Sottosanti 1

Danielle Sottosanti
3232 33rd St., Apt. 2F
Astoria, NY 11106
danielle.sottosanti@gmail.com

The Good Guys:

Dystopian Goodness and Fatherhood in Cormac McCarthys The Road

Theres no such thing as life without bloodshed, Cormac McCarthy told a New York

Times Magazine journalist in 1992. I think the notion that the species can be improved in some

way, that everyone could live in harmony, is a really dangerous idea. Those who are afflicted

with this notion are the first ones to give up their souls, their freedom. Your desire that it be that

way will enslave you and make your life vacuous, McCarthy continued (Woodward). More than

a decade later, McCarthy published The Road, a post-apocalyptic novel rife with bloodshed and

disharmony, in which starving humans hunt and eat each other. Given the bloodshed and dire

situation presented in the novel, McCarthys reported statement that The Road is about

goodness seems implausible (Adams). However, the novel does indeed portray the seemingly

oxymoronic concept of dystopian goodness, demonstrated in three different forms by the

characters of the unnamed boy, man, and the woman in the family that finds the orphaned boy

after the mans death.

McCarthys narrative begins in the epic style of in media res and never explains why or

how the environment became a wasteland, which has made the unnamed cataclysm the subject of

varied critical interpretation. One common perception is that the apocalypse resulted from

ecological disaster. In that vein, George Monbiot calls The Road the most important

environmental book ever written and says that it exposes civilizations state as a russeting on

the skin of the biosphere, never immune from being rubbed against the sleeve of environmental

change. However, the novels setting also resembles the theoretical state of nuclear winter

(Andrade 1). Indeed, in the 1980s, American and Soviet scientists demonstrated that a full-scale
 Sottosanti 2

nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union would result in climatic

consequences and societal collapse, the indirect effects of which would be so severe that the

ensuing nuclear winter would produce famine for billions of people far from the target zones

(Robock and Toon). The scientists prediction sounds very much like the state presented in The

Road, making a nuclear cause of the novels apocalypse just as likely as an ecological cause.
By leaving the nature of the cataclysmic event a mystery, McCarthy demonstrates that the

apocalyptic event itself is not the novels focus. Dystopian fiction such as The Road usually is a

call to action in that it warns readers of the consequences of current social and political trends

(Little 14). McCarthys call to action in The Road does not lie in the nature of the apocalypse, as

one would expect. That point is clear through his reluctance to characterize the nature of the

event. A lot of people ask me. I dont have an opinion, he explains in a 2009 interview,

continuing:
At the Santa Fe Institute Im with scientists of all disciplines, and some of them in geology said it
looked like a meteor to them. But it could be anything volcanic activity or it could be nuclear
war. It is not really important. The whole thing now is, what do you do? (Jurgensen).

The question that McCarthy poses what do you do is the basis and point of The Road. The

reason why the characters are living in a post-apocalyptic wasteland is unimportant; what matters

is what the characters do once they are in that predicament.

The Roads theme of post-crisis human actions and values relates to McCarthys

aforementioned comment that the notion that the species can be improved in some way, that

everyone could live in harmony, is a really dangerous idea. Through his presentation of the

post-apocalyptic, dystopian future, McCarthy voices his stance on the Hobbes-Rousseau debate

on human nature. The Road shows that humans have the capacity to turn into selfish,

cannibalistic foragers if left to exist without laws, without the ability to cultivate crops, and

without government. It is through its uncovering of human nature that the novels unnamed

cataclysm fulfills one function of apocalypse which is its etymological sense, to reveal (Berger
 Sottosanti 3

5). The apocalyptic event, in order to be properly apocalyptic, must in its destructive moment

clarify and illuminate the true nature of what has been brought to an end, James Berger writes

(5). The Road is characteristic of apocalyptic writing because it focuses not on the apocalypse

itself, but rather on the post-apocalypse, which usually is the apocalyptic writers true concern

(Berger 6). The study of post-apocalypse is the study of what disappears and what remains,

and of how the remainder has been transformed, according to Berger (7). In The Road, the

apocalypse eliminates the legal and cultural restraints on human nature enforced by Western

society and unveils humanitys capacity for barbarism.

