Creative Assessment of The Road

Why do the characters in The Road not have names?

     This is the question our group wants to ask the author, Cormac McCarthy. I think the absence of character names adds to the overall atmosphere of the book. The book takes place a few years into a post-apocalyptic world where most people have resorted to cannibalism. Whatever caused the apocalypse also destroyed anything living, including any kind of vegetation. The world is very dull, gloomy, and bleak. The main goal of the man in the book is to keep his son alive, and the pair is very focused on getting to the shore in the hopes of being in a better environment for the upcoming winter. The pair are always looking for food and water that is safe to consume, and they are always on the lookout for other dangerous people.
     I think the absence of the names further emphasizes how unimportant names are in that world. Names don't really mean anything if you're not alive. A dead person holds little to no significance in that world. The father and son know who they are to each other, and that is all that matters. they don't need to introduce themselves to others because the others are probably dangerous and most likely cannibals. The lack of names for the main characters also distances the reader from the story itself. It's like even the reader can't come in a close contact with the main characters. The author puts a distance between the father and son and the reader, and I think this reflects the distance the father tries to keep between himself and his son and the rest of the world.

What's Your Fire?

     The father and son continue to travel to the shore, and it is said that they are "carrying the fire." Our group has interpreted the "fire" as the will to keep on going to keep on living. It's the want to survive. It can be argued that survival is considered their purpose in life in the book. 

     What is my fire? What keeps me going? I'd have to say that I believe something great will happen in the future, and I just have to wait for it. I'm going to college in a couple months, and I have the rest of my life ahead of me. I have so much to learn and experience. Education is very important to me, and I'm going to Boston for college. I'll be in a new city, and I'll be studying for a major that's all about learning more. I'm majoring in pharmacy, and new medication is always being worked on. It's more to learn. There is so much ahead of me right now that I want to keep going to experience it all.

What would you do to survive?

     The Road is about a father and son traveling south down the road in the hopes of getting to a warm place for the next winter. The pair hardly come in contact with any other people while traveling down the road, but they do meet a few people. By "meet" I mean they hid and tried to put as much distance between them and the strangers as possible. The people who have managed to still live in this post-apocalyptic have gone to the extremes to ensure their survival. Cannibalism is seen more than once by the father and son. The first instance was when they stopped in a house off the road hoping to find some food. The father breaks open a hatch in the floor thinking food will be down there because it was locked up. Instead he found people down there, one with no body beyond the hips. These people were being kept there to be eaten later. Later in the book, the father and son come across a fire that some people ahead of them had started and left. They found and infant on the spit over the fire being cooked when they got close enough to see it.
     Another common thing is that the reader can imply that many of the corpses the father and son come across are the result of suicide. Many people chose to end their own life rather than live in the horrible post-apocalyptic world. I assume that is what the mother did when she left her husband and son. She said something along the lines of the husband just denying the inevitable death of him and their son. She also said something along the lines of that she should have left when there were more than two bullets left. The reader initially wants to condemn the mother's decision to leave, but can her decision be justified? What would we do in that situation?
     If I was living in a post-apocalyptic world, I don't think I would make the decision to leave my family. I would like to think that I would not commit suicide. I've always been one to tough things out and deal with it, but would something this tragic and life-altering be enough to finally push me over the edge? Would I resort to eating another human being if my life depended on it? I would like to think I wouldn't. I hope I wouldn't, but I simply cannot accurately predict what I would do in that situation.

An Open Letter to Parents

Dear Parents,

     The one thing I can say is to always be there for your children. I don't intend for that to be taken as a reason to constantly hover over your children and watch their every move. I mean to always provide guidance and support for your children whenever they need it. They need to know that you will be there for them and help them when they it is needed.
     Another thing I can say is to let your kids grow up. That may seem in contrast to what I just previously said, but they have to grow up and learn things for themselves. However, you are still their parents. Let them explore and grow, but be there to provide guidance. Let your kids know that they can always come to you. Again, just always be there for them. If something is clearly wrong, do not just ignore it. But don't hound them about it either. Just ask your child if something is wrong. He or she will tell you if something is seriously wrong when they are ready to.
     One last thing I have noticed with some other parents. I've realized that the strictest parents have the kids who sneak around the most. Please, please don't be too strict with your children. That is why they feel the need to sneak around because they cannot talk to you about anything without the fear of getting into trouble. I think being open with your children is much better than being very strict with them. The kids won't feel the need to hide everything regardless if it is bad or not.

I'm just saying that parents should be there for their children. The kids will come to eventually appreciate it.

Civics

Civic responsibilities versus civic duties?

     Civic responsibilities are the things we should do but do not have to do. Civic duties are the things we are really expected to do, like voting. I think both civic responsibilities and civic duties are important, but what actions qualify to be a civic responsibility or a civic duty is up to the individual.

I think a civic responsibility that everyone should do is to have some general manners. There is nothing wrong with a little courtesy. Actions like holding the door for the person behind you or giving up your seat on the CTA should be normal for everyone. Those actions are appreciated even if it does not seem like it. Another thing I think all people should do is have some general respect for other human beings. I cannot stand when people go out of their way to be mean to or to bully another person. That should not even be necessary. You would think these things would be obvious, but they need to be stressed more so more people do it.

