Comments on: The Road by Cormac McCarthy

By: CountessZ

CountessZ — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:53:31 +0000

Well put, Ramona. It’s hard not to be afraid when we are surrounded with messages of fear. But as you say, hope and love are the only things we really have, and what precious possessions. I agree that less will be better in the long run, but the transition and upheaval of it all is what will be hard for so many people. But life is loss as much as it is gain. I think the key is probably to always move forward in hope.

By: Ramona

Ramona — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 22:25:27 +0000

You are right about the ending. It was appropriate. He did not know what would happen to the boy, yet could not end it for him also even if it meant the boy would suffer. It ended in hope. Hope (and love) is all any of us have. Much as I fear for the future of my kids and grandkids, I also have great hope for them. The world as we know it now may change (economy/politics), but how do we know that it might not be for the better for us to go back to less? (You and Kai will be ok growing veggies, knitting and taking care of kitties & puppies.)

By: CountessZ

CountessZ — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 14:24:28 +0000

His determination to go on was the most fascinating aspect of the book. Much of the time he didn’t even seem to have a clear handle on what he was doing. It was almost compulsive, and something he questioned every step along the way. Was he doing some noble thing as he hoped? Or was he merely prolonging the inevitable? Without giving anything away, I did find the ending to be satisfying.

By: Ramona the Reader

Ramona the Reader — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 17:30:00 +0000

I finished reading The Road last night. I am still disquieted. Reading about the end of the world as we know it only reinforced fears I’ve known most of my life. I no longer worry about myself – but I do worry about my grandchildren. The current economic melt down adds to my concerns.
I would not be capable of carrying the fire. I don’t mean physically, but mentally. Ah, but what if I had a child depending upon me? Hmmmm.
I did not understand why don’t and can’t and won’t became dont, cant, wont although it’s was still it’s. Can you explain what I missed?
I was glad to have Robin Paige to read a couple chapters of before falling asleep. I might have shared the boy’s dreams.
What’s up next for Bookishdark review?

By: CountessZ

CountessZ — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 15:43:03 +0000

Privileged wasn’t quite the right word. Maybe exclusive is more what I was after. And not necessarily exclusivity in a negative way–after all, we all have different interests and these frequently pull us toward others who share our affinities. But I have this nagging guilt about saying I’m part of some exclusive club, even though I clearly am–I read, passionately and voraciously, and many people do not.

Is that a nature thing or a nurture thing? Probably a bit of both.

A big part of me has felt uncomfortable with the idea that there were simply readers and non-readers. Bookish folk, and non-bookish folk. I mean, those of us born with a natural built-in love of language and reading will always find a way to feed our hunger. But there is also the nuture side of things that I don’t like to ignore. I want to believe that just about anybody, given the right book or subject matter, could pick up a novel and get lost in it. They may not read as deeply or as obsessively as I do, but they would find value in it. My idealist self wants to believe everyone can be taught or encouraged to value knowledge and books. And to a degree they can, though I also have a number of close relatives who challenge this assertion with their complete insistence on remaining closed to new ideas and a (related? probably.) disinterest in reading, no matter the subject, author, length, or level of encouragement.

Ramona, I think you will appreciate this most of all. In regard to choosing reading over chores–I was once part of a very amazing group of women in Minneapolis that was led by these three dynamic and empowering ladies. One of them once said to us that the world would be a better place if women stopped worrying about dust bunnies and wrote more books. I think the same applies to reading. Chores Schmores! Let’s read some books!!

By: Ramona the Reader

Ramona the Reader — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 23:17:20 +0000

Mz Z- How can being “born” a reader translate into being privileged? I truly believe we are born with a complete set of imperatives – one of which, if we are lucky, is “I must read! I must learn!” Kai and I have discussed this often. Perhaps it is in the genes as both her parental units were/are readers. We agree we were born with a thirst to learn, and reading was our way to accomplish the learning.
You mention having to work to get your books, as did I. Country kids weren’t allowed access to the public library unless they paid a fee. My parents could not afford the fee. But we could climb three flights of stairs in the old courthouse and check books out of the county superintendent’s office – IF we could coerce one of our parents into taking us there and IF we could overcome our fear of the ogre county superintendent.
Kai will tell you I was often admonished by my mother that I’d better “make” my kids do chores instead of letting them read. My response was that I would rather have them reading than doing dishes.
I do agree with you about turning good books into mediocre movies in that it does allow the author to write more.
Another thought on the “winter” slowdown and the time to think somber, deep thoughts, plus the agraian connection which I hadn’t thought of – I was in agreement until I considered the readers in FL and AZ and other tropic climes. Without the cold and snow and long winters, do their reading habits change?
Bottom line; I’m so grateful I am a reader. I feel so sorry for those who aren’t.

