Reactions in The Road by Cormac McCarthy Book Analysis

In Cormac McCarthy’s, The Road, the boy, and his father have very different reactions to their interactions with the people they meet throughout the novel. Despite the man constantly reminding the boy of their label of being a “good guy” it seems that when he puts this idea into action, the boy has a harder time justifying some of the acts committed while the man’s justification fits in the boundaries of what he constitutes as good. The man’s actions have a deeper root in realism and survival while the boy’s actions and remarks are more naive and empathetic.

The first portrayal of the boy's naivety is in the scene with the man struck by lightning. As the boy comes across a dying man who has no clear chance of survival, he pleads with his father to help him. It is not as if the boy’s desire to help is a quick passing thought as he pleads to his father a total of three times. The boy is unable to understand that their help would be fleeting as they do not have the resources to save a dying man. The father refutes the child’s wishes as he states “there’s nothing to be done” (50). Despite the father telling the boy that there is no way that they could help, the boy continues to look back and begins to cry as they get further away. It is clear that the boy has a harder time accepting death than his father. His tears and inability to quickly recover from the scene exemplifies the boy’s inability to think realistically while also showing a deeper sense of empathy within him. The father is more realistic and removed, as he is quick to justify leaving the dying man by exemplifying no guilt or grief in doing so. 

The boy's response to death develops further when the father kills a man who threatens the boy’s life. The father is quick to shoot the man in the head as he knows that his job is to “take care of” the son (77). The father's reaction to death seems to be even more realistic than the last scene as it is reasonable for him to not feel sympathy or sadness towards the death of a man who wished to harm his son. When the man states that he “will kill anyone who touches” the boy, this idea is clarified (77). It is easy to understand why the man thinks this way and is a less detached way of thinking than the previous scene. Even if the scene was not in a desolate world, killing to protect a loved one and then not feeling a sense of guilt seems realistic. Despite the justifiable nature of the crime, the boy asks his father if they “are still the good guys” (77). The boy has known no other world but the one they are in now which makes it difficult for him to decipher which instances of death are right and wrong. Again, his inability to think rationally leads him to question whether or not this death and the father's lack of empathy is justifiable. 

The last example presented seemed the most shocking because the boys and the father have clear differences in their response to the interaction with the thief. After the boy and the man are lucky enough to retrieve their stuff back from the man, the father then goes further by threatening the thief until he has given them everything he has. This action upsets the boy who pleads to the father not to hurt the thief. After the father and son leave with the thieves things, the son feels guilty and upset about what has just transpired. The boy pleads with his father to go back and help the man, but the father initially refuses. The father’s philosophy towards taking the thieves things along with their stolen goods is that he wished to leave the thief as he would have left them (257). This statement exemplifies the man’s feelings of revenge, an emotion the boy does not have. The boy is unable to understand how one could justify what the father has just done and pleads with him to go back and return the things claiming that the thief is “scared” (259). The father then replies that he is also scared, a moment of vulnerability that we have not yet seen from the father. This stark contrast between the man’s past interactions with the boy provides insight to the way he has been feeling all along; he hides his fear to protect the boy. The interaction between the boy and the father after all has transpired, shows that the father has a more seasoned approach to the world, as the father wishes to seek revenge to those who have wronged him. In contrast, the boys anchorage in innocence gives him the ability to empathize with the thief and not wish harm on him despite the situation he created for the boy and his father. 

Reactions of the father and the boy exemplify the differences between the philosophy of a parent versus a child. The father roots himself in reality while the son still portrays the naivety of a child along with deep empathy. In instances of death, the boy has a harder time accepting the situation, shown by his inability to leave a dying man without feeling upset. Further more, when death was the prerequisite for protection the boy was still unsure if the father’s action was justifiable, wondering if they were still the good guys. Finally, when it came to the situation with the thief, the child still felt sympathy for the man and wished to help him, while feelings of revenge overcame his father.