Ian's Reviews > The Road
The Road
by
by

Ian's review
bookshelves: best-sellers-that-suck, unfulfilled-expectations, not-for-kids
Jun 29, 2009
bookshelves: best-sellers-that-suck, unfulfilled-expectations, not-for-kids
I just read some guy's review of The Road that contained the following:
"In the three hours that I read this book I found myself crying, laughing, shouting, and most of the time my lip was trembling. ... As soon as I finished it, I sat there feeling numb, but not in a bad way, actually sort of like I was high."
Wow, dude. I mean, really? Your lip was trembling? And you felt high? And your lip was trembling? Pherphuxake, what do you even say to someone like that?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Road by Cormac McCarthy is an awful, awful book. I have to consciously restrain myself from judging those of you who believe the book has merit. Don’t worry, the fact that I’m part of a very small minority in this regard (only the smartest 3% of my fellow Goodreads bibliophiles also gave The Road a one-star review) has not escaped me. I am nevertheless convinced of the objective correctness of my position—notwithstanding the inherent subjective nature of any literary discussion—and I will maintain with my dying breath that The Road should have been named The Rod because it represents nothing more than Cormac McCarthy’s attempt to proclaim to the world that he has a big literary dick.
I have constructed a list of factors that increase a book’s suck quotient and I fear The Road exhibits most of them. Let’s check my list and see which things appear in The Road:
• A plot that lacks clear beginning or ending (check)
• Important characters who don't grow or learn from their experiences (check)
• Important characters whose actions lack clear motivation (check)
• Scenes and dialogue that are repetitive or unoriginal (check)
• Violence and gore included for shock value (check)
• Locations and settings that are ambiguous (check)
• History and backstory that are ambiguous (check)
• Grammar and punctuation used in a pretentious or self-indulgent manner (check)
• Pronouns and punctuation used in an ambiguous manner (check)
• Metaphors and analogies that appear contrived, forced and disjointed (check)
Okay, to be fair The Road doesn’t exhibit most of the suck-quotient factors; it exhibits all of them. It's as though McCarthy deliberately designed his book to be the antithesis of what I think makes for quality reading.
Now before I get any further, let’s get a couple of things out of the way. Much is made of McCarthy’s failure to use quotation marks and other punctuation, with some finding it brilliant and some finding it pretentious and self-indulgent. I make my home in the pretensions-and-self-indulgent camp. In fact I find McCarthy’s treatment of punctuation nauseating; it is his way of saying:
“My words are so beautiful, perfect, and complete that they stand on their own. I require no punctuation to convey my meaning. Indeed my message is too powerful to be contained by the same convention that restricts the middling novelist, too important to suffer the vandalism of punctuation.”
Thus, leaving out punctuation can be not only confusing for the reader, but also revoltingly self-indulgent and arrogant. However, that being said, I don’t believe The Road sucks merely because it lacks quotation marks. I’m okay with such a tool if it’s used for a purpose that adds to the message being conveyed, à la Blindness. So punctuation is not the only suck-quotient factor here. Instead, I believe The Road sucks because it sucks every possible way a book can suck. The purposeless lack of quotation marks and other punctuation is merely one symptom of the enormity of the book’s suckitude.
It’s important to understand that this is not just a matter me disliking The Road. I have an almost vehement reaction to The Road and to the rather large group of slobbering, screaming, panties-throwing admirers. In the interest of intellectual honesty, I challenged myself to figure out why this is. Why can’t I just abhor The Road while letting other people have their moronic fun? Why must I look down on people who love The Road with a feeling of disgusted superiority? Why do I care if others enjoy the mental equivalent of dipping bread into horse diarrhea and pretending it’s award-winning fondue?
It took some soul-searching to learn the answer: I react vehemently to The Road because fans and critics of literature love to stroke McCarthy’s Rod, while works of science fiction—my favorite genre—are dismissed regardless of their merit. Critics praise The Road but glibly waive off sci-fi as a genre for people who never grew out of their childlike amusement for light sabers or their adolescent fascination with space battles. Sci-fi is relegated to its own awards and events, left out of consideration for broader literary honors, leaving me with the impression that the literary world does not perceive sci-fi to be real, legitimate literature. But from my point of view The Road is the adolescent work. By the standards under which I would judge a quality sci-fi novel (or any quality novel), The Road is shallow and simple, along with unoriginal and obvious. The Road is to my favorite sci-fi as a toddler’s splashing pool is to Lake Tahoe. It is beyond me how The Road can be the guest of honor while much deeper books with beautiful language and original, thought-provoking ideas are not even invited to the party because they happen to be sci-fi.
Of course the other 97% disagree with my assessment of The Road as shallow and unoriginal. They believe that I just didn't get it, that I couldn’t see past McCarthy’s prose and unconventional punctuation. They tell me The Road is rich and deep. They tell me to forget the quotation marks and the nameless characters and look at what McCarthy is trying to tell us. The Road tells us this, and it talks about that, and speaks to this other thing.
