The Roadrat Analysis

The Roadrat Analysis

What element of foreshadowing is employed in this section and why? (pg 62)

McCarthy creates a calm and controlled atmosphere in juxtaposition to the climactic scene that occurs afterwards.  The boy, “took his truck from the pack and shaped roads in the ash with a stick. The truck tooled along slowly. He made truck noises. The day seemed to almost warm and they slept in the leaves with their packs under their heads” Through his actions, the boy displays a childlike innocence and it becomes more evident how young he actually is compared to the maturity that he develops which provokes the reader to become more attached to the vulnerability of his character.  On the surface, this scene is one which gives the reader hope towards the characters safety with the weather described as “almost warm” and is, in an aspect, a sad yet happy scene as the boy is able to play and act himself, without the worrying of their continuous fight to survive. However, on deeper analysis, this foreshadows what is about to happen and lures both the readers and the boy and man into a false sense of security. The truck noises, upon reflection, relate to the “diesel engine running out on the road, running on God knows what” which brings together the idea of something innocent being used for destruction.  The boys actions, we realise, are significant and depict the difference within the new generation (the boys innocence) and the old generation (focusing on immorality) and how they join together. Has all good in the world been demolished?  When the boy draws the shape of the road with a stick, it could symbolise that their journey is a fragile one which is cracking and as it is man-made, humans are the cause to their own downfall.

What does the description of the men teach us about them? (Characterisation pg 62-3)

The contrast between the two characters we are most familiar with (the boy and the man) to the men that McCarthy introduces immediately provides a distinction by referring to the group as “them” which separates the reader and the boy and the man from the others.  We learn that this is our first encounter with those who impose a violent threat to their survival that the man has forewarned both the boy and the reader; a definition  “the bad guys” is revealed.  The mans reaction to their arrival, “God, he whispered” turns the atmosphere into one of vulnerability and panic, we know that they could be a threat to their already small chance of survival.  McCarthy’s detail of how they “came shuffling through the ash” creates an impression by using the word “ash” repeatedly throughout that they bring with them a hellish world that is contaminated and burning around them. The group by “casting their hooded heads from side to side” and their weapons, “Slouching along with clubs in their hands, lengths of pipe” enforce that they are intimidating, superior and powerful and to some extent represent the fear of the unknown for the boy; he has never experienced them before.  They are aware of the destruction around them, with the impression and sense that death is a normality to them when McCarthy describes their clothing, “Some of them wearing canister masks. One in a biohazard suit.” They don't seem to have a sense of identity and although they are “protected” from the decaying atmosphere, to some extent they are still contaminated as they are described as “stained and filthy”. By giving the impression that they are ill, “coughing”indicates that they are desperate for any necessities in order to survive and will go to any lengths to get help.

McCarthy uses a simile when describing the truck 'Lumbering and creaking like a ship'. Why does he do this?

McCarthy could portray a reverse of the religious allegory of Noah’s ark by describing the truck as “Lumbering and creaking like a ship”.  The biblical reference is in paradox to the reality within this book and represents many different interpretations. In the bible, Noah built an ark with a purpose of saving animals from a storm to salvation and contributing to the greater good, by contrast humanity creates modern transport (as represented within the image of the truck) and lead themselves to their own destruction in this post-apocolyptic world. They journey, as McCarthy uses the word “ creaking” could imply that it is cracked and that there is a struggle if we use the idea that (as the ark was the good) the truck represents the good and the “bad guys” display the immorality. It displays how the bad is taking over the good and there is only a small minority of good things that are still alive, which causes the good characters to treat them with importance.  Also, it is ironic how, in the tale of Noah’ s ark, they are in search of dry land,with the symbolism of the “dove” and how the boy and the man are travelling towards the sea and when they arrive it is “birdless”.