When it comes to civic duties, the first thing that comes to mind is voting. Every citizen over the age of eighteen has the right to vote. When a person decides not to vote, then a general feeling of surprise by others usually happens. Some people get angry because they think that Americans should vote no matter what. However, I can understand why a person would not vote. If a person is choosing not to vote because he or she is not informed about any of the issue or the candidates, then I respect that person. I hear some people say they don't vote because neither candidate will help them. I see their reasoning, but no change is going to happen if people don't vote. It is a touchy subject, but I do respect those who choose not to vote because they don't feel they are informed enough.

Civics is something that is subjective to each individual, society, and culture. Each person will think something different of it. That is why people's actions are different, and it's also the reason why people react differently to the same action.

Is poverty a choice?

      Whenever a question is asked in this class, there is always more than one answer. So is poverty a choice? The answer is yes and no. I'm not familiar with anyone who consciously chooses to be in poverty, but I'm sure there are people out there who make that decision. I'm more familiar with the other answer, that poverty is not a choice.
     From my experiences, I would say poverty is something that a person is born into, or it comes with an unfortunate circumstance. One of the worst, if the not the worst, parts of being in poverty is that it is difficult to get out of it. From what I've witnessed, some people feel sorry for themselves and others make the best out of a bad situation. There are people who would be considered to be impoverished by others, but they don't consider themselves to be in poverty. I think pride does play a big role here, like we discussed in class. Pride can be the only thing they have left, and they're not about to give that up.
     I can give some personal insight to all of this. Before I write about it, I just want to say I did not grow up in a neighborhood like Southie. I didn't have it as bad as Michael Patrick MacDonald did, but I can see where he's coming from. Now time for my story. I lived in a suburb called Lake in the Hills for four years before I moved back to Chicago. I lived with my parents and my two younger sisters, one who was only a year old when we moved out. In 2003, I witness the fight that ended my parents' marriage. My mom took my sisters and me and left the house to come to my grandma's house in Chicago. I've been living here ever since. The divorce was finalized two years later, and it wasn't exactly financially beneficial to my mom. It didn't help that my dad never paid child support. So my mom was working all hours of the day to support her three kids. Like I said, this isn't as bad as the author's life in Southie. I'm living in a decent house with the added support of my grandmother. It wasn't much, but it was more that what the author was living on. However, I do know what it's like to be on food stamps. I didn't have the same kind of clothes as the other kids I knew, and I wasn't getting new things all the time like the other kids were.
     Another thing I understand all too well is the pride thing. Throughout this entire ordeal, my mom very rarely complained out loud especially in front of her kids. At first she tried to make everything sound better than it was, from money problems to the divorce to my dad himself. She knew that my sister and I knew the realities of our situation, so she eventually stopped. Our financial problems stayed within the household.  My mom is the type of person who deals with her own problems then moves on. As I got older, I appreciated her more for the type of person she is. She was married to my father for about ten years just because she wanted her kids to grow up with both parents around. I don't know how she dealt with my dad because I probably wouldn't be able to do the same thing. I admire her for pulling through that situation. I used to hate how I would never see her because she worked so much, but I know it was for my own good. I didn't like how I could never have all the things the other kids had, but it made me realize what was truly necessary versus what I wanted to fit in.
     Like I said previously, this is nothing compared to Michael MacDonald's life in Southie. I'm just trying to explain that I understand some of the aspects mentioned in the book that we discussed in class. I didn't have a perfect childhood, but who does? I am a product of my experiences. Even though my experiences didn't seem good at the time, they've taught me valuable lessons that I am grateful for.

Malcolm X

     Malcolm X got most of his education while in prison. he copied a dictionary to improve his writing and vocabulary, and he read history books to learn about the history of his people and other races. He learned that the white man has pretty much intruded on almost every nonwhite civilization and brought its demise. Malcolm X was appalled at what he learned, and it furthered his belief that the white man is the devil.
     Everything Malcolm X learned in regards to history is true. The white man will go into a different civilization with the intention to convert the natives to Christianity. Their presence is actually due to the fact that the civilization probably has some type of resource or good that the white man wants. This usually leads to some sort of conflict in which the guns of the white man win over the weapons of the native people. This civilization is then under the imperial  power of the white man, and the it will be exploited until every it of that resource or good is gone. This has happened multiple times throughout history. One example is the Europeans coming to America. They wanted to convert the Native Americans to Christianity, take their lands, and use them as free labor to mine any gold. The Spanish were the first Europeans to come to America, and their main focus was to get all the gold possible. Later Europeans still came for gold, but they still exploited any resource they could. Just look the decrease in forests over time. The white man usually only goes to another civilization because they want something from them.
     Malcolm X educated himself on history, and he feels like he learned more in prison rather than if he went to college. I think he's right. He definitely had a lot of time and not a lot of distractions. He had the freedom to learn as much as he wanted about anything he wanted. In any formal education course, the entire history of something is not taught. History text books generally provide summaries of important historical events. There is never a lot of depth to them. History books are also slightly biased. It is said that "the winners write the history books", and that is very true. There is always more information about the successful people or civilizations than the people or civilizations that were not as successful. One has to do his or her own research to learn the full history of anything. I think Malcolm X's homemade education was better in this way because he was finding out the whole story. I think learning history in school should be the same way because whatever happened already happened. It can't be changed, so I don't think anything should be left out. Some things may cause some people to ask hard questions, but it has to happen. Learning the whole truth is better than knowing the general and summarized truth.