Then the 38% who gave The Road five stars lose themselves in their collective self-amplified group hysteria. “The Road is so so so great!” they yell in unison. “Please take my panties, Mr. McCarthy!” they yell at some imaginary stage. “Here, Mr. McCarthy please sign my boobs!” And that’s where I have to walk away.
The thing is, though, I didn’t have a difficult time seeing what The Road tells us and talks about and speaks to; I just didn't find any of it to be especially deep, enlightening, or insightful. The book was easy to read and simple to comprehend. It didn’t make me think. Everything was right there on the surface, served with a spoon, and what we were served had no flavor, no spice, no originality. So it’s not that The Road lacks all substance. If it weren’t for the nonstop nauseating self-indulgence I would have given it two stars and might recommend it to people who are new to the reading scene. My problem is that, for something so beloved and critically acclaimed, for something written by a writer with such talent, The Road fails utterly, a shell without substance that collapses in upon itself in a heap of triteness and unoriginality. To put it yet another way, The Road was just so goddamn boring.
I want a book that makes me pay attention and use my noggin. I want to work at peeling back layers and making connections. When I find them, I want the author's ideas and insights to be original, edifying, and thought-provoking. I want artful prose, relatable characters, realistic motivations, and poetic plot points. And guess what, I find no shortage of books on the sci-fi shelves that meet those criteria.
Now let’s see if we can tie things together. There are plenty of truly excellent books of contemporary literature; I have read and enjoyed several, including one or two that have touched me deeply. Likewise there are plenty of truly excellent books on the sci-fi genre. For some reason one genre is invited to the party and the other isn’t. I don’t know why that is, beyond an apparent assumption made by haughty critics and readers that sci-fi is for kids. Now, I’m not trying to say that all sci-fi is wonderful. There’s plenty of crappy sci-fi out there, just like there’s plenty of crap in any genre. My point is simply that, despite the dismissive attitude of many literary critics, the sci-fi shelves contain books that are as good as anything out there: books as rich and complex, as insightful and layered, as edifying and beautiful as anything in contemporary literature. So when something like The Road is hailed as a masterpiece while some truly brilliant works of sci-fi—works that could mop the floor with The Road in every facet— are acknowledged only by a roll of the eyes ... well, I think you see why I can’t be happy just to dislike The Road and let everyone else have their fun.
"In the three hours that I read this book I found myself crying, laughing, shouting, and most of the time my lip was trembling. ... As soon as I finished it, I sat there feeling numb, but not in a bad way, actually sort of like I was high."
Wow, dude. I mean, really? Your lip was trembling? And you felt high? And your lip was trembling? Pherphuxake, what do you even say to someone like that?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Road by Cormac McCarthy is an awful, awful book. I have to consciously restrain myself from judging those of you who believe the book has merit. Don’t worry, the fact that I’m part of a very small minority in this regard (only the smartest 3% of my fellow Goodreads bibliophiles also gave The Road a one-star review) has not escaped me. I am nevertheless convinced of the objective correctness of my position—notwithstanding the inherent subjective nature of any literary discussion—and I will maintain with my dying breath that The Road should have been named The Rod because it represents nothing more than Cormac McCarthy’s attempt to proclaim to the world that he has a big literary dick.
I have constructed a list of factors that increase a book’s suck quotient and I fear The Road exhibits most of them. Let’s check my list and see which things appear in The Road:
• A plot that lacks clear beginning or ending (check)
• Important characters who don't grow or learn from their experiences (check)
• Important characters whose actions lack clear motivation (check)
• Scenes and dialogue that are repetitive or unoriginal (check)
• Violence and gore included for shock value (check)
• Locations and settings that are ambiguous (check)
• History and backstory that are ambiguous (check)
• Grammar and punctuation used in a pretentious or self-indulgent manner (check)
• Pronouns and punctuation used in an ambiguous manner (check)
• Metaphors and analogies that appear contrived, forced and disjointed (check)
Okay, to be fair The Road doesn’t exhibit most of the suck-quotient factors; it exhibits all of them. It's as though McCarthy deliberately designed his book to be the antithesis of what I think makes for quality reading.
Now before I get any further, let’s get a couple of things out of the way. Much is made of McCarthy’s failure to use quotation marks and other punctuation, with some finding it brilliant and some finding it pretentious and self-indulgent. I make my home in the pretensions-and-self-indulgent camp. In fact I find McCarthy’s treatment of punctuation nauseating; it is his way of saying:
“My words are so beautiful, perfect, and complete that they stand on their own. I require no punctuation to convey my meaning. Indeed my message is too powerful to be contained by the same convention that restricts the middling novelist, too important to suffer the vandalism of punctuation.”