The apocalyptic event in The Road thus reveals the true state of unrestrained human

nature and, as a consequence of that revelation, transforms human society into life-and-death

clashes between human predators and their human prey. Significantly, the novels cataclysm does

not transform human nature, but rather intensifies the predatory relationships that existed pre-

apocalypse. Walter Benjamin famously criticizes cultural history as never having done justice to

the negative or barbaric aspect of culture, stating: There is no document of culture that is not at

the same time a document of barbarism (392). In his 2010 book Living in the End Times, Slavoj

iek suggests that Benjamins claim should be pushed a step further and asks, [W]hat if culture

itself is nothing but a halt, a break, a respite, in the pursuit of barbarity? (6). ieks premise is

that the global capitalist system is approaching an apocalyptic zero-point (x). He views

imbalances within the system itself including forthcoming struggles over raw materials, food

and water and the explosive growth of social divisions and exclusions as two harbingers of

the apocalypse (x). The Road shows those two of ieks harbingers taken to grotesque extremes.

At their core, the antagonistic relationships in McCarthys novel are struggles over finite

resources, especially food. The social divisions and exclusions in the novels wasteland are based

on haves and have-nots, just as they are in contemporary society. In The Road, having weapons
 Sottosanti 4

of any sort, transportation, and housing puts some members of the wasteland at an advantage,

just as having those possessions are advantageous today. The cannibals presented in the novel are

a form of ruling class in that they have those advantages, a distinction that allows them literally

to live off the sub-classes by eating them.

McCarthy makes the link between cannibalism and class structure clear by placing a band

of cannibals in the once grand house sited on a rise about the road (105). The grand houses

location on the rise symbolizes the owners upper-class status both before the apocalypse and

after it. As the man and boy explore the house and its surroundings, they encounter remnants of

pre-apocalypse wealth: The house itself is tall and stately with white Doric columns across the

front, and it has a port cochere and gravel drive (McCarthy 105). Chattel slaves had once trod

those boards bearing food and drink on silver trays (McCarthy 106). The house has a broad

foyer tiled in black-and-white marble, fine Morris paper on the walls, a great hall with high

ceilings and a fireplace all indicative of the former owners wealth (McCarthy 107). These

items aesthetic value has no place in the post-apocalyptic wasteland, as they are only valued for

their raw materials. However, even before the apocalypse, these materialistic goods are more

important for what they symbolize, wealth and refinement, than for their practical use.

The houses new owners look and act very different from pre-apocalyptic upper-class

citizens, yet they are wealthy in the post-apocalyptic sense. They have a permanent structure to

call home, which allows them to live more comfortably and safely than the homeless survivors of

the apocalypse. They keep humans in an underground room that they slowly butcher for food.

That gives them a consistent source of nourishment, which probably keeps them healthier,

stronger and less hungry than the survivors who must search for food. In a macabre way, the

cannibals in the grand house are the ranchers of the post-apocalyptic world, whereas the other

survivors in the novel, such as the protagonists, are the foragers. The cannibals possession of the
 Sottosanti 5

house, large cauldron, childrens playhouse, and weapons gives them the means to devour people

who lack empowering possessions, representing an extreme version of the imbalance that iek

perceives in contemporary society. By demonstrating this imbalance, The Road fulfills dystopian

fictions purpose as a call to action in that McCarthys warning is to remain vigilant at all times

and to recognize the danger of forgetting the predatory nature of humans.

