(Photo Credit: http://mytennesseewaterfalls.com)
"The last instance of a thing takes the class with it. Turns out the light and is gone. Look around you. Ever is a long time. But the boy knew what he knew. That ever is no time at all." What are your thoughts on this passage?
"Can you do it? When the time comes? Can you?" What is it the man is thinking of doing?
"Not all dying words are true and this blessing is no less veal for being shorn of its ground." What are your thoughts on this sentence?
Great query: "How does the never to be differ from what never was?" Got an answer? Take a shot.
I think you can figure out why the man gives the boy all of what's left of the hot chocolate while he drinks hot water, pretending it's hot chocolate...but how do you explain the boy's reaction to this?
Can you interpret the penguin dream? Take a shot.
What is significant about the fact that the man tells "old stories of courage and justice?"
The man is extremely honest with the boy about their situation, but his truthfulness appears to have limits. What limits do you see?
What do you think of the man's decision to leave the lightning-struck man alone with no help?
44 comments:
For the great query: "How does the never to be differ from what never was?" The term "never to be" means that is will not come about, where "never was" means that whatever it is hasn't sprung up. However, that doesn't mean that it couldn't or won't happen in the future. It means that it's a strong possibility. Another way I saw it was that never to be was like a false hope. The Never was, was more like lies with illusions.
The decision to leave a lightening-struck man alone with no help is possibly the best decision in a poor situation. If the child and man had helped the victim, they would have been depleting their own supplies, which they do not have much of, for a stranger who would most likely die regardless of their interference. While it seems inhumane, to not help this victim, I think the man is looking out for his son and himself. Although it is a cruel decision, the man has to weigh the consequences in this situation. If he helps the victim, it may not be possible to help his son later if he needed it. Or, if he gives this victim food and assistance, he might not have enough food to give to his son. I think the man's decision to not give the lightening-struck man any help stems from his desire to keep both himself and his son alive.
Throughout the novel, the man will do anything to keep his son alive. When the man struck by lightning comes along, the man’s decides to offer no help. Offering help would mean fewer supplies for his son and himself. I can see the man’s point of view, because he was doing everything in his will to keep his son and himself alive as long as possible. On the other hand, I feel if he was in the lightning-struck mans position, in which he could have encountered in many situations, it could be a different story. He would have been as the same condition as the man, needing and wanting help. So I am not sure if I agree with the man’s decision.
The boy is very disappointed with his father when he gives the boy the hot cocoa and drinks plain hot water. The boy says, "If you break little promises you'll break big ones." To me, this shows the boy's maturity. Most little kids would not mind if they got the last hot cocoa, but this boy doesn't even care about the drink, he cares that his father is honest with him. He depends completely on his father, and he takes everything his father tells him as 100% truth. He is wise beyond his years because he knows that little lies do eventually turn into bigger ones.
When the boy reacts to drinking the last of the hot chocolate, he is displaying his love for his father. Typically, the father takes care of the son, and that is shown in this novel over and over again. However, this novel also shows the relationship in a different light. The boy also takes care of his father. It seems quite logical, because they only have each other left. They need each other's help and love. The boy feels protective of his father because he knows no one else is there to care for the father. He makes the father take some of his cocoa because he wants to care for the father and it is one of the only things he can actually provide for his father. He can't give him safety, or a sturdy shelter, or more food, but he can make sure his father gets a share of the chocolatey treat.
I found this line very foreboding. Whatever the man is questioning his ability to do, it must be something very challenging. While it may be a physical action, the emotion behind the action is the challenge. This line could mean that the man may have to leave the boy, if that is what best. Or he may have to kill the boy to protect him from a painful death. Both of these are connected by the fact that the man has to do what is best for the boy. Even though killing the boy with his own hands would be painful and almost impossible, he asks himself if he will do it. The man is preparing himself for the worst, and while it seems cruel, killing the boy by his own hand will be far better than watching the boy suffer at the hands of someone else.