Thus, leaving out punctuation can be not only confusing for the reader, but also revoltingly self-indulgent and arrogant. However, that being said, I don’t believe The Road sucks merely because it lacks quotation marks. I’m okay with such a tool if it’s used for a purpose that adds to the message being conveyed, à la Blindness. So punctuation is not the only suck-quotient factor here. Instead, I believe The Road sucks because it sucks every possible way a book can suck. The purposeless lack of quotation marks and other punctuation is merely one symptom of the enormity of the book’s suckitude.
It’s important to understand that this is not just a matter me disliking The Road. I have an almost vehement reaction to The Road and to the rather large group of slobbering, screaming, panties-throwing admirers. In the interest of intellectual honesty, I challenged myself to figure out why this is. Why can’t I just abhor The Road while letting other people have their moronic fun? Why must I look down on people who love The Road with a feeling of disgusted superiority? Why do I care if others enjoy the mental equivalent of dipping bread into horse diarrhea and pretending it’s award-winning fondue?
It took some soul-searching to learn the answer: I react vehemently to The Road because fans and critics of literature love to stroke McCarthy’s Rod, while works of science fiction—my favorite genre—are dismissed regardless of their merit. Critics praise The Road but glibly waive off sci-fi as a genre for people who never grew out of their childlike amusement for light sabers or their adolescent fascination with space battles. Sci-fi is relegated to its own awards and events, left out of consideration for broader literary honors, leaving me with the impression that the literary world does not perceive sci-fi to be real, legitimate literature. But from my point of view The Road is the adolescent work. By the standards under which I would judge a quality sci-fi novel (or any quality novel), The Road is shallow and simple, along with unoriginal and obvious. The Road is to my favorite sci-fi as a toddler’s splashing pool is to Lake Tahoe. It is beyond me how The Road can be the guest of honor while much deeper books with beautiful language and original, thought-provoking ideas are not even invited to the party because they happen to be sci-fi.
Of course the other 97% disagree with my assessment of The Road as shallow and unoriginal. They believe that I just didn't get it, that I couldn’t see past McCarthy’s prose and unconventional punctuation. They tell me The Road is rich and deep. They tell me to forget the quotation marks and the nameless characters and look at what McCarthy is trying to tell us. The Road tells us this, and it talks about that, and speaks to this other thing.
Then the 38% who gave The Road five stars lose themselves in their collective self-amplified group hysteria. “The Road is so so so great!” they yell in unison. “Please take my panties, Mr. McCarthy!” they yell at some imaginary stage. “Here, Mr. McCarthy please sign my boobs!” And that’s where I have to walk away.
The thing is, though, I didn’t have a difficult time seeing what The Road tells us and talks about and speaks to; I just didn't find any of it to be especially deep, enlightening, or insightful. The book was easy to read and simple to comprehend. It didn’t make me think. Everything was right there on the surface, served with a spoon, and what we were served had no flavor, no spice, no originality. So it’s not that The Road lacks all substance. If it weren’t for the nonstop nauseating self-indulgence I would have given it two stars and might recommend it to people who are new to the reading scene. My problem is that, for something so beloved and critically acclaimed, for something written by a writer with such talent, The Road fails utterly, a shell without substance that collapses in upon itself in a heap of triteness and unoriginality. To put it yet another way, The Road was just so goddamn boring.
I want a book that makes me pay attention and use my noggin. I want to work at peeling back layers and making connections. When I find them, I want the author's ideas and insights to be original, edifying, and thought-provoking. I want artful prose, relatable characters, realistic motivations, and poetic plot points. And guess what, I find no shortage of books on the sci-fi shelves that meet those criteria.
Now let’s see if we can tie things together. There are plenty of truly excellent books of contemporary literature; I have read and enjoyed several, including one or two that have touched me deeply. Likewise there are plenty of truly excellent books on the sci-fi genre. For some reason one genre is invited to the party and the other isn’t. I don’t know why that is, beyond an apparent assumption made by haughty critics and readers that sci-fi is for kids. Now, I’m not trying to say that all sci-fi is wonderful. There’s plenty of crappy sci-fi out there, just like there’s plenty of crap in any genre. My point is simply that, despite the dismissive attitude of many literary critics, the sci-fi shelves contain books that are as good as anything out there: books as rich and complex, as insightful and layered, as edifying and beautiful as anything in contemporary literature. So when something like The Road is hailed as a masterpiece while some truly brilliant works of sci-fi—works that could mop the floor with The Road in every facet— are acknowledged only by a roll of the eyes ... well, I think you see why I can’t be happy just to dislike The Road and let everyone else have their fun.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
The Road.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
June 29, 2009
– Shelved
Started Reading
July 1, 2009
–
Finished Reading
September 3, 2009
– Shelved as:
best-sellers-that-suck
May 25, 2010
– Shelved as:
unfulfilled-expectations
February 7, 2011
– Shelved as:
not-for-kids
Comments Showing 1-50 of 72 (72 new)

