there. The boy sees more to the world than journeying to the south, he wants to help he doesn’t think everyone is bad (like the man) he just wants to help others who seem like they need it. The boy has such compassion, because he has always been shielded from some of the bad this by the man, so he has no built up hate or fear from what is happening around him. He reflects the fear from what he sees in the man.
CL
11/20/2015 11:44:09 pm
I totally agree with your reasoning behind how the man and the boy are like the “bad guys”, as well as how they are not. I really do also agree how the boy has a lot of innocence and how that shows how he wants to help others, and wants to hold on to the hope that not every single person is bad. This shows how the boy basically still holds hope in humanity, and believes that it continues to exist. However, I think that maybe McCarthy is showing how we can have hope on the boy as readers. The man has hope on the boy and on achieving much more because that’s his father and every father wants their kid to succeed, but by showing the reader that the boy can be the only hopeful thing out there can sure mean a lot to the overall story.
Cosmo
11/21/2015 12:50:36 am
I also agree with what you wrote as the difference and similarity between the father and son and the “bad guys”. Also, I agree with what you wrote about how McCarthy is trying to show the readers that the world still contains innocence despite it being filled with disaster. I can also see how McCarthy depicts this through the boy’s personality with wanting to help others granted his own situation. The boy is the best symbol of “innocence” we can find throughout this novel and in my opinion, this is how he keeps his compassion. I liked when you said “he reflects the fear from what he sees in the man” because this perfectly explains how and why the boy reacts to things a certain way. Now, when I think about it, he does do this in every intense scene.
Sophie Germain
11/22/2015 10:14:18 am
I agree that two characters' choice to not be cannibals makes them more like the good guys. Even if they were absolutely desperate, they have vowed that they would never resort to such savagery. They understand that life is difficult but they would never make someone's life worse to make their own lives better. It is true that the son is more of a good guy than his father because he has been sheltered for the majority of his life. He has not witnessed some of the things that his father has which has made him be able to preserve his innocence. The boy has attempted to convince his father of helping others a few times, but his father chooses not to because of what he has seen in the past. This makes his father more of a bad guy.
Ummm
11/29/2015 07:54:13 pm
I definitely agree with your statement that the man and boy are different from the bad guys because they do not resort to cannibalism. Another thing I agree with that you said is that the boy holds a lot of innocence compared to his father who has endured a lot more. The boy has this hope to life still even though they are enduring the greatest struggle. The father has seen so much more that he understands the risks and realizes that he can't help others. They must help themselves in order to survive. The innocence that the boy has though shows the little hope left.
CL
11/20/2015 11:23:02 pm
The man and the boy can be considered “good guys” due to their fight against not following the humanitarian norm as to how to survive. They are people who not matter what, still haven’t lost their common sense and aren’t willing to change their roles as humans in order to keep surviving. A very big example shown is definitely them not willing to become cannibals, like the “bad guys” have. The man and the boy want to either make it as who they are, or end it, but they are trying extremely hard to not let this change them as people and their sense of identity. However, as the “bad guys”, the man and the boy are trying to survive which leads them to become more violent people since without self-defense, they would die. I think that McCarthy uses the scenes where the boy begs his father to help the strangers, as a way to show the reader that even though it’s clear that they’re in a scary place, the boy hasn’t lost his innocence. The boy doesn’t recall the past, which makes his current world be the only thing he knows. The innocence that the boy keeps with him is what makes him think that not everyone is bad out there. Without experiencing a loss of innocence, the boy in some way can understand the reasoning for their trip to the South, otherwise, it would almost seem pointless to him.
Cosmo
11/21/2015 03:22:29 am
I liked the phrase you used when you said “humanitarian norm” because of the irony behind this. The irony is that usually when you think of “humanitarian norm” you do not think about cannibalism being considered a “norm” in our current real life society. However, in this novel, the norm is cannibalism because survival is just that difficult. I agree with you about the boy having innocence in a world full of not so innocent things. In a world where people are eating other people and being locked up in a hole, it’s hard to find innocence. Yet, the boy is able to retain his innocence thanks to his father.
