One of the things I like the most about The Road are its amazing descriptions. Even though the book is known for its monotonousness because of the invariability of the characters' situation, any change in location has some of the most lively descriptions ever. McCarthy makes a very good use of vocabulary, and the scenery creates itself in front of the reader's eyes along with every single detail that compiles it. When describing a house visited by the man and his son, McCarthy writes, "The plaster ceiling was bellied in great swags and the yellowed dentil molding was bowed and sprung from the upper walls. To the left through the doorway stood a large walnut buffet in what must have been the diningroom. The doors and drawers were gone but the rest of it was too large to burn." (107) I'm sure you have a very clear picture of the house on your mind right now, don't you?
What most impacts me about The Road are its amazing descriptions, but something that also caught my eye is the peculiarly different structure and form of the text. While most books have dialogue between quotations, in The Road McCarthy makes them part of the same sentence. There is also no description of who is talking, so it is up to the reader to infer who is saying what. When the man asked the boy if there was something wrong, the book says, "We'll find something to eat. We always do. The boy didnt answer. The man watched him. That's not it, is it?" (128) As you probably noticed, not only does it not specify who is talking or put quotations around the text, but also there is no apostrophe in the contraction didn't. The same happens throughout the whole book.
The lack of quotations, apostrophes, and specifications in the text might cause the reader to get confused at times, but it also allows us to appreciate the form and structure of the book and not only the content. It is as if the author wanted us to realize that in the circumstance that the boy and the man are in is so beyond grammar and societal perfection that it is not necessary to put apostrophes to words or quotations to dialogues. It also gives simplicity to the words, just like the life of the man and the boy are simple. Their lives has resorted back to animal instincts, as their primary worry in life is to eat, sleep, and get enough heat to survive. The same happens with the book: it has as much punctuation and specification for it to survive in the eyes of the reader. A very interesting form indeed.
I have noticed the same thing with the quotations. Yet, to me, it doesn't seem to matter. I makes sense to not put quotations because the dialogue between father and son is back and forth, always, and it is as if they know what they are going to say. The reason they do speak aloud is to not lose the power of the voice. It seems as if they have to force themselves to talk or they would become the environment, and that is not what they are striving for. They speak so the stay sane and be able to have human interactions in the midst of brutal death.
ReplyDelete