Ambiguity In The Road

Throughout the haunting wasteland of post-apocalyptic America, among the ravaged landscape with its creedless pillagers and marauders, a father and his young son struggle to survive a world without pity or morality. McCarthy’s two chosen characters, the father and his son, remain nameless, vague figures throughout the entirety of the novel. The role that ambiguity plays in McCarthy’s The Road is paramount: ambiguity allows for the reader to follow the story with relatively impersonal eyes. The effect is twofold, as the ambiguous nature of interactions between characters, their locations, and the sudden, disconcerting shifts in time and perspective create a non-physical landscape which mirrors the thematic focus of the book. Uncertainty, McCarthy

Leaving out almost any identifying landmarks, it becomes clear that the world no longer exists as it once did—the rules are different. The bleak settings within The Road impresses upon a reader that the father and son are alone in their task of “carrying the fire.” The older man they meet on the road, Ely, expresses that “its better to be alone” because “things will be better when everybodys gone” (172). Death walks the barren landscape now: in the form of marauders, roadagents, cannibals, and those who only know how to kill and rape and eat. “Barren, silent, godless,” the colorless landscape with its gray horizons only accentuates the loss of morality and the ambiguity of location (4). As with the lack of characters possessing names, McCarthy utilizes ambiguity to manufacture places that could be almost anywhere in America, with events that could be happening at almost any time. The reader is never told specifically where the father and boy are, with the closest reference to a specific location being Rock City. Readers are only informed that they are heading south, to the ocean and the possibility of other good guys. The effect leaves room for the reader to decide for themselves the exact nature of each location; by pulling knowledge from their own head instead of relying completely on an

The father and the boy do believe in some kind of morality, often referred to as “carrying the fire.” What makes this metaphoric phrase morally ambiguous is that it is not ever made clear that either father or son actually believe that there is anything to preserve or that their actions in such a world are more than futile. It is possible, however, to discern a code by which the father has raised his son to live by, a “good guy” code of sorts. The good guys do not eat people, they do not lie or steal, they keep their promises, and they try to help people; most importantly, the good guys never give up. This code keeps the two from spiralling into the abyss. In a world which seems to have abandoned morality altogether, the father struggles to follow theses rules and impress their importance upon his child. Others in McCarthy’s fictional universe do not share this perspective. The apocalyptic world was “soon to be largely populated by men who would eat your children in front of your eyes” (181). Though his actions may be justifiable in terms of providing and protecting his child, the father is guilty of moral ambiguity more than any other titular character. Even as the boy tries to follow the code by helping others, the father almost always refuses, on the grounds of their assured survival. Whether this makes him selfish or just