Sophia Moss
11/22/2015 04:34:03 pm
I think you have a lot of great ideas but, I’m not sure where some of your ideas are coming from. You mention how they’re becoming violent in order to survive, and besides the scene when the man shot the other in the truck, there is no other times of violence that the man or boy show to protect them. They try to do as little violence as possible because they don’t want to be like the “bad guys”, they want to keep their morals. Them becoming more violent would negate the boy keeping his compassion to the world around him. The boy doesn’t understand why they’re traveling South, all he knows is that his Papa said that’s where they’re going because it’ll be better. I don’t think the boy would see it as pointless because even the father has a bit of hope, and it’s placed in the boy. I think the boy would still have hope even if he lost his innocence because he would have the hope in his father due to him understanding more.
Drew
11/22/2015 10:34:13 pm
This is very interesting because in our society today usually following the "norm" would make you out to be the "good guy". In this novel that is the complete opposite because like you said the "norm" is cannibalism and acting in a violent manner to survive. The fact that the boy and his father do not follow the "norm" in this post-apocalyptic makes them the good guys, this is very ironic but seems to be a very prevalent topic in this nook and in their society. It makes you think about real world events and present day norms, maybe we have the wrong expectations and actions, maybe we are considered bad guys.
Ummm
11/29/2015 08:08:53 pm
I agree that the boy and the father do not follow the humanitarian norm in this novel. They seem to try other ways of approaching scenarios rather than seceding to gruesome ways such as cannibalism. Your idea of their identities or personalities changing due to harsh circumstances is very interesting. For example, not seceding to cannibalism can be a very difficult task and may change the way you act and see things. Their mentality that they want to either make it as who they are, or end it shows that they are not like the “bad guys” they encounter.
The Supreme
12/20/2015 10:01:43 pm
I agree that the norm in this post apocalyptic world does seem to be cannibalism and that this is what sets the man and the boy apart from the bad guys. They are indeed revolted by the idea and would never even consider it to be a possibility. I also agree that the boy has not truly lost his innocence yet. Even in the face of all the death, blood, and grotesque things he has encountered he still holds a certain purity about him and I too believe that to be the reason why the trip to the south does not at all seem pointless to him.
Sophia Moss
11/21/2015 12:19:08 am
In The Road, the man and the boy see themselves as the “good guys”, what seems to be the difference between the “bad guys” is their hold on their morals when they’re in a desperate need for food. The “bad guys” and “good guys” have the common goal of surviving the world that they’re living in, however the “bad guys” will sacrifice their original morals by deteriorating to cannibalism and using the people like cattle, to the point where they ‘save’ their food supply by only taking the parts they need and keeping the supply alive. This thought terrifies the boy when he has to ask the man “we wouldn’t...And we’re carrying the fire. Yes” (128-129). This distinction between what they need to do to survive is how they stay the “good guys” in the boy’s mind. I think McCarthy is trying to show the hope that is still alive within this world by showing the boy wanting to save the strangers. The man knows that he can only care about himself and the boy, essentially cutting his compassion off because he needs to do almost everything in his power in order to make sure they survive. But the boy can rely on the man to take care of them and lead the way; the boy is allowed to care. He has the fear and knowledge of what might happen, but the man takes care of them; the boy can open his heart to who he sees as ‘we can help them’. He doesn’t need to worry about the food or where they’ll sleep. His compassion comes from his naivtivity of having all they need to help others, because he doesn’t need to worry about the consequences
apple
11/22/2015 07:53:37 pm
I like how you said the bad guys are "deteriorating" to cannibalism because it comes to show their moral decay for treating other humans as "cattle". I agree, what makes the man and the boy the "good guys" is their way of surviving; they do not turn to hunting and eating other people. Instead, they endure through their struggles and find their own food along their journey, despite being starved and deprived of food. One of the essential questions of this novel asks if their is still hope in the post-apocalyptic world. McCarthy's purpose in making the boy compassionate towards other people answers this question; yes there is still hope in the world. I agree with your idea of the boy's naivety that results from the man's protection. The boy is able to be caring and compassionate because he doesn't know what the consequences are.
MGC
11/22/2015 10:46:53 pm
I agree that the man and the boys share a common goal as the “bad guys”, which is to survive. I think it is intresting that you say the bad guys may have originally been good, but the conditions around them changed their morals, which made them bad. The lack of food has turned people with originally good morals into inhumane creatures without any compassion for human life at all. They become animalistic and their own survival is more important than the survival of humans as an entire species. The man and the boy do not allow the situation they are in change their morals.
