I agree with Amanda's claim that "Those who lived in the “old world” will eventually die out like the Man, but I think the boy and others born after the apocalypse will not lose all intuition." The idea of this intuition seems to stem from Carl Yung's theory of the Collective Unconscious. Is it possible that though all traces of the old world may have disappeared, symbols such as darkness and light may stay the same? I believe that people who live in a world that is going through such a drastic change, will still respond to "darkness and light" as they might have in the old world, but symbols and archetypal patterns will be altered. As people grow accustomed to the dark, their response to it will be different. As people see the light, they may interpret it not only as a symbol of hope, but as a symbol of destruction, as the light of the fire is what has destroyed the world.
As Thomas H Schuab asserts, the very things people rely on to survive will be altered. In this new world, the characters eventually are forced to revert back to a life of simplicity, where "things were held in place, are held in place, by [merely] a web of words.”
A web of words seems to be so fragile, as if life depends only on the support of single, distinct meanings. Even if "there is no God," then people such as the boy and his father in The Road will emerge, with magnitude, and find something else to believe in, such as the love between father and son, or in the case of Housekeeping, letting the world be defined by a distinctive "set of words."
Even without a God, The Road is a spiritual journey: McCarthy even employs an "ironic echo of Adam and Eve departing Paradise" in the beginning of the novel to emphasize the magnitude of their journey. Even in the face of the barren "wasteland," the father and son are able to find something Godly in each other, as they both travel in the hopes of "carrying the fire"
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Response to Schaub's "Secular Scripture and Cormac McCarthy's The Road"
While reading Schaub's essay I found myself enjoying the way Schaub highlighted aspects of McCarthy's novel that were used to evoke a thought process in the reader. Schaub recognizes how "McCarthy taps into the commonplace of American writing, or fishing in America..." (Schaub 156). McCarthy does not in fact describe the pre apocalyptic world, but yet his inclusion of the brook filled with trout and other allusions make it clear that the pre apocalyptic world must be in fact much like today's world. Furthermore Schaub states: "McCarthy uses memory to bring into our consciousness the very images that are fading away within the world of the novel" (Schaub 157). Similar to what we discussed today in class alluding to Connor's parallel to the collective unconscious, McCarthy's "hints" through out the text make it much easier to picture the pre burnt and deteriorated earth.
Furthermore Schaub's essay is very peculiar in how it contradicts itself continuously, Schaub first asserts that signs and symbols of spiritual facts can no longer be used as they have all been turned to ash, however he later discusses the idea of "whether there can be meaning without embodiment" (Schaub 155). Originally Schaub contends that symbols and sign are no longer relevant because their remains are merely ash, however he later discusses the possibility that there can be meaning with out "embodiment". The idea that something can have spiritual value and importance, however its physical being may no longer exist. God for example, a controversial topic throughout the novel as the protagonists question his existence, in most religions is not seen by human’s, however is a spiritual being who is known to watch over mankind. God to many is extremely meaningful, and therefore proves that there can in fact be meaning without embodiment. When the protagonists take shelter with Ely, as Ely states that God does not exist in the post apocalyptic world, however the father responds with a simple "No?", he too questions whether God can in fact exist in such a deteriorated world, and questions how God could allow the downfall of life on earth. interestingly Schaub like the protagonists battles with this question, and the idea of meaning without embodiment. However this contradiction between the lack of symbolism because they have all been burned to ash, and the idea that spiritual meaningfulness does not have to spark from a an actual, present being. Fire for example a symbol that "burns" throughout the novel as the destructive force that brought the majority of life on planet earth to its end, and the fire that "burns" within the man and his son, the "fire" to persist and survive, does not actually exist within the protagonists. The internal organs are not in fact burning with fire, and therefore this symbolism though not realistically burning there is still extremely meaningful. Scaub's essay poses many questions to his readers through his contradictions and ideas. These questions lead to further interpretation of novel, and a greater more "meaningful" understanding of the text.