Why does McCarthy describe the Road Rat in such detail? (Characterisation pg 65)

McCarthy, by naming this character, the “roadrat” gives the reader the impression that he is similar to a scavenger and as a “rat” could carry diseases and perhaps is contaminated with the immoral behaviour that the man tries to keep the boy away from.  Describing the roadrat in such detail enables McCarthy to make the theme of “good versus evil” prominent, displaying that good people are rare to find in this world of violence, being the minority of society. This man is the epitome of this devastated society and as we see the man’s interpretation of the roadrat (it is his perspective) he isn’t regarded as a person, but more as a figure who is a threat to their survival.  Further shown within the reference to an animal, “like an animal inside a skull looking out of the eyeholes” it is implied that this character has lost all humanity and all that is left is a hunger and desperation to survive with a capability to kill (The cannibalism).  The vivid imagery of his “eyes collared in cups of grime and deeply sunk” when put with sentences such as “lean, wiry, rachitic”, “He wore a beard that had been cut square across the bottom with shears” and “Dressed in a pair of filthy blue coveralls and a black billcap” add to the impression that he has no identity and is wasting away into the road itself. Interestingly, the description of how he had “a tattoo of a bird on his neck done by someone with an illformed notion of their appearance” may relate back to the biblical story of Noah; the dove within this story being a source of guidance to Noah. These men are looking for guidance but fail to notice that throughout they are, themselves, their only possible hope to leading them to salvation.

Why is the Road Rats character so explicit whilst the man is so implicit?

McCarthy creates a divergence between the two characters of the roadrat and the man as both are subjectively his definition of the moral and the immoral within society (good and bad).  By the roadrat being explicit, it is implied that he represents that they aren’t educated and have a harsh background with the slang and the swearing, “I aint goin’ nowhere”, “chickenshit”.  This simple mind of the roadrat could link to their lack of knowledge which misleads them into crimes against human nature.  This character is both hostile and aggressive towards the man but in doing this, reveals his personality and actions for the man to use at his advantage. He doesn’t recognise his potential, not even seeing the man as a threat; he has to fight for his survival all the time and perhaps has been brought up purely surrounded in the morally corrupt society without any person to guide him (the boy to the man).   By contrast, the man implicitly takes on the role of the higher educated, which leads us to think that this is why the boy is able to trust him and he is understood to be the boys protection.  The man doesn’t use many words and his language is simple and instructive “No you can’t. If you look at him again.  I’ll shoot you” which imposes much more of threat.  The man creates a sense of mystery as he doesn’t present any identity, “I’m not anything” which McCarthy may use to portray that if he had an identity he would consider himself weaker and vulnerable; it is easier to be cold and emotionless in order to not be thought of as a target.

What do we learn about the man through his exchanges with the Road Rat? (Pg 68. Consider the Man's impressive medical knowledge, look at the description of the grabbing of the boy and the shooting of the Road Rat)

Until this scene, the reader knows little of the man apart from that he is protecting his son from the outside world and aiding him to survive.  Before, he was simply (using the previous idea) a character who didn’t want to appear with any identity, he was portrayed as intrinsic. Although the roadrat initially seems to be a threat to the boy and the man, there is a reassurance as we learn of the man’s impressive medical and military knowledge which essentially saves them.  The man indirectly forewarns the roadrat when talking of how the bullet will hit him if he shoots. The jargon lexis such as, “frontal lobe”, “colliculus”, “temporal gyrus” reinforces he is intelligent and there is also the underlying threat that he may have more knowledge that someone like the roadrat would never be able to understand or acquire. We learn that the man is truly willing to go to any extent to save his child which we see that when the boy is at knife point, “the man had already dropped to the ground” as though it is his instinct. The description of how he killed the man, “he swung with him and levelled the pistol and fired from a two-handed position balanced on both knees at a distance of six feet” is very accurate and exact, suggesting that he has done with before although as the reaction from his son is, “mute as a stone” we have an impression that he has never acted this way in front of him.  It is a quick death, “the man fell back instantly and lay with bloody bubbling from the whole in his forehead” which reiterates that the the man cannot think of this action as immoral as he was protecting and saving the one thing he loves the most.  