However, The Roads character of the boy complicates an entirely Hobbesian view of

human nature and exemplifies one form of goodness that is, widespread compassion. It makes

him an oddity in The Road just as much as Simon is an anomaly in William Goldings work on

human nature, Lord of the Flies. The boys reaction to the other characters in the novel

demonstrates his indiscriminate compassion and thus profoundly different ethics from anyone

else in the novel, including his father. Whenever the man and boy encounter others whom the

boy perceives either as being in need of help or possibly friendly, the boys reaction is to pursue

contact and friendly relations, whereas the mans reaction is to maintain their father-son team as

a solitary unit. As Kenneth Lincoln explains, the boy is socially desperate for others in his life, a

village drawn in the sand, the old man, the thief, the other boy double in the street who

disappears early on (172). Chris Cleave interprets the man and boys different reactions to

individuals outside the family unit as the father having the survivalist wherewithal without

which the pair are lost and the son serving as their moral compass. However, Cleaves

interpretation is only one way of perceiving the father and sons respective ethics. Theories of

emotion explain why the man and boy differ in their responses to others and, as we shall see,

McCarthy does not characterize the boys way as the be-all and end-all moral compass.

The boys need to connect with others besides his father enables him to feel compassion

for strangers because, without connection, compassion cannot exist. As Martha C. Nussbaum
 Sottosanti 6

explains, some emotions expand the boundaries of the self, picturing the self as constituted in

part by strong attachments to independent things and persons. Love and grief are paradigmatic of

such emotions compassion pushes the boundaries of the self further than many types of love

(300). However, even an individual who desperately needs to connect with others will not

experience compassion in all circumstances.

Nussbaum, like Aristotle, asserts that three cognitive elements are necessary to

experience compassion, yet she alters the last element somewhat from Aristotles view. The first

element is the belief or appraisal that the suffering is serious rather than trivial, according to both

Nussbaum and Aristotle (Nussbaum 306). That appraisal is made by the person witnessing the

suffering and may be different from the sufferers assessment of his or her own suffering. The

second element is the belief that the sufferer does not deserve the suffering (Nussbaum 306).

That belief can stem from two possibilities either the opinion that the sufferer did nothing to

cause his or her own suffering, or if fault exists, the perception that the amount of suffering is out

of proportion to the fault (Nussbaum 311). Again, those assessments are made by the onlooker

and may differ from the sufferers assessment of his or her own fault. Lastly, Aristotle believes

that, in order to feel compassion, one must feel that there are similar possibilities for suffering

similar misfortune for either oneself or ones loved ones (Nussbaum 315). That last element

typically is stressed in poetic appeals to compassion such as Rousseaus mile and Priams

appeal to Achilles in Homers Iliad (Nussbaum 315). However, Nussbaum alters Aristotles third

element somewhat and asserts that, instead, the last element necessary for compassion is the

eudaimonistic judgment that the suffering of another is part of ones own scheme of goals or ends

(318-19). Nussbaum illustrates that last point using the example of a child who is compassionate

toward a beggar after acknowledging that he or she, too, could experience similar hardship and
 Sottosanti 7

recognizing that, given the uncertainty of life, he or she should want society to be as good as

possible for the worst off (320-1). If any one of Aristotle or Nussbaums three elements is

missing, then compassion will not occur.

Nussbaum and Aristotles three elements necessary for compassion provide important

insight into how and why The Roads man and boy can both be good guys yet react to the thief

very differently. Both characters have the first element of compassion in that they are very well

aware that leaving the thief starving and naked on the road likely means serious, rather than

trivial, suffering. The man and boy also have both Aristotle and Nussbaums third elements. They

are aware that at any time they could find themselves starving and without possessions on the

road, which gives them the Aristotelian requirement of believing that they face similar possibility

for suffering the same misfortune. Likewise, they realize that it is in their best interest to live in a

society where no one is left suffering and without possessions and in that way make Nussbaums

eudaimonistic judgment that the thiefs suffering is part of their own scheme of goals or ends.

However, the man and boy differ in regards to the second element necessary for compassion.

Both realize that the thief caused his own suffering by attempting to steal from them, thus

inviting their wrath, but they differ in their assessment of whether the punishment fits the crime.

The boy clearly believes that the suffering the thief will experience is much larger than the

thiefs fault, the crime of attempted theft. That belief allows him to experience compassion for

the thief. Meanwhile, the man believes that the thiefs future suffering is in proportion to his

fault, making him unable to feel compassion for the thief.