Furthermore Schaub's essay is very peculiar in how it contradicts itself continuously, Schaub first asserts that signs and symbols of spiritual facts can no longer be used as they have all been turned to ash, however he later discusses the idea of "whether there can be meaning without embodiment" (Schaub 155). Originally Schaub contends that symbols and sign are no longer relevant because their remains are merely ash, however he later discusses the possibility that there can be meaning with out "embodiment". The idea that something can have spiritual value and importance, however its physical being may no longer exist. God for example, a controversial topic throughout the novel as the protagonists question his existence, in most religions is not seen by human’s, however is a spiritual being who is known to watch over mankind. God to many is extremely meaningful, and therefore proves that there can in fact be meaning without embodiment. When the protagonists take shelter with Ely, as Ely states that God does not exist in the post apocalyptic world, however the father responds with a simple "No?", he too questions whether God can in fact exist in such a deteriorated world, and questions how God could allow the downfall of life on earth. interestingly Schaub like the protagonists battles with this question, and the idea of meaning without embodiment. However this contradiction between the lack of symbolism because they have all been burned to ash, and the idea that spiritual meaningfulness does not have to spark from a an actual, present being. Fire for example a symbol that "burns" throughout the novel as the destructive force that brought the majority of life on planet earth to its end, and the fire that "burns" within the man and his son, the "fire" to persist and survive, does not actually exist within the protagonists. The internal organs are not in fact burning with fire, and therefore this symbolism though not realistically burning there is still extremely meaningful. Scaub's essay poses many questions to his readers through his contradictions and ideas. These questions lead to further interpretation of novel, and a greater more "meaningful" understanding of the text.
Schaub and The Road
Schaub of “Secular Scripture and Cormac McCarthy’s The Road” points out how The Road is paradoxical in structure. It is a story in a world with no need or want of stories, with allusions and allegories that help the reader understand, but would mean little to the post-apocalyptic characters whose previous faiths and philosophies have been replaced with a sort of rugged spirituality without rules or traditions or figureheads. I agree with Schaub’s ideas about the structure, however, I disagree in thinking that the spiritual belief the boy and his father gain is so incredibly “unique”, that is so isolated to the time and place that the man and the boy live in.
In our discussion earlier, Connor mentioned how he kept being reminded of the archetypal symbols we discussed earlier in the year that evoke the same feelings in the subconscious of every individual. Those who lived in the “old world” will eventually die out like the Man, but I think the boy and others born after the apocalypse will not lose all intuition. Though, he may not know of God or Jesus or any other religious symbols I believe he’ll understand simple intuitive symbolism. If nothing else, he’ll see light and know it is good and dark and be scared. He’ll look to the horizon and wonder what is beyond it, and then begin to question, who am I? Why am I here, like generations of men before him? I think this is best demonstrated when the boy meets the other man at the end and “demands an answer” to whether or not the man holds the fire. The man says yes which could mean either he’s just agreeing with the boy to get him to follow him or he identifies with the fire as a positive force that he and the boy share. I doubt it’s the first since this is the first man that seems as “humane” as the boy; Ely before seemed unreal like a warning or a demonic prophet. I don’t believe being human necessarily makes you “humane” in the way we see the word today, so this connection over symbols is really a great affirmation of the continued existence of humanity as well as a connection to the spirituality of the past.
Now, obviously Schuab doesn’t believe that The Road’s characters are completely without human or personal connections; his essay brings up many ideas of the boy as a god-like figure to his father and the boy’s empathy towards all living things. It’s just to the extent that he thinks that this spiritual journey transcends all others. I think it’s a testament to Cormac McCarthy’s ability that it’s not; he is able to apply these archetypal ideas used throughout time in a manner that is unique.
In our discussion earlier, Connor mentioned how he kept being reminded of the archetypal symbols we discussed earlier in the year that evoke the same feelings in the subconscious of every individual. Those who lived in the “old world” will eventually die out like the Man, but I think the boy and others born after the apocalypse will not lose all intuition. Though, he may not know of God or Jesus or any other religious symbols I believe he’ll understand simple intuitive symbolism. If nothing else, he’ll see light and know it is good and dark and be scared. He’ll look to the horizon and wonder what is beyond it, and then begin to question, who am I? Why am I here, like generations of men before him? I think this is best demonstrated when the boy meets the other man at the end and “demands an answer” to whether or not the man holds the fire. The man says yes which could mean either he’s just agreeing with the boy to get him to follow him or he identifies with the fire as a positive force that he and the boy share. I doubt it’s the first since this is the first man that seems as “humane” as the boy; Ely before seemed unreal like a warning or a demonic prophet. I don’t believe being human necessarily makes you “humane” in the way we see the word today, so this connection over symbols is really a great affirmation of the continued existence of humanity as well as a connection to the spirituality of the past.
