SPOILER WARNING - this thread is for us to chat about the ending of ''The Road'' by Cormac McCarthy

Hmm, I'd have thought there'd still be a few though - fish deep in lakes or rats in cellars and suchlike.
IIRC what happened with Chernobyl was that it took less time than they expected for vegetation etc to come back though obviously with long-term damage done.
If there was fall-out wouldn't there be talk of mutations?
I think you are right though that even the author may not know for sure - it may not be a solvable mystery.

Badgardener, I think the reason some humans survived is because they could hide inside houses till the worst of the fallout was over, living on stored food. The animals outside couldn't and so died. The plants can't grow is such radioactive soil and with no sunlight, so they died off too. Even if some people initially kept their pets they probably would have resorted to eating them or putting them out to get rid of a mouth to feed.
Just my opinion. Only the author knows for sure and even then he may never have decided himself on what the disaster was.

Interesting re A levels - I loved it and wanted ds (15) to read it, but was a bit unsure if the cannabalism would be a bit strong. Now I think maybe I was being a bit namby pamby. Anyone else got a teen's opinion?

MattBellamysMuse - I thought his filling the bath up was because he knew it was something serious & that they would need a supply of water, not that it was to stop radiation.
I imagined the disaster was the earth being hit by a comet but it wasn't clear.
I agree with lljkk - I couldn't work out why there should be a disaster which kills all the other animals and plants but leaves human beings and mould alive (because there were descriptions of food that had gone off). I mean, I can imagine a disaster wiping out most things but you would think there would be pockets of animals and plants just like there would be of people. The authorial voice seemed very certain that all these things were gone forever, though.

Re the ending - yes, I didn't find it too happy an ending because if there is really nothing left in the world the boy's new family can only survive for so long.

Movie trailer here They seem to have done as good job.

In a way, it's not really important as to what caused it all could have been a nuclear explosion,a meteor...
I found the ending very moving so I didn't think it was a cop out at all.
Wonderful book IMO.

I was in no doubt that it was a nuclear explosion. If it had been a virus then the land itself would have been ok and there wouldn't have been all that dust and smog blocking out the sun. And allthe dead trees and animals. There was also the bit early on when he describes getting up and seeing a bright flash (nuclear bomb) and putting the plug in the bath (to stop the fallout getting into the house). Really, what else could it have been but a nuclear bomb?

it's just been voted the Times' best novel of the last 10 years hasn't it?

it's rapidly heading for A level syllabuses too.

I keep reading it, or just bits of it, over and over. I get something new from it every time.

Ooo, how do you mean that the boy was imagining it but McCarthy didn't mean that? Am intrigued. Completely get you re needing counselling afterwards.

I know this thread is old but I just finished the book and feel like I need some councelling

I didn't see the ending as a cop out, I did rather suspect that the boy was imagining it, but not sure that is what McCarthy had in mind?

My wish list on amazon will get even longer with these suggestions...

Earth Abides is good read too -- another Civilization-as-we-know-it ending, but in a sort of Lord of the Flies way.

Becky: I've read On The Beach. I love these dystopian apocalptic novels.

Can I REALLY also recommend John Christopher: The Death of Grass and The Winkle in the Skin are both utterly brilliant and very very similar genre. These were written in the 1960s and similar to John Wyndham in style but very McCarthy in theme. You will LOVE them.

I didn't think the end was a cop out; I wondered whether at other times in the book they might have found other 'friends' but the father's paranoia meant that there would be no opportunity for that. I'm thinking of when they feel they are being watched in the deserted town? (read it a while back so hope that is right). I agree with reallyreally about the father only taking him so far.

The more I think about the book though, the less I like it. I finished it just full of shock and sadness, but as time has gone on I don't think it is really a great novel. It's a brilliant story about two people in an awful situation, but I didn't feel that the utter bleakness always rang true. Ditto the disaster that caused this - I couldn't work out what it could be.

Has anyone read On the Beach by Neville Shute? Because reading The Road made me think of that, which although it is full of 1950s people facing the end in a polite organised way(!) I think in some ways is a more powerful 'end of the world' novel because the science and scenario feels more plausible and the sense of the world as a whole is stronger than The Road.

Ah, yes, that's another huge issue about the book, WHAT was the disaster that led to all this? Could it be a virus? A nuclear war? Something altogether different? I think the author must have purposefully left it vague for us to wonder & figure it out ourselves...

Lots of interesting views on this thread. Thanks

Somehow, I didn't really think it was a nuclear war that cause the disaster when I was reading the book.

or lung cancer.

I thought it could be TB.

But didn't the father have radiation sickness? Coughing blood etc. Radiation wouldn't make all people ill at the same rate though (not a scientist) so some would seem well for a while I think?

Oh heavens, it drove me batty! I wanted to talk about this (I read it a week or 2 ago).

I just couldn't imagine a disaster that would lead to no other living things except (somehow) people. Even bacteria seemed to have all died (so the water was ok to drink). There was mildew, but no moss or lichens. There were no cockroaches or insect life. Not even living on the many corpses (like inside the truck on the bridge). It made no sense(!). There was plenty of water, but there had been awful firestorms (nuclear war?). But then somehow there was no radiation killing everyone instead.

And yes, end felt like a bit of a cop-out, although I admit that I also would have hated a depressing ending where they both died.

I can see it was masterfully written, I can understand the metaphors you're all pulling out, but the gruesome lengths humans went to survive, how were they part of those metaphors? So I'm brought back to the plausibility of the story... which wasn't plausible.

I thought the ending was absolutely right. All the way through you were led to believe the father was taking care of the son, but actually it was the other way around. Ultimately youth must supplant the old - so Shakespeare tells us in all his late plays.

When the boy is discovered by the second man, he has a female partner which to me suggests the cycle of life, birth and growth. All very truthful and realistic forces. even in the worst disasters - wars, famines and pestilence - children are born and make a life for themselves.People survive. Just look at the news. That is how I read the ending of this novel. A 'cop out' would have been for both the man and his son to die.

You do have a point there Really- I mean, about the fact that the book was about father & son's journey & not the boy's life. Still, to me the ending seemed essentially unsatisfying. But to be honest, not sure which ending would have felt right to me in such a book...

I thought the end was a success, sorry

I really thought that it was about the father taking him as far as he possibly could

he could teach him moral lessons and keep him alive but he didn't have the skills to actually make a life in this new horrific world, he only had the skills to keep them moving. He was of the old world that had burned, whereas the new family were a future. When he died it freed the boy off to go make a future.

It was so quick and tidy because the story wasn't about the boy's life, it was about his journey to that point

Oh no...i am not the shivering under a tarp type of camper at all. I am a carpets,stripy curtains and spotty plate type camper. In fact it's not really camping at all.

Troutpout, not a good idea surely to take The Road on a camping trip :-) Far too bleak & dark a read for a holiday, I think... (Come to think of it, far too bleak & dark for everyday life too!)