Jane Gloriana Villanueva
11/24/2015 11:27:43 am
I agree that what you had said about the man and boy’s morals is an aspect of what’s setting them aside as “good guys”. Although in the man’s teaching the boy of survival he kind of pushes the boy’s innocent morals to an end. When the boy continuously begs his father to stop and aid the man who was stricken by lightning or to go back for the little boy without guidance, the man tells him no and pulls him along. The father is justified in this for attempting to keep the boy out of harm’s way but he is always depleting his morals of compassion.
Sophie Germain
11/21/2015 05:35:20 pm
The man and the boy are like the good guys because they do not intentionally hurt others in order to gain things for their own wellbeing. The two characters often look in places that are already abandoned when they are trying to find useful materials. They have not ever taken something from someone who was using it. This makes them seem considerate in a way because they show some level of respect for those who are also suffering. “All the stores were riffled years ago…They shuffled through the trash but there was nothing there of any use to them...” (McCarthy 79) On the other hand, the characters have shown that they can be the bad guys. “Huddled against the back wall were naked people, male and female, all trying to hide, shielding their faces with their hands…Hurry. For God’s sake hurry.” (McCarthy 110-111) In this quote, the man and the boy see a group of people who are being held captive. Despite their pleading and his son’s begging, the man chose to leave the people and run. This makes the man appear to have little consideration for others. In that moment, those people were suffering even more than him and his son but he still chose to ignore that and leave them in that situation. This made him no better than the people who held them captive. The boy shows unconditional compassion for others because he still has some innocence and maybe hasn’t seen everything that his father has.
Sophia Moss
11/22/2015 04:44:09 pm
I really like that you brought up the good and bad parts of the father. How, even if he doesn’t steal from other people and he takes care of the boy, there is that mixture of being ‘bad’ in there because he did nothing to help the people trapped in the cellar. He just wanted to run out instead of giving it a split second thought of possibly saving them. I think that the boy’s innocence is a big part of his compassionate nature, but I don’t think that it’s only because of him not having seen as much as his father because at times, he acts more mature and level headed than the man does.
PAS
11/22/2015 11:14:30 pm
I agree with you. The father did nothing to help those people in the cellar. But, then again i do think that in this book, we cannot pick sides to say whose "bad" and whose "good". If we were living in this type of world I think we would taking the same exact measures that some of the people are doing in this book. The boys compassion does have something to do with him still having all his innocence. The boys still sees greatness in things, for example the dog he wanted and beg to have that shows a lot feelings the boy still has for things.
ME
12/3/2015 01:05:46 pm
While I agree that the man and boy are dissimilar to the bad guys, I don't agree with your reason that its because they don't steal from others. As they live in a post-apocalyptic world that was most likely burned in some way, due to the amount of ash described in the environment, its difficult to find food in general. Also, there are cannibals actively hunting around them, so their best bet is to stay as far away from other people as they can. I don't believe that their true intentions are to not steal, because they think its wrong- they don't steal because there is no one to steal from. Those houses are abandoned because there aren't many people alive anymore and those who are alive are either cannibals or food for the cannibals. I believe there are other ways, however, that they are dissimilar to the bad guys like the one you mentioned- the boy's compassion for others.
SJH
12/6/2015 09:36:46 pm
apple
11/22/2015 07:28:47 pm
Throughout the progression of the man and his son’s journey in The Road by McCarthy, they encounter people who are considered “the bad guys.” It is clear that the man and the boy are not “bad guys” because they do not kill other people and turn to cannibalism to survive. Instead, they avoid any encounters with other people and follow their own path to find food. The “bad guys” are a group of people who find other people in this post-apocalyptic world and kidnap, rape, and feed off them. Besides what they do to survive, the man and the boy can be looked at as “bad guys.” First, when they came across a group of helpless and dying people underground in a hatch they immediately ran away and did not help them. In a way, they are “bad guys” because they did not try to help. Second, they did not help the man who was melting away on the road after being struck by lightning. Lastly, the man shot and killed one of the bad guys, which is like “fighting fire with fire.” However, the man and the boy had no choice in doing what they did because their options were limited due to the destruction of the world. Also, if they helped those people underground, helped the man struck by lightning, and didn’t kill one of the bad guys, then they would have risked their lives. In one particular scene, the boy claims that he saw a little boy in the distance. He wanted to approach the boy and help him, but his father disagreed and denied the request. McCarthy’s purpose in showing the boy’s compassion is to show how morals continue to linger after the post-apocalyptic world. Also, McCarthy might be trying to emphasize the innocence of a child who did not experience life before “the end of the world.” The boy is able to retain his compassion because his father shelters him. Therefore, the boy isn’t exposed to much of the brutality that would then lessen his compassion for others.