Is it just that everyone on both sides is sick and tired of talking about this shitty excuse for a book? Does trashing a review and demanding that I perform anatomically improbable acts mean nothing anymore?!?!
*throws rotten vegetables*
As you know, I'm not the one to be defending this, and I don't agree with all of your criticisms. Our conversation made me realize what I didn't like about The Road: it's not a story, it's a situation. A nicely detailed situation, but it's pretty darn static. I still did like the book on the balance, and the language was beautiful to me. But I enjoy your anger, and always enjoy a good rampage. Well, not always, but you know.
As you know, I'm not the one to be defending this, and I don't agree with all of your criticisms. Our conversation made me realize what I didn't like about The Road: it's not a story, it's a situation. A nicely detailed situation, but it's pretty darn static. I still did like the book on the balance, and the language was beautiful to me. But I enjoy your anger, and always enjoy a good rampage. Well, not always, but you know.

Where were the quote marks? I wonder if the screen play had quote marks or punctuation of any kind?
Hey, Ian!!! If you want a fuckin' road side bomb to go off in your outside garbage can, you're gonna have to hit the road to Afganistan.
The tender hearts of Good Reads could never bombast you because you've had a little explosive diarrhea over ole Cormac's masterpiece.
Anyway, I've got cucumbers to plant, a story to revise, a children's program to bring into fruition and bills to pay so good luck at getting rises from GoodReaders...too-da-loo.

interesting. i havent read the road, just have never felt particularly compelled to... but since a couple of people have mentioned the movie: i thought it was awful.

This review is ridiculous, horrible, evil, stupid, satanic, and long. It's all of these things not because it's a negative review of The Road, but because it appears motivated primarily by a childish kicking-screaming tantrum about the cultural status of sci-fi (boo and hoo) and by very conservative ideas of what good fiction should be. (Really? Ambiguous locations and history, tweaked grammar, and absence of a traditional beginning and ending make a book 'suck'? Really? Maybe Charles Dickens is your man.)

*gets hit in cheek with tomato*
Humph!
*gets hit in stomach with cucumber*
Ayyeeee!
*gets hit in eye with grape*
Now this is more like it! Finally a comment with some passion! The perfect mix of disdain, contempt, disregard, hyperbole and irony. Well done, David. Well done.

Thanks, Paul. I recall your American Psycho review--and the irrationally vehement responses--very well. While I feel superior to people who love The Rod, I feel concern for the people who so passionately defend American Psycho.

I react vehemently to The Road because fans and critics of literature love to stroke McCarthy’s Rod, while works of science fiction—my favorite genre—are dismissed regardless of their merit... The Road is to my favorite sci-fi as a toddler’s splashing pool is to Lake Tahoe. It is beyond me how The Road can be the guest of honor while much deeper books with beautiful language and original, thought-provoking ideas are not even invited to the party because they happen to be sci-fi.It reminds me of how mainstream critics lurrvved Theroux's O-Zone , but science fiction critics pointed out that it was trite, silly and had been done far better by many sci-fi writers before him.

I enjoyed your review because you far better articulate some of the reasons why it doesn't work for me, as well as provide new reasons not to. I hadn't even thought about it not making the grade as sci-fi. My argument was reflected more along the lines of "The Road fails utterly, a shell without substance that collapses in upon itself in a heap of triteness...."

First, "...writer of such talent." I haven't read The Road. I'm never going to read The Road. This is because I read All the Pretty Horses, which was the most pointless waste of effort I'd read since The Bridge of San Luis Ray...
Second, Orwell said (I paraphrase from memory), "Write so that your meaning is unmistakeable.) I believe books can be worthwhile even if the offer no subtlety or subtext; some books are a punch in the face (e.g. 1984, Orwell practised what he preached). Some books offer complexity and subtlety (e.g. The Hyperion Cantos). Both can be meritorious.
Dunno if that fits into the veg throwing style of comment you wanted but it's my best attempt!

And I agree there are worthwhile books with little or no subtlety or subtext. McCarthy's Rod isn't one of them. You want to hit me in the face with a point? Go for it. Make it something interesting, something maybe I hadn't considered before. Don't hit me with something that's obvious to everyone who's ever been born upon first glance.
Hmmm, let me think ... would a father still love his son and try to keep him warm and fed if life got rough? Hmmm. Why yes, I think the father would. Oh, but what if we put the father and son in an ambiguous exaggerated dystopia where creepy roving cannibals are trying to eat the boy, what then, huh? Well, after long and thoughtful consideration, I believe the father still would love his son and do his best to keep the kid warm and fed. Also, I believe the father would love his son enough to try and prevent the kid from becoming some creepy roving cannibal's afternoon snack.
"Dunno if that fits into the veg throwing style of comment you wanted but it's my best attempt!"
I'll count your post, Robert, as an overripe avocado hitting me in the kneecap. How's that?


There is only one thing that you said I don't like: While I feel superior to people who love The Rod...
Just because they like the book, that doesn't make them inferior. It just means that they enjoyed a very good description without any action. And maybe that's all it was meant to be... a description. Hating a book doesn't make you superior, neither does it make the lovers inferior. You are both equals who enjoy different styles of writing.

The superior comment was intended in jest and irony. I was making fun of the elitist-tinged love for this book: the notion, for example, that McCarthy was brilliant for writing without punctuation and those who were confused or annoyed by it lack imagination; or the notion that those who don't like McCarthy's language lack the ability to appreciate sophisticated artful expression; or, even, the notion that those of us who think a novel is more enjoyable if it contains a story rather than merely a situation are stuck in some obsolete paradigm. My point was not that those who liked the book are inferior, but rather that those of us who didn't like it are not inferior.