Now, obviously Schuab doesn’t believe that The Road’s characters are completely without human or personal connections; his essay brings up many ideas of the boy as a god-like figure to his father and the boy’s empathy towards all living things. It’s just to the extent that he thinks that this spiritual journey transcends all others. I think it’s a testament to Cormac McCarthy’s ability that it’s not; he is able to apply these archetypal ideas used throughout time in a manner that is unique.
Response to: “Secular Scripture and Cormac McCarthy’s The Road”
Schaub asserts in his essay that The Road that in a post-apocalyptic world, the lack or even absence of religion forces the few people who are left to have to create some sort of religion or belief to live for. I fully support Schaub’s claim that the idea of faith being grown out of something horrible was McCarthy’s intention to get across to a reader. McCarthy often drives this point by the many references to Genesis and the creation of man to the journey the man and boy are on in The Road. With literally nothing to live for, it is only natural to create things to live for—in the case of The Road, Cormac McCarthy crafts the boy to allude to the idea that he may be “the chosen” one. That chosen ‘higher power’ to prevent their planet from inexistence—“When we’re all gone at last then there’ll be nobody here but death and his days will be numbered too” (McCarthy 146). The journey that the boy and man are traveling to survive can be paralleled to the story of Genesis. As Schaub discussed, “these allusions [in The Road to religion] constitute an echo not only of literary but also of human history, within which the artist sought to explain the ways of god to men” as Genesis for some people today explains how god/God created man (Schaub 155). Even the obvious that the man is never named, as the man in Genesis is never named shows McCarthy’s ability to allude to Genesis in his novel. As Schaub recognizes, the opening lines to The Road are almost identical to the passage in Genesis “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (002:007). Even the idea (which may be a stretch on my part) but that the boy outlived the man—to spread their ‘good news’ or what they called “the fire” as Jesus in the Catholic Faith is considered to have been crucified as atonement for the sin of all man. Did the father in the novel play the same role of dieing for another to live? As I believe someone (I apologize I don’t recall the exact person) but I know someone in class today suggested that the father’s ‘fire’ was extinguished by the end of the novel, but the boy’s was not so that may be why the boy was able to live. He could continue to carry the fire. Also, often in depictions of Jesus he has a heart filled with fire:
So when the father states to the boy at the closing of the novel, “You don’t know what might be down the road. You must carry the fire” he means he must carry that fire in his heart, as a higher power would, to spread good news, to spread faith (Schaub 163). In this same depiction of Christ above you can obviously see the light that radiates from him. That is the same idea when the father is dying and he recognizes, “when he moved the light moved with him” (277). The father could see that his son attained that same aura of light as does Jesus in many drawings.
Now I have somewhat strayed from my original thesis and what I am supporting—I feel that I may have been somewhat off, it is not the boy creating faith, it is the boy living and acting out that faith where the father is recognizing it. The father can recognize that his son may in fact be ‘holy’ because he lived before the time of the apocalypse. The father knew what it meant to be a “body of God” whereas the son’s life and all that he could remember was in the post-apocalyptic world. This connects back to the idea in class that ignorance can be directly connected to goodness and purity—the boy was acting his life in the manner “goodness can persist in the face of violence” without truly understanding that his goodness was in the face of such a horrible world (Schaub 158). The boy did not know what a world without seas of ash, barren landscape, and constant cold was like. That isn’t to say that the boy thought the world he lived in was all hunky dory—he just didn’t know the extent of how horrible his planet had become.
Returning to the father’s death as I discussed above, in the final moments when he is speaking to his son and revealing to the boy that he will be leaving him alone, he reassures him by stating, “You can talk to men and I’ll talk to you. You’ll see. ... You have to make it like talk that you imagine. And you’ll hear me. You have to practice. Just don’t give up” (Schaub 163/McCarthy 278-79). Now it may just be the father’s paternal instincts that he told the son he could ‘talk to him’ to make the boy not feel alone, but I have a lingering feeling that McCarthy intended that dialogue to show the transcendence of religion even amidst death—if the father and son could ‘talk’ to one another even after the father had passed, doesn’t that somehow suggest that the father is going to an afterlife and then further suggesting that the two of them were creating a religion or faith to live for?