The man and boys reactions to the thief and other antagonists in the novel are a point of

contention in the discussion of whether they are indeed the good guys a belief that the man

asserts but the boy sometimes questions. Ashley Kunsa points out that some of the mans actions

are at least reprehensible, if not immoral and unethical, by present-day standards (59). McCarthy
 Sottosanti 8

does not make value judgments in the novel, which allows the reader to assess the man and boys

actions. Regarding the thiefs punishment, for example, McCarthy lets the reader decide whether

the boys compassion or the mans eye-for-an-eye punishment is the correct response. In

making that judgment, it is important to remember that The Road is not set in an environment in

which contemporary standards exist. The man enacts frontier justice, the act of taking the law

into ones own hands, because it is the only form of law that exists in the novels post-

apocalyptic world. As stated earlier, McCarthy has said that the novel poses the question of

what do you do after a cataclysmic event and that the nature of the event itself is unimportant

(Jurgensen). In that way, The Road is about a hypothetical situation. Whether the man or boys

actions are reprehensible according to present-day standards is irrelevant because the novel does

not show a man and boy deciding to leave a thief naked and starving on the road in society as it

exists today. Instead, it shows a man and boy trying to survive in a post-apocalyptic society

without governmental laws and the protection and punishment that they bring.
Though the narrative does not contain a judgment call of whether the man or boys

assessment of the thiefs punishment is correct, it is significant that McCarthy makes the boy,

rather than the man, represent widespread compassion. By doing so, McCarthy connects that

form of goodness to immaturity and naivet. The message is that any human who advocates

widespread compassion lacks the maturity and world-weariness to recognize the folly and danger

associated with it. By contrast, the man recognizes that it is not in their best interests to help

others all of the time because of the scarcity of resources in the post-apocalyptic world. By

making the paternal figure in the novel express discriminatory goodness, McCarthy links that

form of goodness with maturity. He implies that the immature seek to help everyone without

recognizing the possible consequences of such indiscriminate goodness, whereas the mature

realize that they must choose whom to help and whom not to help. Though set in a post-
 Sottosanti 9

apocalyptic wasteland, the man and boys conversations over helping others resemble

commonplace, even clich, discussions between a parent and a child who wants to keep a stray

animal in todays society:

I know what the question is, the man said. The answer is no.
Whats the question?
Can we keep him. We cant [sic] (McCarthy 164).

Most readers would associate the question (Can we keep him?) with the familiar scene of a

child asking to keep a stray animal. That association strengthens McCarthys message that the

mans discriminatory goodness is a form of wisdom and enforces the notion that the boys

indiscriminate goodness is a sign of immaturity.

However, the man repeatedly characterizes the boy as a god, which adds another

dimension to McCarthys portrayal of the boys goodness. When the old man with the fake name

of Ely proposes that the boy will get over his desire to help others, the man answers, No he

wont [sic] (McCarthy 174). The mans answer, if correct, complicates the notion that the boys

desire to help and connect with others stems only from his immaturity. The man recognizes that

the boys goodness is unusual by human standards and, for that reason, perceives him as divine.

Whether the boy is indeed a god in the otherworldly sense is unimportant because, even if he is

human, he is the mans god. The mans faith in the boy carrying the fire gives him the strength

to persevere through suffering, just as people turn to faith in a higher power to carry them

through hard times. The boys mother recognizes the boys status as the mans higher power and

explains it to the man before she kills herself. The one thing I can tell you is that you wont [sic]

survive for yourself A person who had no one would be well advised to cobble together some

passable ghost, she says (McCarthy 57). The man constantly fears that the boy, the only god in

which he holds unwavering faith, will die, leaving him completely godless. When the man sobs

uncontrollably while watching the boy sleep, he thinks about beauty or about goodness, which

are things that hed no longer any way to think about at all. (McCarthy 129-30). Abstractions
 Sottosanti 10

such as beauty and goodness have no place in the post-apocalyptic wasteland, except for their

embodiment in the boy. McCarthy makes that clear through his sentence juxtaposition: Things

[beauty and goodness] that hed no longer any way to think about at all. They squatted in a bleak

wood and drank ditchwater strained through a rag (129-30). The latter sentence differs from the

former through its focus on the harsh reality of their lives and on actions rather than abstractions.

