where are they going?

[Heather]

By the end of the book I expected it to clear up where they were heading. At first I thought they were just going to the ocean, but then they found it and they continued traveling. The only time I ever got an idea of where they were going was when the father told the son to keep going south when he died. But what were they looking for, why didn't they stop somewhere and make it "theirs" like it seemed like other small groups had done.

[Alexander]

I believe that the destination or where they are headed is of little importance to them or the book and that is the reason it is never made clear where they are going. It is of little importance to the book because the book is called the road it focuses on the journey not the destination. Its like that old saying that says something like its not about the destination its about the journey. It’s of little importance to the characters as well because I never believed that they thought they would find anything. It seemed as if they where just trying to go somewhere to have a purpose. When all was lost they found something to give themselves a purpose in life. This is a basic human need to feel that you have a purpose. In society most people strive to better their jobs make more money or other trivial things this is their purpose but when there is no society the boy and man had to find something as simple as surviving and walking to a destination.

[Alexander]

And if they stopped they would loose that purpose.

[Heather]

How were they planning on having purpose though if they never stopped anywhere, never opened up to anyone, and never condemned others for their ways. And I don't really see any purpose they had except carrying the fire and that was done regardless of their journey. Sure they had pride when they found a new destination with things that would keep them alive, but it never seemed like a reason to live. They both thought about death a lot which means they weren't content with that little of a purpose i think. I think stopping would've given them the strength to be stronger and more authoritative to other groups and perhaps start something bigger than just the two of them which would've been way more productive.

[Alexander]

Yes it is true they both did contemplate death but by their actions both of them obviously valued what they had more than death. Perhaps stopping would have started something bigger than them they could have created a new society but this is unlikely the most likely outcome is they would get killed for there food as soon as a group came by and they realized he only had one bullet. Is it selfish not stopping to try and rebuild what was lost maybe or we could also call it survival. Nowhere was safe that’s why at every place they would stop and say it isn’t safe here we have to go soon. Overstaying was evident when they got the cart stolen on the beach, which could have easily lead to their demise. You forget the other purpose I mentioned survival, which was more of a purpose then, almost anything else. To you or me this would seem as if it where nothing to live for but when wandering a wasteland with nothing it is easy to find the smallest motivations to keep live.

[Heather]

But I don't think it would be like that because the people that have established a place to stay know everything that's going on. Like the people that had the others in the basement locked up and the family that saved the little boy at the end. They know when people come through and it's their choice as to weather or not they approach them. I don't think they would approach until they knew they were able to overtake them. And I guess survival is very important as you said to you and I, but if I were to put myself in that situation I don't think I would want to stay alive long, so I'm not sure survival would be something important to me. My biggest worry would be how I was to die, as apposed to when and I feel like the characters express the same feelings from time to time.

[Ashley]

I agree with both of you guys. The book was a little all-over-the-place when it came to the traveling and moving around aspect. It bugged me that the readers never fully knew when the father and son were going, but I guess it was irrelevant to the storyline and not of much importance. The fact that AJ said they are traveling on the road to find a purpose, usually you go someone with a purpose not in hopes to find a purpose...if that makes sense?! It kinda seemed that at the beginning of the book the father and son didn't have the best possible relationship because every conversation was extremely short and all the answers were "okay". I'm not quite sure if it had any significance, but I thought I would bring that up. I agree with Heather...I don't think survival would be the most important to me either, I'm not even sure I would want to be alive in these situations.

[Ashley]

And this book was really gruesome and violent which was a bit hard for me to read at some points. Like the cannibal scene was a little bit much for me, but then again his works are known for being like this.

[Alexander]

“The fact that AJ said they are traveling on the road to find a purpose, usually you go someone with a purpose not in hopes to find a purpose...if that makes sense”
Try to put yourself in there shoes this is not a usual trip. They are obviously not going skiing or going home. They are walking to survive and hoping for a purpose and that hope is their purpose for walking.
The boy wanted to survive because he knew nothing of what the world was before. His thoughts wants where relative, perhaps if he was born in the world before he would wish to die as well but the previous world was nothing but a fairy tale to him, this was his only world he knew. It would be as if we wanted to die because we didn’t have the life Cinderella had or prince charming. Feelings are relative to previous situations. The boy had no way of knowing what he had was terrible other than his dad telling him. So you saying you wouldn’t want to live in that is expected because you know what its like to live in a world better than that.
To address the dads wants to survive its simple it lies with his love for his son. I am not a father… obviously but I know for a fact when I have a kid I would do anything for him. I would die the most gruesome death and I would also live the most insufferable life for him. I would never leave him in a world such as that by himself. The father’s love for his son almost seemed limitless and that’s what kept him alive.

[Alexander]

And if you are wondering why he didn't just take his sons life when he took his own. Could you pull the trigger on your child? Your only child? Your flesh and blood? Your first born? Your last living love? Could you?

I could never.

[Heather]

I guess I was only thinking of it from our perspective, of knowing the old world but since I would know it, I wouldn't want to be in the conditions they are in. For the little boy this is how it is and so I think that would change things. Maybe the father shouldn't of presented everything to him as such a terrible and bad situation so the boy would be less scared and more happy and optimistic about living. And yes, having a child with me would change how I felt about survival but I would still be constantly worried about when death would come for me and how the child would survive once I was gone. I noticed that the father didn't really give him much direction for how to go on without him by his side. He told him to keep going and keep the gun and he had previously shown him how to kill himself. I think he would've needed much more background then that to stay alive and if it weren't for the family finding him he would've died a very slow and hard death on his own. I'm aware that I would never be able to kill my own child but I think this goes back to the fact that the father should've tried to find at least one person he could trust and travel with for when he passed to make sure the kid was okay. He basically left an 8 year old child to figure everything out which is basically the same as killing him...

[Alexander]

“Maybe the father shouldn't of presented everything to him as such a terrible and bad situation so the boy would be less scared and more happy and optimistic about living.”
I agree with this but acting like things are not that bad when you witnessed someone getting eaten or when you are on the verge of starvation, would be nearly impossible. The father knows that is his fate. In this circumstance I believe ignorance is bliss.
“I noticed that the father didn't really give him much direction for how to go on without him by his side.”
You are right the author never really put anything in the book that would fall under our idea of teaching but I think the father taught him every day. The father taught him how to survive by surviving and in his actions. I think our idea of teaching and learning would be futile in this world. Do you remember trying to learn to ride a bike? You could have read a thousand books and been told a thousand words on how to try to balance yourself and other things but you would never have learned till you actually got on the bike and tried maybe with your father gently guiding you so you don’t fall on your first try. The father helps the son get on the bike and ride every day by showing him and doing things with him. The son knows how to start a fire probably not because of a book or his father’s words but by watching his father making one in the dead cold of the night.

[Heather]

It is a terrible thing to witness cannibalism, but at the same time its their reality now so that's why I think he could've shown to his son that it's more of a way of life for some people as opposed something to be in constant fear of. And ignorance would be bliss, but I don't think that applies in this situation. How is the son ignorant? He's seen more death and brutal things than you or I have seen and will ever see. The son knows of and sees these terrible things happening and he has allowed himself to be effected by it because of what his father had said and taught him about it.
The comparison about learning to ride a bike is very relevant and good way of describing the way he has learned. I just think that he could've done a little more to show the son his ways. Like had him search with him for stuff and not always be on the look out. At the point that the father died I don't think the boy would've been brave enough to walk through a house on his own which is the area in which he failed to teach him adequately to have courage. Doesn't that seem like something pretty important for his survival?

[Alexander]

“I think he could've shown to his son that it's more of a way of life for some people as opposed something to be in constant fear of.”

Yes but it’s a very dangerous line to walk because if the father downplayed cannibalism the son could learn to see no problem with it. At this point they would become no better than the others. An anxiety to the point of paralysis would be wrong and I agree with you on that point although a healthy fear or repulsion is necessary.

“And ignorance would be bliss, but I don't think that applies in this situation. How is the son ignorant?”

My point is exactly this, the son is not completely ignorant of the previous world but he is ignorant enough. If the son knew nothing of the world before he would be happy with the world he was in because he would know nothing of anything else. Unfortunately the son is not completely ignorant of the world before therefore he is not completely content with his own world.

On a separate point I believe this is a problem in our society as well. We see things that are not realistic in our world and get upset because we don’t have it. IE wanting an enormous mansion, girls looking at Photoshopped models, wanting a cinema worthy life

[Heather]

What does he know of the old world? He only has stories to hear that are like fantasies of a world long forgotten. It's like reading about princess stories for girls when they're young. It's just a dream that they know will never come true.
And I don't think there's anything wrong with knowledge of the old world because it's a part of history. And society today is built around the ideal's that we all strive for and those are our purposes and goals and that's what keeps us going. That just changes when the world is so drastically different.

[Alexander]

http://www.associatedcontent.com/arti...
This article it explains how fairytales and Disney movies can be harmful. I do not fully agree with it but it does bring up a valid point. That being unobtainable fantasies are depressing. It’s the same reason why when you awake from a great dream you want to go back but the knowledge that you cant is depressing.

I don’t think there is anything wrong with learning from our past or trying to better ourselves but when that goal is impossible to reach the knowledge of the goal is demeaning.

[Ashley]

I can see where both of you are coming from. I think that AJs right in the sense that this old world is a thing of the past, and the chances of them getting that back are slim to none. Which can be an extremely depressing idea to the people living in this new dark cold world. But although these memories of a better world are painful, I think they are a vital memory to keep. Imagine if these survivors do start a new society, they can pass on these memories to their children, and then their children can pass them down, and so on and so on. If these memories are never spread, than the way the world used to be will eventually be forgotten. That would be an extremely important part of history eventually lost.