Quote: "Can you do it? When the time comes? Can you?"
This is a very controversial point in the novel. The line between right and wrong is blurred, and the man is not sure what the “right” choice is. A few pages back the man gives the boy the gun and asks him if he can do it, meaning could he take his own life if he were captured. When the man realizes the child is not capable of this, he questions whether he himself is capable of taking the child’s life. He knows exactly what is to happen if the child were captured and he could not bear to let that happen. On the other hand, how could he take the life of the child he loves so much? It would take a great amount of strength and he is not sure if he has enough strength left. I believe he also feels somewhat responsible for the child because he has brought him this far and he does not know how much father he can take him.
The man’s decision to leave the lightening-struck man alone with no help was sad, but necessary. In their situation, and the world they now live in is every man for yourself kind of deal. The man and the boy did not have all the means of living by any means. Everything they had to survive was in the cart the man pushes with them. The man even made a point to the boy that if they cannot share what they had or they would die too. It is a very sad situation. The world clearly is in some catastrophe and people cannot help each other because they don’t know who is good, who is bad, who will kill for another mans things, etc. to keep themselves alive the man and the boy cannot do anything for anyone but themselves.
The significance of the man telling the boy stories of justice and courage is it shows how much the man cares for his son. It shows that the man is trying to give the boy a somewhat normal life. On top of that, he is trying to show the boy how to behave when he is on his own. Without any other role models or other people to guide the boy - especially if the father died - the boy would need concrete examples of what a "good guy" is.
The man is extremely honest with the boy about their situation because he loves the boy and thinks the boy deserves to know the truth. Why, then, does the man's truthfulness have limits? I think that the truth of the situation is obvious. The wasted earth is a testament to it. Yet the boy trusts the man, and so the man tells the truth with limits to motivate the boy and preserve the boy's innocence. The man will never tell the boy anything that would cause him to give up hope. He possesses an astonishing optimism in the midst of their situation. It is a small optimism, but it is there, and it motivates the boy not to give up. In addition, the man holds back details that aren't necessary to tell the boy in order to maintain the boy's innocence.
I also noticed the man doing anything to help keep his son alive throughout the book. He refuses to help the man struck by lightning because he knows that would hurt his son and himself. This shows me how much the man really cares about his son, and I respect that, however, it did bug me to some degree because if he were in the other man’s shoes, the decision would have been different.
In this novel, I feel like the boy and even the man begin to understand that "ever" could be a long time or be the next minute and your life could be over, you can't depend on the word ever.
When the man thinks to himself, "Can you do it? When the time comes? Can you?" it seems as if he's thinking about taking his child's life. It doesn't really seem to me like the man is so much concerned about his child's life, but more about his own. The boy seems very skeptical of his father, it doesn't seem like he can trust him. Although the man does little things, like give him the hot cocoa or let him drink the pop he gets, it doesn't seem like he honestly would do anything for his son.
The boy's reaction to the hot chocolate just shows that the boy is mature enough to know his dad should be doing something that he's not. He seems like he is continuously disappointed in some of the choices his dad seems to make. He tells him that he's scared going into the house and begs to leave. It just doesn't seem like the man is primarily concerned with the boy's best interest... he does what is important to himself and his needs.
In some ways, it does seem like the man is just trying to protect his son because he doesnt seem like he's old enough to understand what they're actually going through, maybe? I think that is just a parental instinct. The man keeps a lot to himself.
I think the decision was selfish, and although the boy is mature, he doesn't understand why they can't help him. I really think the man is just concerned with his own needs. Yes, they need to survive, but at what costs? It's what the MAN wants, and what he thinks is best for HIM.
Just a personal opinion....
PS... in chapter one, or the first group of pages we blogged on... the narrator said something about an uncle? Im confused if this man is his dad or his uncle? Seems more of a father figure but what was it about the uncle...
"Can you do it? When the time comes..." is the man thinking about either killing himself, the boy, or other people. He knows there will come a point at which it is safer and smarter to die willingly (with the gun) than to be held hostage/for food or starve to death.