When he dreams of the boy laid out upon a coolingboard, he thus fears not only the loss of the

boy as an individual, but also the loss of beauty and goodness and, in turn, the complete loss of

faith.
The mans primary goal is to keep his son alive and safe at all costs and in that way

represents paternal goodness. As Glenna M. Andrade asserts, the man does not fit any of the

three typical categories of survivor generally found in post-apocalyptic fiction (4). He is neither

rugged individualist, nor bandit, nor world-weary sophisticate the three survivor categories

proposed by Dale Bailey (Andrade 4; Bailey 287). Those categories focus on the individuals

relationship to society, whereas The Road focuses on the man as a father. Andrade contends that

the fathers need for mastery in both his external struggles and his inner conflicts reveal that

The Road centers much more upon character development and creative descriptions than does

the more typical Post Apocalypse text (4). She is correct in her assessment of The Roads focus

on character development, but the character development specifically is centered upon the man

in his role as a father. He is of course a man trying to survive after the apocalypse, but more

significantly, he is a father trying to keep his son safe.

The novels first occurrence of dialogue emphasizes the fact that the man is there for his

son as a father, which contrasts to the absence of the mother. The first words are an affirmation

of the fathers presence:

The boy turned in the blankets. Then he opened his eyes. Hi, Papa, he said.
Im right here.
I know (McCarthy 5).
 Sottosanti 11

By being with his son, the man differs from the boys mother, who chose to leave her son

through suicide to avoid further suffering for herself. McCarthy paints a very vague picture of

the boys mother in the narrative and, significantly, her primary characteristic is her detachment

from both her husband and son. When the man begs her not to kill herself, she tells him that she

does not care, even if he cries that it does not mean anything to her (McCarthy 5). Her words

foreshadow a passage later in the novel, in which McCarthy describes the boys birth, also

emphasizing the mothers detachment: Her cries meant nothing to him. He wrapped his son

in a towel (59). There, the mothers cries in labor mean nothing to the man, just as the mans

cries begging her to stay with the family unit mean nothing to her after the apocalypse.

Furthermore, the baby is described only as his son, thus dispossessing the mother of the baby

at childbirth.

Maggie Bortzs Jungian reading of The Road views the absent mother and obliterated

natural landscape, which represents the chthonic feminine, as two sides of the same coin,

representing the total elimination of the feminine. Citing Joseph Hendersons three psychological

rites of passage, she asserts that contemporary society is stuck in the adolescent stage, which is

still living out a negative mother complex: a myth of male regeneration through escalating

violence inflicted on a feminine earth and on humanity (29). Through The Road, McCarthy

implies that the feminine will be eradicated entirely, playing out the negative mother complex to

its inevitable conclusion, before work on the fundamental problem can begin in what is left of

humanity, according to Bortz (40). McCarthy is not suggesting that the feminine ever will or

should leave the world entirely, yet he eliminates the main feminine influence on the boy, his

mother, in order to focus on the father-son relationship more fully. In that way, the mothers
 Sottosanti 12

absence primarily serves as a narrative device, but also to imply that the father-son rite of

initiation into manhood must occur without feminine influence.