MGC
11/22/2015 10:42:09 pm
I agree that the man and boy are not “bad guys” because they avoid cannibalism and killing others, but I also agree that the man and the boy are like the “bad guys” because they did not help those people. I never thought about it like that. But if they want to survive it is what they have to do. They have to run away to help save themselves. I also agree that the man shelters the boy from a lot of the more traumatizing parts of the post-apocalyptic world which helps him keep this compassion. Without his father there to protect him he would be a much harsher boy.
PAS
11/22/2015 11:06:34 pm
I do agree with everything that you are saying. The man and the son can be viewed as "the bad guys" because they're willing to do anything to survive just like every one else. I also think that no one can play the "good guy" or the "bad guy" because simply everyone is doing the same thing, at any extent to survive. This is a situation where we cant pick sides. We just have to hope for the best for everyone. I think the only way for the son tho stay sane is to show compassion to everything that is happening.
Jane Gloriana Villanueva
11/24/2015 11:15:33 am
I think that all of your reasoning for justifying the man and the boy as “bad guys” was spot on. In their deserting those in need, certain inhumaneness is developed along the character of their mortality. While the couple did not have much help to give to these people whose faiths have already been predetermined, it was not in the intentions of the man at all to feign compassion or concern. While these are “bad guy” components, I think that it takes a lot of strength and compassion to turn away from the despair of others to protect one life. Although, if the man was faced with being alone I feel that he would have been a “bad guy” in this sense.
Drew
11/22/2015 10:20:14 pm
It is clear that the father and son are unlike the "bad guys" in this story, McCarthy writing suggests to us as the readers that the father and son are the "good guys". Many details and events prove to us that this is most likely true. Especially the boy, being so young, still is disgusted with the way people act in this world. This comes up when he says, “We wouldn’t ever eat anybody, would we? No. Of course not... No matter what. No. No matter what” (McCarthy 128), even at this age he sees the wrong doing in this act against people and recognizes that if him and his father ever do something along the lines of cannibalism or any other gruesome act that they will be on the same page as the "bad guys". They have not intentionally done anything to harm any other people they come across, they are still surviving and living they have not et harmed anyone that had not deserved it or they have not forced it upon themselves. In this post-apocalyptic world there are people the kidnap rape, kill, and feed of innocent people that are trying to survive and get to see another day, so in no means are they the "bad guys". They are just trying to survive like everyone else in the most humane way they think is necessary. Yes, they may have some similarities, like when coming across the helpless people underground they chose not to help them. Also, when the father killed one of the "bad guys". Yes these thing do seem inhumane and would be considered wrong in our world today. But there world is no where near our world today, so with their circumstances and limitations, and the overall survival mode they are in they made these decisions to better guarantee their survival. Also is shows hope, when the boy sees a little boy from a far he wanted to go help but his father thought against it and denied the little boy from helping, McCarthy is showing that even in this dark world these boys morals are preserved and that they father wants to save him, save the "good" left in this world they live in.
Jane Gloriana Villanueva
11/22/2015 10:21:16 pm
I think that the man and the boy are considered to be the “good guys” because the extent of survival that they have chosen to take. As some of the only survivors in this desolate/decayed world, they remain above the rest by not resulting to cannibalism, looting and cultism to continue living. The means that the father has taken to make the most conservative actions in survival is what differentiates the couple from those who have essentially given up on humanity. The man would rather freeze to death or starve then to lower his values to live. His method of living has only come to the death of one and even that death was due because the invader was a threat to the boy’s well-being. And as that dead man served for his colleagues’ next meal, McCarthy furthered his exploitation of the puncture in what humanity is left of this group of survivors. While the man and the boy are the “good guys”, they take on “bad guy” traits when the man kills another or even when the man refutes to save one of the people (meals) in the basement, knowing their fate. In a scene such as when the boy begs his father to spare the strangers on the road, McCarthy suggests a hope in humanity’s survival living through the boy. The compassion the boys carries is rooted in the fact that he was granted a chance of life by his father.