"A single round left in the revolver. You will not face the truth. You will not" Who is the man echoing here? How do you believe these words are uttered?

McCarthy uses this moment to invoke the past words of the woman who is the man’s ultimate weakness as she is the one who lures him away from the boy and towards death, “you will not face the truth. You will not” which links to “they are going to rape us and kill us and eat us and you won’t face it.” Throughout he repeats the words of her to himself, which is a reminder to the control that she holds over him and the fact that she has doubt in his chance with the boy of survival.  Repeating the haunting words of, “you will not”  he is talking to himself and in an aspect, tormenting his mind that this very act has caused there to only be “a single round left in the revolver” which provokes a guilt that he is allowing his son to stay alive in a dead world. The theme of insanity is prominent within this as the man is talking to himself and this makes the role of the boy all the more important as he is the one thing that is able to drive the man away from this.  The man is unable to accept that death is their own escape from this harsh reality and no matter how far he tries to run away, they are only getting closer.   The significance of only having one bullet is both positive and negative. This is the point of realisation for the man that although he has given himself, the reader and the boy (on the surface) more hope in their chance of survival, he has just secured a nastier death for both of them.  This also foreshadows the ending of the novel with how he is unable to kill his son and the word “single” relates to the fact that only one of them will survive.

Why don't the other men chase after the boy and the man following the shooting? (there are clues on pg 73-4).

McCarthy chooses to create an image upon the man and boys return to where the murder took place to reflect the horrific notion of cannibalism and desperation which will be revisited at other points during the novel (the cellar scene and the baby on the spit).  When the father and son find that everything has been “plundered” it reinforces the name that the father gave to the man ,” roadrat” and that they are more like animals and scavengers than humans.  The relief of tension that they didn’t chase after them is initially almost comforting to the reader however, this scene highlights a bigger threat as when they arrive “there was nothing there”. The inhumanity of their actions which the man finds, “Coming back he found the bones and the skin piled together with rocks over them. A pool of guts. He pushed at the bones with the toe of his shoe.  They looked to have been boiled. No pieces of clothing” echoes their pure sense of desperation, they even ate their friend who they had been walking with. This adds to the idea of none of them having a sense of identity or importance, it is a “survival of the fittest” which will inevitably lead to their own destruction and we learn that the roadrat was being sincere when he said that they eat “whatever we can find” reflecting their greedy nature.  The notion that they don't even cover up what they have done implies that they are not ashamed of their actions. Cannibalism is their normality; the horrific nature of the act echoes this new, harsh society that McCarthy portrays.

It is not until page 77 that the man finally cleans the "gore" and "dead mans brains" from the boys face. Why? (Be aware that in the intervening pages he has kept him warm with blankets, fed him etc yet not cleaned his face)

Within today’s society, if this event were to take place, the man would naturally and instantly clean the “gore” and “dead mans brains” from the boys face however McCarthy chooses to put this action after the man feeding the boy and looking after him.  Although on the surface this is extremely shocking to the reader as what was left of the child’s innocence is effectively ruined, it is revealed that he fails to clean his face as it is not a priority; survival is their only priority.  He provides the boys basic necessities by wrapping him in blankets and feeding for him which indicates that the father has evolved and his own priority is to ensure that the boy is safe.  Choosing not to wipe away the gore first highlights the role that the father feels he must take on as being cold and practical and this particularly plays on the fact that if the boy did have a motherly figure within his life, then this scene would be entirely different.  The father has to push through and not linger on past events which highlights the pure extremity of their situation; feeding his son and keeping him warm is more important than the fact that the boy is covered in another man’s remains. He cannot undo his actions, he is only able to continue with their journey to survive, and this is his instinct throughout the novel.