The Roads concentration on the paternal instinct stems from McCarthys inspiration for

the novel. He was staying in a hotel with his young son, looked down at the sleeping child and

then out the window into the night, hearing the sound of the trains passing. He wondered what

the town would look like in a fifty or one hundred years, thought of fires on the hill, and wrote a

few pages of the manuscript that became The Road (Lincoln 163-4). Four years later, McCarthy

realized that it is his story (Lincoln 164). His son, to whom he dedicated the book, practically

co-wrote it, McCarthy said in an interview (Lincoln 164). McCarthy explained his sons

influence on the novel in more detail in another interview:

But a lot of the lines that are in there are verbatim conversations my son John and I had. I mean
just that when I say that hes the co-author of the book. A lot of the things that the kid [in the book]
says are things that John said. John said, Papa, what would you do if I died? I said, Id want to
die, too, and he said, So you could be with me? I said, Yes, so I could be with you. Just a
conversation that two guys would have (Jurgensen).

McCarthy said in another interview that the novel is a pretty simple story and just about a boy

and a man on the road (Lincoln 163). At its core, The Road is indeed a simple story of a man

trying to protect his son. In that sense, it is McCarthys lullaby to his sleeping son a macabre

tale that implies he will do his best to not let anything or anyone hurt him.

The novels narrative structure enforces the focus on the man and boys relationship and

journey because the structure reflects the father-son life cycle. At the beginning of the novel, the

man is clearly the central character and it is his story. That is clear from the opening line: When

he woke in the woods in the dark and the cold of the night hed reach out to touch the child

sleeping beside him (McCarthy 3). He that is, the man is the subject of the sentence, while

the child is the direct object. The boys place in the sentence as a direct object parallels his place

in the story as a supporting character. As the novel progresses, the man imposes his own

discriminatory compassion on the boy, trying to dissolve the boys inherent indiscriminate
 Sottosanti 13

compassion. Imposing world-weariness is part of the mans initiation of the boy into manhood,

which also is part of the father-son life cycle, as is the mans progressive weakness and death.
After the mans death, only seven pages before the novels ending, the boy becomes the

protagonist and it becomes his story. The first sentence after the mans death represents that

transition by paralleling the novels opening sentence, but reversing it: He slept close to his

father that night and held him but when he woke in the morning his father was cold and stiff

(McCarthy 281). There, the boy is the subject and the man is next to him as the direct object.

Additionally, the man is called his father, which reinforces the boys new, central role because

the man is described by his relationship to him, using the possessive word his. Furthermore,

the pairs mantra that the boy is carrying the fire also symbolizes the life cycle in several ways.

The boy, as a son, is carrying his fathers genes from a biological standpoint, carrying the story

from a narrative standpoint and, by withholding his fathers non-cannibalistic values, carrying

his fathers goodness.

Before the mans death, the man and boy briefly talk about goodness and the man makes

a comment that predicts the boys future after the mans death. The boy asks his father, But who

will find him if hes lost? Who will find the little boy? (McCarthy 281). On the surface level,

the boy is asking about the fate of the little boy whom he thought he saw earlier in the narrative.

However, the boy also perceives his own fathers impending death and realizes that, without his

father, he will be lost. Accordingly, his question of who will find the little boy also refers to

himself and his fears of whether he will be found by the bad guys, who will kill and eat him, or

the good guys. The man responds, Goodness will find the little boy. It always has. It will again

(McCarthy 281). Through his response, the man reassures the boy that the little boy he saw is

safe, but more importantly, that he will be safe, even orphaned. The mans response is the novels

clearest expression of faith in an otherworldly higher power. The man of course has no way of
 Sottosanti 14

knowing what will happen to his orphaned son, but for his own sake and the boys, he must

believe that goodness still exists and that it will find his son. Without that faith, the man would

kill his son to save him from further misery, as he intended to do earlier in the narrative.