MGC
11/22/2015 10:35:15 pm
In McCarthy’s novel The Road the man and the boy try their hardest to survive by avoiding “bad guys”. They are different from the “bad guys” because they avoid violence and cannibalism at all cost. In one part the boy asks his father if he thinks they will ever resort to cannibalism. “We wouldnt ever eat anybody would we? No. Of course not…” (McCarthy 128). It is inhumane and as long as they can survive with the little food they have they will. They will go for days without any food, until they are nearly dead without eating another human being. Many of the bad guys hunt people and use violence to capture them and eat them. It is absolutely horrendous.All they care about is their own survival in this way ,the boy and his father, are in a way like the bad guys. They have to be. In this post-apocalyptic world everyone is just trying to survive. To survive you need food, water, and shelter. The man will do anything to keep his son alive. He much rather die than watch his son die. The boy asks his father to show compassion to the strangers they meet and it shows they boy’s innocence. McCarthy uses the boy as the only source of innocence in a sinful world.
PAS
11/22/2015 10:59:45 pm
The father and son are unlike the "bad guys" because they do not go out of their way or in any desperate times lead to cannibalism. When the father encounters one of the "bad guys", he himself is turn into one of them, yet for a good cause. When faced with people outside of their box, the father immediately turns to his gun for protection and survival. Ignoring the cannibalism, the other people are doing the same exact thing, so isn't the father playing "the bad guy" too in their eyes? What i think the McCarthy is suggesting in the scene where the son is begging his father to be more merciful to the people he encounters is that the world that they live in now is at a severe high of survival at the fittest. Everyone that they meet is going react the way they do just so they can survive. The son is maybe implying that killing doesn't have to be the only answer. I think that the boy hold so much compassion because, even though he never lived in the world his dad did, he sees how much this is change for them, and how drastic it is for them the literally kill to survive.
ST
11/23/2015 11:23:31 am
In “The Road”, the man and his son are very different than other survivors of the apocalypse. The others have resulted in killing and cannibalism, but neither of them has resorted to either option. Both the boy and his father have still maintained morals and their humanity. In the distance, they heard a bark from a dog. The boy asks his father if they are going to kill it, and the father replies, “He looked down, shivering in his coats. He bent over and kissed him on his gritty brow. We won’t hurt the dog, he said. I promise” (McCarthy 82). In this scene, you can tell that the man and the boy still know wrong from right, and won’t kill a dog in order to eat. They persevere, and find alternative options in order to survive. Neither of them has crossed that line, so the boy’s innocence is still pure.
Alex
12/9/2015 04:55:07 pm
I agree with the quote that this person put in the comment to show that the father and the son are still part of the “good” people. I agree with this quote because it shows that even though they are hungry and need food, they hold themselves back and do the right thing. They do this because they still want to keep their morals as being human. Killing a dog for food would be losing their humanity considering the dog is probably someones pet, or used to be. The “bad” people probably would hunt that dog down just to kill it because they do not care about the world around them. Once the world lost its sense of civilization these people just gave up and went crazy, but the father and the son kept their morals because that is what makes them human.
Ummm
11/29/2015 07:18:43 pm
The father and son in The Road, are unlike the “bad guys” they encounter because they kept their promise of not seceding to cannibalism. Even though the boy and his father are facing great ordeals due to the lack of food they are not allowing themselves to go to such lengths. Although the methods they are using to survive are different, they are all trying to stay alive in this post-apocalyptic world. I believe what McCarthy is trying to suggest with the scenes in which the boy begs his father to be merciful to the strangers they encounter on the road is that the world may seem to have a lack of hope but there is still innocence out there. The father has lived in the world before it became dark while the boy has not. The boy sees more to the journey compared to his father. He wants to help others and not just himself. He can't seem to understand that he is putting himself at a greater risk trying to help others. This is what shows his great sense of purity. The boy still holds this innocence which allows for him to think that everyone out there is not bad.