Also: p 34, "if you break little promises you'll break big ones." How true... when people know they can do something small, they'll eventually work their way up to the large (whether it be crime, sports, school, lies ... almost anything is applicable).
The boy's dream: I am no expert, but it may have something to do with the way their life is ... the penguin wasn't wound by anyone else, it just operated. The man and boy's life is sort of like that, they have to go on really just to go on. Or they don't really have goals? (this is a tough one) It's a conscious choice with effects of the unknown. Also the fact that nobody was around symbolizes the distance between them and whoever is left on the earth. Maybe the fact that (the dream) took place in their old house means he wants to go back or that is what he is most comfortable with.
One limit that I see with the man's truthfulness towards the boy is that at one point the boy asks if they are dying, the man says no, but the boy says they're starving, and the man agrees but that doesn't mean they're dying.
No offense jurgjr, but I completely disagree with you. I think the entire point of the book is how even in the midst of complete catastrophe the love between a man and his son still survives. I think the little things most of all prove this love that the man has for his son. I think he would do anything for him and that includes shooting him if it came to that. Just walking past the lightning-struck man proves that he is even willing to overcome his conscience if it means protecting his son. This, to me, is the opposite of selfishness. I completely agree with the decision and I believe that any of us would do the same if put into that situation. If anyone tries to tell me that they would put their morals and their ethics before the life of someone they love, then I assume they are either lying or lousy human beings to love. I think that it is incredibly selfless of the man to realize that his son is worth much more than him getting a good night’s sleep thinking he did the "right" thing.
"Can you do it? When the time comes? Can you?"
This is a powerful quote. I took it to mean that the man was leaving the boy to lead the "bad guys" in the other direction. But, if the boy was somehow found, he was expecting him to take him own life. He explained to the boy the way to angle the gun, but he realized the boy would not be able to do it, so he risked them both and stayed with him.
most people seem to be staying away from the penguin dream, so i'll take a crack at it. the boy could be afraid of many things, maybe he is afraid one day he will be a virtual zombie, wandering around with no energy, just passing time until death. maybe he's afraid of someone else, someone with no motive, no humanity, who may do something to him or his father, without even feeling any remorse. or he could be scared of godlessness, or fatherlessness. when he winds up the toy and lets it go, he's there for the penguin, he started it, if it runs out of energy he winds it up again, he's there for the penguin. but now the penguin is on its own, it's alone, it doesn't have any support. and the boy is afraid that is what will happen to him.
My favorite quote from this novel so far is "If you break little promises, you'll break big ones" That is a very powerful line and so true. It also shows how the man is very honest with the boy. He hasn't seemed to lie to him about anything even when they came across the man that was struck by lightning. There really was no way for them to help him. The man was also honest about how dreams can be scary which is also very true and difficult for little kids to understand sometimes. The boy was very disturbed by his dream about the penguin and how frightening it was. Honestly, I didn't fully understand his dream and everything it was signifying, but I really like Andrew's interpretation of it.
I think the significant thing about the old stories of "courage and justice" is the man trying to give the boy a good upbringing even in the abnormal world they travel through. I think that he is doing what all our parents have done to use over the years, using stories to instill good morals within us.
The decision to leave the lightning-struck man with no help was the only reasonable one that the man could make. His fate was already clear, he would soon die. If they would have stopped to care for him they would use valuable food and supplies that are barley enough for the two of them. Also, the boy seems to have a big heart and he may become too attached to the poor man, and when his death came about the boy would be upset. In this situation I belive that the man was just doing what was best for him and his son, and I respect that decision.
The man’s decision to not help the poor lightning-struck man was a choice he was forced to make. It was hard enough keeping the two of them alive and they needed to conserve their supplies. The man didn’t want to take a chance helping the man because he could already see that he was going to die shortly anyways. On any other occasion, the man probably would have helped him, but there was almost no point.