I didn't understand the no punctuation either because it made it harder to understand what was happening. It might have looked better than other works, but it was much more difficult to know what was going on, especially when the characters had "conversations."

This part of your review is especially good.
I need a writer to give at least some passing thought to the setting and have at least one of the trinity of what makes a novel a novel present. All three pillars of the novel are missing from The Road, it lacks plot, story and character development.
I've never come across such a glaring example of the Emperor having no clothes as this book.


I resepect your opinion and can see where you are coming from, but as a 15 year old who loves science fiction and adventure novels I would like to say I loved this book.
I'd never read any of McCarthy's books before and I agree that judging by the quote you used he sounds like a bit of an arse. But that doesn't have much to do with the writing really, other than the lack of punctuation which overall didn't really bother me whilst reading it. I can see how it would bother some people, but surely as a book lover you can get over it easily enough.
I think you are however missing the point of this book. The list of things you put that the book lacks do not add up to the equation of a good novel in my eyes at all. The Cathcer in The Rye, one of the most critically acclaimed books of all time, doesn't have a solid plot line or paticularly well developed characters, yet I have never met a person that has read it who can't relate to Holden in one way or another.
Aside from that I think you have missed the main situation these characters are in, which was the reason I respected them from the moment I learned it anyway. They make mistakes and then have to make more in order to survive; you can't learn from mistakes in a world where taking risks is your only option.
And as for the settings and history being ambiguos, from what I gathered that was the point. This book wasn't trying to prove anything from where it was set, or the background that it had; the overall aim was to tell the story of a father and his son, which I think was acheived incredibly. Both of the characters develop over the novel, not immediatley, as they discovering more about themselves and one another with each obstacle the road throws at them, despite as you say yourself both coming from different worlds. The man is hardened by his experiences and the loss of his world, whereas the boy is innocent and naive, born into a world where horror is the norm. It shows the contrast beautifully. And that I think was McCarthy's main aim.
If you say that a father remebering the old world and trying to prevent his child from becoming a monster beacuse of the new one would make a great book, then I think you should consider re-reading this. There are various situations where the father is ultimatley torn between doing what he considers is best for his son and what his son thinks is right; it always results in the second.




Hahahahahahahaha...
This book is actually on my list to read. I'm a huge fan of both Blood Meridian and No Country for Old Men but this review is hysterical and it's always good to know that somewhere, someone's not buying even the great ones.






I don't condone book burning... In fact, I'm sure most of us are repulsed and horrified by the very notion... However, I wouldn't lose any sleep over turning a mountain of copies of this drivel to ash.







And if anyone is “arrogant and self-indulged” it sure isn’t McCarthy. (It’s you. hypocrite)
“Only the smartest 3% of my fellow Goodreads bibliophiles also gave The Road a one-star review” to use your words, what do you even say to a person like that?
I don’t know if I’m just sensitive but the way some people talk about authors is just revolting. Don’t you see that these people work hard on these books and try to make them enjoyable for YOU?!? You’re calling this book a failure or a disgrace without any regard for other people. It’s sickening. I just have to say if some one ever talked about me the way you talk about McCarthy and his book. I would cry and key your car.
BY THE WAY lightsabers are freaking AWESOME.
I apologize for my rant, but I also don’t.

Personally, I know that authors generally "work hard on these books and try to make them enjoyable". I have massive respect for those who do both of those things, but I have no respect for authors who don't do either of those things. McCarthy in "The Road" didn't do either of those things.

Why is it that people that like the book don't really explain it? I see so many of the "you need to read more" or "read more literature". I read 30 plus books a year. Read plenty of literature on the way to my degree. This book just lacks any character. And after a boring way of depicting hopelessness, ends with a cheap trope of hope at the end with the boy and stranger.
However, I did want to see the movie...presumably it isn't high on your list of what to do before you die?