ME
12/3/2015 12:57:41 pm
I fully agree that the man and boy are unlike the bad people because of their refusal to resort to cannibalism- despite being starving and desperate. This shows a lot about their sense of humanity. I believe, as you were touching upon, that the father's experience of the world prior to ruin, and the sharing of those experiences with his son occasionally (in addition to the sheltering that is done by the man), really fuel the naiveness and innocence of the boy. To expand on this, however, you can also explain how similar the boy and father are to bad people. Their situation is not black and white, and while we see them as protagonists, they still have some attributes of a bad person.
Alex
12/2/2015 07:58:13 am
The bad guys and the good guys differentiate in surprisingly not that ways. The only differences are the “bad” characteristics the author gives them. The bad guys are killers and they’ve lost their sight in humanity. They are breeders just so that they can eat. They’ve abandoned their own humanity and have given up on what’s “just” in the world. The world has made them into monsters. They are most likely the reason why the world has turned into an evil and brutal place that is not a place for humans anymore. There are also similarities between the two. The good and the bad are both humans. Although the bad guys have lost their humanity they were humans at one point. They were both part of the world when it was still intact and everything was normal. The bad were considered the good at one point in their lives. In the scene where the boy is begging the father to be merciful towards the bad men, it shows that the boy is the most humane. Keeping humanity in a time when everything is going down the drain is very important. This is because once humanity is lost, nothing matters anymore and everything that once was, is lost. Even though the boy hasn’t seen the world like it was before the apocalypse, he still has that humanly feel to him which symbolizes him as the glue that keeps them together.
ME
12/3/2015 12:50:20 pm
In The Road, the man and boy are both like and unlike the "bad guys" in the novel. Unlike the bad guys, they avoid other humans as much as possible (out of fear of the bad guys), while the bad guys seek people out for the purpose of eating them. This is the cause of the horrific scene the man and boy come across- naked people hiding in fear in a room, awaiting their fate of being eaten (110). The man and boy establish that the would never eat another human being- proving that they are more in touch with their humanity than the other inhabitants around them. However, like the "bad people", the man is determined to do whatever it takes to stay alive for the sake of keeping his son alive. The man refuses to help the people in the room and also refuses to acknowledge the vision of a boy that his son sees (both of which his son becomes very concerned about). As a reader, you are limited to the viewpoint of the man and boy only, so it is easy to understand why the man does what he does. However, it is obvious that the man has no intention of helping anyone besides himself and his son, which can be seen as a quality of a "bad" person (being selfish and indifferent towards the wellbeing of others).
Alex
12/9/2015 05:46:33 pm
I also agree with this persons comment when they said that the father will do anything to protect his son. I agree with this because the father only wants the best for his son. He wants his son to live a better life than the life that they have but in the circumstances that they are in, he has to protect and make sure that he stays alive to live on. The father also protects the son in another way too. He carries around 2 bullets so that if they were to ever get into a situation where they would rather die than take the pain from other people, he has that ready.
ST
12/16/2015 10:47:09 pm
I agree that the man only wanting to him himself and his son could be seen as a "bad quality" because it could be viewed as selfish. This makes him like the bad guys because each "group" is working toward only helping each other survive, and not anyone else.The only difference is obviously the fact that the "bad guys" have completely lost their humanity and have no regard for other precious human life. The difference is that the man still has his morals, and will only kill when his or his son's life is threatened.
SJH
12/6/2015 09:29:20 pm
The Supreme
12/20/2015 10:03:14 pm
The main difference that sets the man and the boy from the bad guys is the fact that they don't go out of their way to kill other people. They do not hold the same cannibalistic attributes as the bad guys do. The bad guys kill and eat people in this dystopian world while the only time the Man will ever kill is to defend the boy just as he did when the man with distorted bird tattoo grabbed ahold of the boy. The Man explains this to boy when he tells him "you wanted to know what the bad guys looked like. Now you know. It may happen again. My job is to take care of you. I was appointed by God. I will kill anyone who touches you" (McCarthy 77). The Man kills for defense which doesn't really make him a bad guy. He declares that even with what he had just done he and the boy were still the good guys and the they would always be. However killing is not a pure hearted action and that is where the boy plays a part. The child begs his father to be more merciful to strangers on the road to balance out the evil that comes with killing. Comments are closed.
|
Blog Post Rubric
Archives
February 2023
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed