He doesn't remember any little boys

[Sarah]

My interpretation was that the narrator was emphasizing why the boy had such a strong reaction when he saw the other little boy (if he did?). He has never seen another child, which is why that one stuck with him (unless of course, he conjured the other child from his imagination). He also has an idea in his head of how the people who carry the fire are supposed to act, which is why he reacts so strongly when his father acts in ways that are contrary to the morality to which they cling.

I don't think I'm going to see the movie. It's hard enough keeping some of these images in my head; I think I'd better not allow my eyeballs a crack at them.

[Al-]

It has been awhile since I read The Road, so I'm just going off of my impression.

The boy didn't remember any little boys from BEFORE. Like that is something from the innocence of childhood that he has lost.

[Taueret]

right- it's a flashback to earlier in their journey. The little boy has seen the skin of a dog, but no little boys. (at that point).

[Tash]

I think the film did do the book justice. They didn't change very much. I must say, even though I love Viggo Mortensen as the dad, I didn't find the film as heart breaking as the book. Certainly for me the scariest part of the book (you know, the cellar scene) was also the scariest part of the film though.

[Michael]

Tash wrote: "I think the film did do the book justice. They didn't change very much. I must say, even though I love Viggo Mortensen as the dad, I didn't find the film as heart breaking as the book. Certainly..."

A lot of the novel's impact, for me, was the way the sentences lent themselves to the atmosphere. The dialogue hanging without quotation marks, the long stretches of one mundane action after another - the way the sentences worked added to the hopelessness in a way that recreating the visuals can never do.

[Ryan]

Sarah wrote: "My interpretation was that the narrator was emphasizing why the boy had such a strong reaction when he saw the other little boy (if he did?). He has never seen another child, which is why that one ..."

That's a great interpretation. I like that.