Talk:The Road

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Novels / Sci-fi (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Science fiction task force.
 

Similarities[edit]

The book sports some similarities with another one written in 1943 by René Barjavel, titled Ravage Choronzon (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Stephen King Long March. Neville Shute On the Beach.ROxBo (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
What does this conversation have to do with improving the article? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

future of human race[edit]

I have deleted the statement that the presence of the little girl at the end of the book implies a future for the human race. Mr. McCarthy throughout the entire book, explains that there is no future for the human race; that the world is dying. The fact that there is a young girl who could procreate with the young boy does nothing to change this. Pregnant women and infants are encountered throughout the book. Repopulation is not the issue. The issue is that there is no food.Mk5384 (talk) 07:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I totally aggree with this, as this bit of wikitext was far too suggesting, and I already suggested this change but some great wiki-warlord deleted it. My point was that the article was not allowed to suggest that the cause of the disaster was nuclear (which the book implies with flashes at the horizon, rumbling, melted objects/flats etc.), but was allowed to suggest that the human race might survive. This seems a bit random to me. 130.89.165.44 (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Whilst it is never mentioned specifically, the world is clearly in nuclear winter.Mk5384 (talk) 13:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
There is zero evidence for that. Firstly the ambiguity of the catastrophe is an element of the story. Secondly there are things described in the book that rule it out, such as ships tossed up into the landscape, and the survival of humans but not a number of animals considerably less susceptible to radiation poisoning.Jenston (talk) 02:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Ships can be tossed by storms etc. (remember New Orleans), but I have to agree that the absence of *any* plant or animal life would contradict the notion that there has been a nuclear war. 130.89.165.44 (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Jesus H. Christ. It's post Catholic apocalypse left behind Tribulation fiction. All of the stuff from the destroyed ships to the absence of grass is all from the stupid book of stupid revelations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.219.175.152 (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

There are mushrooms for sure, they eat them at one point. Therefore there is not the absence of all vegetation. There are also snakes in a flashback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.144.104.233 (talk) 04:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the nitpicking, but mushrooms are not "vegetation", since this term generally describes plants. Goochelaar (talk) 08:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

How old is the boy?[edit]

Is he five? Ten? Fifteen?

I truly have no idea.

Can some indication be added to the article please? Only needs an approximation.

HiLo48 (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

His age is not given. However, we know that his mother's pregnancy was before the disaster, and the book begins about 10 years after it took place. We can infer that he is about 9.Mk5384 (talk) 13:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you HiLo48 (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Correct Locations for the Movie[edit]

At the very end of the credits it says that the movie was also shot in Mount Saint Helens, Washington. Quote from the credits of the DVD "Shot on location in PENNSYLVANIA, OREGON, NEW ORLEANS and MOUNT ST. HELENS" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.24.93 (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The Road:Post-Apocalyptic fiction[edit]

This is a post-apocalyptic novel, according to the corresponding article. Post-apocalyptic fiction is a sub-genre of science fiction, wheather the reason for the apocalypse is defined or not (as in this case). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.55.21.138 (talk) 10:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Reviews[edit]

There is no evidence that Oprah Winfrey herself actually read the book cover-to-cover. Suggest remove the reference until sufficient evidence is provided. --71.245.164.83 (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

No claim is made that she read the book "cover-to-cover," as you put it. Though, I doubt she could interview the author unless she had done so. Therefore, I see no reason to remove the information. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 04:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Location[edit]

Various clues in the book suggest it takes place in Europe, not the US. For instance it is mentioned the man was in the piedmont at one point. And the boat is Spanish in origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.83.248.124 (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI: Piedmont_(United_States) ElectricValkyrie (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
About page 230(?), "interstates" (highways) are mentioned, suggesting the US. The boat being Spanish is inconclusive. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Very early on (page 21 in my edition) they pass a barn with "SEE ROCK CITY" painted on it, which means they are in the southeastern United States. 67.176.61.216 (talk) 08:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Not necessarily; those signs used to be scattered all over the rural U.S., although admittedly they were far more common in the S.E. U.S. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Writing Style[edit]

I notice that not a single mention is made of McCarthy's queer writing style. McCarthy doesn't follow grammar rules of English at all; he eschews as much punctuation as possible, even occasionally at the expense of clarity. This seems to me to be something worth noting; I only mention it here instead of just including it in the article because I'm slightly afraid that I've missed something. The complete lack of any sort of mention at all is worrying.--Kierkkadon (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Our article on the author doesn't go into his style either. Probably should be covered. The Interior (Talk) 23:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. I personally found the style so frustrating to read that I didn't enjoy the book. It at least merits mention. Joe Garrick (talk) 21:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

His writing style ranges from very sparse descriptions of the couples methods of survival - from memory a lot of the scenes where the man is doing something e.g. lighting a fire, making a shelter, sorting out his wound etc are all narrated in a very 'and then.. and then..' kind of way. This is then contrasted by the deeply poetical almost transcendent language which deals with the deep observations on the situation theyre in, and also McCarthy's own observations on human nature which he fits in through this 'metanarration'. Sorry, I know its vague but its been a couple of years since I looked at all in depth - maybe this could form some kind of grounding to expand on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.253.115 (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

Can we please restrict editing privileges to users who are logged in? Certain IP addresses keep vandalizing this article and such a restriction would be a huge help. FruitSalad4225 (talk) 19:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The vandalism is not frequent or heavy enough to justify a call for semi-protection. We do want to encourage editing by anybody willing to abide by our rules. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Environmentalist Response=[edit]

Does this really belong here? It smacks of riding a political hobby horse. Who made George Monbiot the spokesperson for all the environmentalists in the world? Why does his opinion, in this particular instance, matter? It's a work of fiction about a cataclysm of unknown origin. If Monbiot wants to get a little extra publicity for his views by dovetailing on a successful book, he's more than welcome to it. That doesn't make his view in any way relevant to this article. I like the book and movie. I appreciate the articles of Monboit I have read. This is an open door to mischief. Jtgelt (talk) 05:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I have added the Christian response. The Christian response contains quotes from a PhD and the president of a media company. Their observations are just as relevant as the journalist picked to represent the entire world view of environmentalists. To be honest neither the Environmentalist nor Christian response has any relevance here at all. I'm not trying to be a jerk about it. There was no response to my talk entry. My goal is to provide a demonstration of the issue in order to clear up an entry that needs to be removed to get this article back to being fact based. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtgelt (talkcontribs) 04:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


I think I have given sufficient time for response. I was looking at some of the "talk" issues on the WP for the movie version of "The Road."

Here is a quote from the talk section of the movie "The Road."

"In addition, there should be common-sense editorial judgement. To wit, the argument in Adbusters is absurd. Calling these companies "beasts", or that Coca-Cola drives climate change, is dubious, but in any case neither the book nor the movie depicts a global warming apocalypse. Nor is there evidence of "funding" from these companies for the movie."

Since the contributors to the WP movie article about The Road can conclude this is not a movie or book about an environmental disaster, then we should as well. In that context an environmentalist response makes no sense here. I suggest that if the contributor who added this section thinks it is important, they can add it to an article on George Monbiot.

If this section were truly noteworthy, we should be inserting the "environmentalist response" over on the movie article for consistency, which I do not recommend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtgelt (talkcontribs) 15:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Road. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)