I like the quote “How does the never to be differ from what never was.” I found it very intriguing and I think that it means that if there was never anything of something then it never can be anything. This something can never change or ever become anything because it never was there to begin with.
On page 34, what had the man promised not to do? He poured the child a cup of hot cocoa, than only made himself a cup of hot water. Did he promise to equally share everything, not to ration supplies just for the child? What other promises has the man broken in the past to have him make that rule for himself?
“How does the never to be differ from what never was”
This is such an awesome question. Here’s my answer: The never to be suggests that something could have happened. It was smart, romantic, and idealistic; but something somewhere in the stars, fate or god’s will, was stopping it from ever happening. What never was suggests a one-sided feeling, idea, or need. However, it takes two to tango. It never existed because another person didn’t want it to exist.
When it comes to the lightning-struck man, I understand the mans decision to not help him. Throughout the book, the man wants to do all he can to help his boy. But he also does this still by being a good guy. More so, by leaving the man he isn't really doing anything bad or good. The way I see it is he could either split up the food and help the man that was struck by lightning, but that would leave less for the boy. And the man doesn't know if he will come across food again. To the man, the decision of helping or not helping the lightning-struck man could quite possibly be a decision of life and death for them as well as the lighting-struck man.
The tells the boy stories of courage and justice so he knows there use to be a time of it. It would be good for the boy to know courage because of the situation they are in. He will need everything hes got just to survive. As for justice there is none.
"Can you do it? When the time comes? Can you?" I think this line foreshadows something that is going to happen at the end of this novel.......
The hot chocolate scene really intrigued me. It is pretty obvious that by giving the rest of hot chocolate to the son, the father is trying to take care of him and keep him happy. But when the son reciprocated the behavior and tried to take care of his father by sharing his hot chocolate with him, i wasn't all that surprised. Personally, i believe that parents should take care of their kids, but there is a little part in all of us that find pleasure in doing nice things for our parents to show how much we appreciate them. So it really made sense to me that the son wanted to share his treat with his father, especially because it is one of the few things that he can do for him.
As much as one would want to help the lightning struck man, Papa knew that leaving him was the only reasonable option. He knew that the man would die eventually, and he probably didn’t want to waste time stopping. They had to keep moving. Papa also knew that they were very low on food for the two of them, let alone the man too. Papa has enough responsibility finding food for two people, and trying to find more would be even more difficult. Even though leaving a man behind is sad, I think Papa did the right thing given the situation they were in.
While reading this book I often think of fate and how things happen for a reason. The father and son are left alone and have to deal with what fate has dealt them. This relates to everyday life how we can't control everything that goes on in our lives. Many people believe that they can control every aspect of their lives, they are in serious denial. Fate has it's own idea for us, just like it does for the characters on the novel.
I believe the man and his son made the right decision when they left the lightning struck man alone. They have to look out for their own survival and can't waste their supplies and time on someone else. It may seem selfish, but they have to think in the long run. Their supplies are limited and the lightning struck man would have needed professional help to continue on. It would have been a lost cause.
“How does the never to be differ from what never was?” This is a very good query indeed. The never to be and what never was don’t differ much at all. Really, the only distinction between them is their tense. Never to be refers to the future, while what never was relates to the past. However, both imply that something never happened and never will happen, because the word never applies to all of time, not just to the past or future.
I felt like it was necessary to leave the lightning-struck man alone, however sad of a situation it may have been. If they had given him some of their own food, then none of them would have lived. The poor man was already going to die from severe injuries. The man even bows his head downward and doesn't even ask for help as they pass by. Through this action I think it is shown that he already knows his fate.
My thoughts on the “ever is no time at all” passage is that the boy is far more intelligent than his age suggests. To be honest, I don’t think I fully understand what this passage it trying to portray. Although I do understand when McCarthy says that when something big and dramatic happens in life, all the petty little complaints do not seem to not matter anymore. “The frailty of everything revealed at last. Old and troubling issues resolved into nothingness and night.” I don’t think that statement could be any truer.