I believe that Schaub’s intent in his essay was to highlight how (as Molly and Chelsea spoke about in class) religion can exist without emulation—of course the world in The Road had no churches left, no bibles, no hymns, or organized prayer, but even amidst death glimpses of religion can still be recognized. As Ely asked the man “Maybe he believes in God” (McCarthy 173). I believe that Schaub asserts that it wasn’t that the boy believed in a god per say, he was acting as a God as the boy had “values that transcend mere survival, that are fundamental to the boy’s character” (Schaub 162). The boy never really explained fully his reasoning behind wanting to help all of the sick and suffering and why it pained him so that he could not. Schaub makes me think that the boy never explained this desire to want to help people because the boy never felt like he had to, it was a desire, a passion or “fire” that burned in his heart that he could not let go of, whether it meant living or dying to fulfill this desire to help people, the boy would do it. The boy would save another man’s life before his own in a heartbeat; that in itself sounds holy to me.
So when the father states to the boy at the closing of the novel, “You don’t know what might be down the road. You must carry the fire” he means he must carry that fire in his heart, as a higher power would, to spread good news, to spread faith (Schaub 163). In this same depiction of Christ above you can obviously see the light that radiates from him. That is the same idea when the father is dying and he recognizes, “when he moved the light moved with him” (277). The father could see that his son attained that same aura of light as does Jesus in many drawings.
Now I have somewhat strayed from my original thesis and what I am supporting—I feel that I may have been somewhat off, it is not the boy creating faith, it is the boy living and acting out that faith where the father is recognizing it. The father can recognize that his son may in fact be ‘holy’ because he lived before the time of the apocalypse. The father knew what it meant to be a “body of God” whereas the son’s life and all that he could remember was in the post-apocalyptic world. This connects back to the idea in class that ignorance can be directly connected to goodness and purity—the boy was acting his life in the manner “goodness can persist in the face of violence” without truly understanding that his goodness was in the face of such a horrible world (Schaub 158). The boy did not know what a world without seas of ash, barren landscape, and constant cold was like. That isn’t to say that the boy thought the world he lived in was all hunky dory—he just didn’t know the extent of how horrible his planet had become.
Returning to the father’s death as I discussed above, in the final moments when he is speaking to his son and revealing to the boy that he will be leaving him alone, he reassures him by stating, “You can talk to men and I’ll talk to you. You’ll see. ... You have to make it like talk that you imagine. And you’ll hear me. You have to practice. Just don’t give up” (Schaub 163/McCarthy 278-79). Now it may just be the father’s paternal instincts that he told the son he could ‘talk to him’ to make the boy not feel alone, but I have a lingering feeling that McCarthy intended that dialogue to show the transcendence of religion even amidst death—if the father and son could ‘talk’ to one another even after the father had passed, doesn’t that somehow suggest that the father is going to an afterlife and then further suggesting that the two of them were creating a religion or faith to live for?
I believe that Schaub’s intent in his essay was to highlight how (as Molly and Chelsea spoke about in class) religion can exist without emulation—of course the world in The Road had no churches left, no bibles, no hymns, or organized prayer, but even amidst death glimpses of religion can still be recognized. As Ely asked the man “Maybe he believes in God” (McCarthy 173). I believe that Schaub asserts that it wasn’t that the boy believed in a god per say, he was acting as a God as the boy had “values that transcend mere survival, that are fundamental to the boy’s character” (Schaub 162). The boy never really explained fully his reasoning behind wanting to help all of the sick and suffering and why it pained him so that he could not. Schaub makes me think that the boy never explained this desire to want to help people because the boy never felt like he had to, it was a desire, a passion or “fire” that burned in his heart that he could not let go of, whether it meant living or dying to fulfill this desire to help people, the boy would do it. The boy would save another man’s life before his own in a heartbeat; that in itself sounds holy to me.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Question?
Does anyone know where to find the recent blog posts? Like the "Questions to consider" for The Road, let me know. Thanks- Liz
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Friday, May 14, 2010
The Things They Carried Resources
Feel free to create your own post and/or add comments to this post. I'm looking forward to our discussion on Monday and Tuesday.
-AP
Interview with Tim O'Brien
Metonymy and Ellipses in The Things They Carried
-AP
Interview with Tim O'Brien
Metonymy and Ellipses in The Things They Carried
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