However, as his own death draws near, the man finds the faith that he thought he had lost.
People do find the boy after his fathers death and, through their words and deeds,

represent a form of goodness that differs from both the mans discriminatory goodness and the

boys indiscriminate goodness. The hunter and his wife choose to care for the boy, though he is

outside of their family unit. That act sets them apart from the man, who chose to keep the father-

son unit closed to outsiders, rather than risking his and his sons well-being. The hunter and his

wifes decision to care for the orphaned boy puts them in line with the boys desire to help and

connect with others, a desire that he expresses throughout the narrative. However, McCarthy

never implies that the boy seeks to help others because he believes in God and because it is what

God would want him to do. McCarthy characterizes the hunter and his wife very little, but the

little details that he provides in the text focus on the womans belief in God: She would talk to

him sometimes about God She said that the breath of God was his breath yet though it pass

from man to man through all time (286). Though the idea of the boy as a god is a recurrent

theme in the novel, McCarthy rarely uses the word God with a capital G in the text. Based on

the womans characterization, she and her family represent Christian goodness, which differs

from the boys compassion and goodness because of its religious basis. Though the boy mentions

God and prays earlier in the narrative, the boy wants to help others because of an inherent need

within himself, separate from his belief in a higher power. McCarthy does not intend for the boy

to represent Christian goodness. That is clear from the boys reluctance to talk to God after his

fathers death. The boy is good for goodness sake, not because of a specific religion.
 Sottosanti 15

Ethics of care explain why the hunters wife chooses to put her own family unit in danger

by taking responsibility for the orphaned boy, another mouth to feed. Care ethics argue that all

humans long to be in a caring relationship and that the natural caring relation is the

ultimate goal of all human activity and provides the motive for ethics (Little 22). However,

three conditions must exist for a person to feel obligated to care for another, according to Nel

Noddings (Little 22). The relationship between the hunters wife and the boy satisfies all three

conditions, so a caring relationship occurs between them. The first condition is that the caring

must enhance ones view of oneself as someone who cares (Little 22). The wifes perception of

herself as someone who cares is important to her identity as a Christian, which accounts for her

desire to help the orphaned boy. The second necessary condition is that caring must be

achievable. Little explains that the person for which one commits to care must be capable of

experiencing and benefitting from the caring, and the caring must stem from ones own desire to

support that individuals well-being (22). The hunters wife knows that the boy will benefit from

her caring. Whether due to maternal instinct or her Christian faith, she desires to support the

boys well-being. The last necessary condition for caring is the potential for increased

reciprocity (Little 22). That condition requires one to assess whether the individual potentially

receiving the care has the capacity or desire to give care in return. The hunters wife knows that

the boy has the capacity to care, based on his care for his fathers body and his desire that the

body remain hidden and unmolested. If any one of those three conditions had not been satisfied,

care ethics predict that the woman likely would not have chosen to care for the orphaned boy.
The themes in post-apocalyptic fiction are set in the future but are just as applicable

today, which means that representations of goodness in The Road can help readers understand

and form their own conclusions on goodness and how to treat others today. At a recent lecture,

E.L. Doctorow stated that the historical novel could be more accurately called the eternalist
 Sottosanti 16

novel because societies rearrange themselves in recurrent patterns. The same could be said of

post-apocalyptic novels, which are set in the imaginary future. Though lacking the extreme

circumstances of The Roads post-apocalyptic wasteland, the situations, characters, and decisions

presented in the narrative are common in contemporary times. Though there are not bands of

predatory bandits prowling through American streets, there are predatory people and

corporations that figuratively will eat other people and corporations alive if given the chance.

Contemporary society also has its thieves and questions of proper punishment, just as in The

Road. Likewise, just as the man and boy disagree on whether to help the man struck by lightning,

people disagree today over whether and to what extent to help the needy, as government welfare

programs remain a point of political contention.

For those reasons, post-apocalyptic novels such as The Road are not a form of escapism,

but rather are a medium for looking at the issues facing contemporary society from another

perspective. Through The Road, McCarthy expresses his views on a number of topics. The most

obvious is his belief that, without laws and governance, some humans would resort to barbarism

a view that he also expressed in his aforementioned 1992 comment on human nature. Second,

McCarthy enforces the importance of fatherhood and the father-son bond and acknowledges the

life cycle, in which the son must someday take over the fathers story. Most significantly,

McCarthy expresses views on goodness and compassion, including extending help to others.