The man never flat out tells the boy that they are going to die. He beats around the bush when the boy asks the question. The only time that the man comes close to telling the boy that they are dying is when he tells the boy that they are starving. Even then, the man quickly covers it up with telling the boy that they still have water and that they can survive awhile without food as long as they have water.
The boys reaction was logical....obviously at one time he made his dad promise to split things evenly, and never give him more. The boy felt that if his dad started breaking the smaller promises, he would break bigger ones. It was about more than the hot chocolate, it was about trust and keeping promises.
I think the mans decision to leave the injured man alone was necessary. He obviously wanted to help the man and felt guilty about leaving him, so you can see he was not being malicious, only trying to survive.
The mans limits are set to try and protect his son from some of the more gruesome images of what has happened; the barn earlier in the story and the jack-knifed semi both contained things he did not wish his son to see. He obviously cannot keep all the things from his son, but he wants to keep some of his sons innocence and childhood intact.
The man's decision to leave the lightning-struck man was the best one that he could have made. As horrible as it is to just let the lightning-struck man suffer to death, the man had to look out for himself and his son. There is a point in life when you must put yourself and your family before others. The man met that point. Plus as he stated, he didn't have the items that he would need to help the lightning-struck man. If the man would have helped the lightning-struck man he would have just wasted his own supplies.
It is significant that the man tells “old stories of courage and justice” because it gives the little boy something good to think about and boosts both of their morals. If the man told the boy stories about death and negative things, there would be nothing to live for and nothing to strive to be. Courage and the belief justice are two attributes that no one can ever take away from someone. By telling the boy these stories, the man gives the boy the will power to go on and gives him something to live for. In a world filled with crooked people and nasty situations, it’s always good to know that there can be courage and justice and that’s exactly what the man is trying to get through to the boy when he tells his stories.
The hot chocolate scene seemed to have given me a lot of insight about the boys character. Obviously, the father had given all of the hot chocolate to the boy because hes trying to care for him. The boy's reaction to this, however, shows just how much he cares for his dad. The big picture in this though is the boy wanting his dad to keep promises. His dad made the promise a while to go to split things between them and the boy wants to trust him. "If you break little promises you'll break big ones."
I agree with most people that by leaving the lightning-struck man alone, he increased his own chances of surviving. This may seem inhumane, but the man has little supplies to begin with, and it would be very illogical to use what supplies he does have on someone he doesn't know. Self- preservation takes precedence over morality in an instance such as this. He made the right decision for himself, as well as his son.
The hot chocolate passage in the novel truly shows me a deeper side to the boys personality. It was obvious that the father had given the boy what was left of the hot chocolate while he drinks hot water, pretending it is hot chocolate because he loves and cares for him. And the same love and care translates from the boy to the father which is why the boy reacted how he did. Like Lauren had wrote, which I agree with completely; They need each others help and love. Which I agree with because they only have each other, and the boy needs that protection every child wishes for from an adult they look up to and love.
"Can you do it? When the time comes? Can you?" refers to the father's plans to kill his son and him if they re ever captured by the cannibals that are out in the wildness. The father is fighting with deciding wither or not he will be able to keep his son from experincing a horrible death at the hands of these manics.
"Can you do it? When the time comes? Can you?"
This is a powerful quote, I have to agree with a numerous amount of people on that. I took it to mean that the man was leaving the boy to lead the "bad guys" in the other direction. The boy was so afraid and the man realized that the boy did not know what he was doing and decided to stay with him. If the man were struck by lightning I'm sure he would have wanted someone to help him, it goes both ways because he was trying to protect the boy and their lives because he never knew what would happen.
I really liked the hot chocolate scene. It really showed how much the father and son really care for each other. I understand that the father wants to give his son everything, but how the son reacted was very surprising. It shows the deep relationship between the father and son. In today's world, you wouldnt find many kids like the son who care for their parents like that.
Post a Comment