Exposition, Characters & Setting
As Matt has already introduced the basic plot expressed as this story commences, it it unneccessary to produce a monotony of discussion outlining the same concepts. Rather, I will here outline some of the aspects of character and setting that present all prevailing thoughts and emotions to the reader.
Though it would seem that McCarthy pens the father as the loving, caring hero expressed in many works, through facts made manifest in some of the sub-thoughts one may examine how he is the morally bent and spiritually bankrupt individual. His wife, son and the motley, jovial and loveable crew of flesh eating retrogrades all come to the realization that this new society will retroact Dawinian principles of man pitted against man in a struggle for self-survival. One may even examine how the groups that go around raping and killing have learned to function successfully together as long as each provides a service to the entire unit. The father, on the other hand, refuses to admit the new world, and will continually lead his innocent son through this barren world of ashes, living and starving through a most distastful period. Had the father any compassion, he would lodge the last remaining bullet in his revolver into his son’s head, thus putting him out of his misery. Though it may sound heartless, McCarthy has wrote the situational circumstance of the period in such a way that it would be inhumane to think otherwise. Then, the father, seeing how well the flesh eaters function as a society, would give himself up to their service and appetite. McCarthy, slave to the reader’s desire and the modern publishing companies cannot express this for obvious reasons, and the reader must continually watch as the innocent child is forced through this terrible damnation.
The mother, though imbibing a little more pathos toward herself, is little better than the father character as far as the son’s well-being goes. The reader learns that she killed herself (a just thing to do) shortly after the event that created this hilariously topsy-turvy world. Had she been more sympathetic however, she would have killed the father and son while they were sleeping and then taken her life. One cannot expect true heroism I guess…
The boy is perhaps the most realistic character in the story, embodying all those traits a reader desires to see. In the first one hundred pages, he expresses either his desire for death, or his disregard for life three times, expressing how he gains the realization of the impossibility of a happy life through his growing maturity.
As far as setting goes, McCarthy has wonderfully juxtaposed the fragile, innocent human life on their quest for better pasures against the dark, ashen world reality. McCarthy expresses the insignificance of human life in the grand scope of events, and how one immature father and his significantly more mature son take no part in significant events.
Should not the true heroism in the story be the nature of humans to survive against all costs? Darwin is survival of the fittist, suicide is not survival. If the father has the skills and intellegence to not only survive in this harsh new environment but provide for his child while still protecting the child’s innocence, as any parent would hope to do, does that not make him a hero? He shoulders the majority of all burdens to spare his helpless unprepared son from the hardships he will soon have to face, most likely alone. There is no more unselfish act then that in my opinion. From my understanding of Matt’s synopsis the father should be praised for his bravery not reprimanded for his affection towards his son and hope for a better future for him. I would argue the mother is the weaker character as she takes the easiest escape from her sorrow rather than living to fight for survival and protect her child as her husband has.
I agree with margie, farkly i think that suicide would just be a weak escape, a true hero would try to survive. There are no heroic tales that begin with the suiced of the individual. It’s about the stuggle they go through, generally for the people they love to remain with them or to keep them alive. In this case it is both, his child is the only thing that is important to him and he is there only to try to give him as good of a life as possible. Killing them both would just be a way out. Even in dire situations one would hope that people would at least try to gain back some form of society.
You had me thinking there for a minute Daniel, but alas, emos rules in the house of DeJong in this phase of the moon.
Wow, did I just hear “emos”? What are you even talking about? Have you even read this book? Seriously.. put some thought and insight into your comments before you post.
Donagon is Alex Foster, Mrs. Dejong. Feel free to give him a swift kick to the chest next time you see him.
In a twist on Rohn’s quote, “The walls we build around ourselves to keep out joy, also keep out sadness”. Emotions are but the petty excuse for weakness. Again I say, if the child were really important to the father he would kill him. Sometimes niceness is disguised as cruelty. No one can admit there is any hope for the world, so why not exit with a bang, rather than a slow, delayed and painful whimper.
I also feel it’s my duty as an English student to indicate to whoever donagan is that abbreviations should always have a punctuation following. O for the days when Henry Alford was mandatory reading…