Through the character of the hunters wife, McCarthy presents one form of goodness Christian

goodness, which is founded on Biblical notions of the right way to live. Through the characters

of the boy and the man, McCarthy implies that the desire to help everyone is pure but also

immature, whereas the mature, prudent way to exercise compassion is by helping whom you

realistically can. Though McCarthy reinforces that belief through the text, the option is of course

always there for the reader to decide that indiscriminate compassion is the best way to live life.
 Sottosanti 17

By presenting readers with these real-life, heavy decisions, McCarthy forces readers to confront

their own views on what it means to be good. It is in that way that The Road, a post-apocalyptic

novel depicting a horrific dystopia, is about goodness.

Works Cited
Adams, Tim. Cormac McCarthy: Americas Great Poetic Visionary. The Observer. 19 Dec.

2009. 5 Jan. 2012. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2009/dec/20/observer-

profile-cormac-mccarthy>.
Andrade, Glenna M. The Road to Post Apocalyptic Fiction: McCarthys Challenges to Post-

Apocalyptic Genre. Feinstein College of Arts & Sciences Faculty Papers. Paper 20. 1

Jan. 2009. Web. 18 Nov. 2011. <http://docs.rwu.edu/fcas_fp/20>.

Bailey, Dale. The End of the World as We Know It. Wastelands: Stories of the Apocalypse. Ed.

John Joseph Adams. San Francisco: Nightshade, 2008. 283-96.

Benjamin, Walter. On the Concept of History. Walter Benjamin: Selected Writings, 1938-1940.

Ed. Howard Eiland and Michael W. Jennings. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 2003. 389-400.
Berger, James. After the End: Representations of Post-Apocalypse. Minneapolis: Minnesota UP,

1999.
Bortz, Maggie. Carrying the Fire: Individuation Toward the Mature Masculine and Telos of

Cultural Myth in Cormac McCarthys No Country for Old Men and The Road. Jung

Journal: Culture & Psyche 5.4 (2011): 28-42.

Cleave, Chris. A harrowing portrait of a futurist America. The Telegraph. 12 Nov. 2006. 11

Dec. 2011. < http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/3656379/A-harrowing-portrait-

of-a-futurist-America.html >.
Doctorow, E.L. Notes on the History of Fiction. Fiction and History: A Two-Day Symposium.

Columbia University Libraries Alumni and Friends. Columbia University. New York, 16

Nov. 2011.
Jurgensen, John. Hollywoods Favorite Cowboy. The Wall Street Journal. 20 Nov. 2009. 19

Nov. 2011.

<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704576204574529703577274572.html>.
 Sottosanti 18

Kunsa, Ashley. Maps of the World in Its Becoming: Post-Apocalyptic Naming in Cormac

McCarthys The Road. Journal of Modern Literature 33.1 (2009): 57-74.

Lincoln, Kenneth. Cormac McCarthy: American Canticles. American Literature Readings in the

21st Century. New York: Palgrave, 2009.

Little, Judith A. Introduction. Feminist Philosophy and Science Fiction: Utopias and Dystopias.

Ed. Little. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus: 2007. 13-34.

McCarthy, Cormac. The Road. New York: Vintage, 2006.
Monbiot, George. Civilisation Ends with a Shutdown of Human Concern. Are We There

Already? The Guardian. 30 Oct. 2007. 27 Nov. 2011.

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/oct/30/comment.books>.
Nussbaum, Martha C. Upheavals of Thought: The Intelligence of Emotions. Cambridge:

Cambridge UP, 2001.

Robock, Alan and Brian Toon. Climatic Effects of Nuclear Conflict. Climatic Consequences of

Nuclear Conflict. Rutgers U. 12 June 2008. Web. 19 Nov 2011.

<http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/nuclear/RobockToonSummary.pdf >.
Woodward, Richard B. Cormac McCarthys Venomous Fiction. New York Times Magazine. 19

April 1992. 18 Nov. 2011 < http://www.nytimes.com/1992/04/19/magazine/cormac-

mccarthy-s-venomous-fiction.html?src=pm>.
iek, Slavoj. Living in the End Times. London: Verso, 2010.