By: CountessZ

CountessZ — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 14:38:08 +0000

I do think on some level that readers are born and formed. I read a study once that talked about how only 20-40% of people are born with the kind of wiring that makes reading (and writing) easy. For the rest, it is a much more labor intensive process. Supposedly that means the other 60-80% would opt for the movie? I suppose that explains the vast difference between profit margins on movies versus those on books? (Maybe the one good thing about the tendency to turn good books into mediocre movies is that it puts income into the pocket of the writer and allows them to keep writing more books?)

I have to admit that I have a tendency to want to reject the idea that readers are born, because it seems a little…privileged? I mean, on some level, people who read are people with access to books, or those who had an education that placed a great deal of emphasis on reading. But this isn’t always true. I was pretty much born with a love of reading and I’m not sure how much encouragement I got. I was never discouraged, but I had to work to get my books. Especially in the summer when I didn’t have access to the school library.

But I’m getting off my point. I have heard a few people here and there who loved a movie feel compelled to read a book, but they are certainly few and far between. I would be interested to see what kind of increase in sales booksellers get when a “movie cover” of a recently adapted novel is placed in their stores. It has to be doing something for their bottom line (and the publishers), or they wouldn’t bother doing it.

By: Ramona

Ramona — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:18:04 +0000

Funny you should mention V for Vendetta – it was one of the movies I thought of when I read Countess Z’s post. That was a movie I really enjoyed but it did not entice me into reading the book….just a bit outside my genre.
The only movie I can remember liking better than the book was “The Women’s Room”; perhaps because of Colleen Dewhurst.
Like Kai, I enjoyed both the movie and book of “Under the Tuscan Sun”. (The romance with the countryside better than a romance with a roving Italian.)
I don’t know if a good movie entices people into reading the book it is based upon. Most people probably think, “been there, done that.” I think it is much more likely the reader will go to a movie of a book they’ve enjoyed to 1) see if the movie makers got it right and 2) relive the enjoyment of the book in another art form.
Don’t you think readers are born, or at least formed in early years by being read to, rather than made into readers by movie attendance? (i.e. Can you teach an old dog new tricks?)

By: kaizerin

kaizerin — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 01:37:52 +0000

I have mixed feelings on the book-into-movie issue. I think it does encourage people to read the book, but that can backfire, depending on how much the adaptation varies from the book. I wouldn’t be surprised, for example, if a certain percentage of the people who picked up “Under the Tuscan Sun” because they enjoyed the movie were disappointed to find there was no affair with a charming Italian rogue, nor did it end with a cinematic wedding. I seem to recall a number of Amazon reviews complaining that the book ‘wasn’t the same story’ as the movie. Still, another percentage will be like me, able to appreciate them both for what they are, even if they are quite unlike.

Whether I will watch a movie based on a book I like really depends on whether I get a sense they’ve done a good job with it, and how disappointed I’ll be if they don’t. I understand that it’s simply not possible to literally film a book and put it on the screen; of course there will be compromises and abridgments. But these may be done intelligently (V for Vendetta, Lord of the Rings) or stupidly (the last Harry Potter film is the first one that comes to mind, but there are many others.)

I can’t tell you how nervous-yet-hopeful I am about the Watchman movie. So many opportunities to mess it up, and such an achievement if they get it right. The only really off-putting thing I’ve seen so far is the casting of Ozymandias– the rest of it looks pretty good, so far.

By: CountessZ

CountessZ — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 10:43:23 +0000

BTW, they are in post-production on a movie version of The Road starring Viggo Mortensen. I know that many fans of McCarthy’s novel No Country for Old Men were displeased with the film adaptation. I, personally, was absolutely riveted by the movie, but I also hadn’t read the book. Though, I certainly plan to now. I can’t find any official trailers for the movie yet, but I remain hopeful. I am always tempted to get sad when they turn great books into movies, because I always feel like it means people won’t read the book. But I’m starting to rethink that idea, and I wonder if perhaps the broader exposure means MORE people will read the book. What do you guys think? I’ll definitely see the movie when it comes out and perhaps I’ll toss up a post here comparing the two and talking a little bit more about how movies and books play together in general…