The Road and The Book of Eli: “The good guys”

The Road and The Book of Eli  have similar plot lines, both representing a post apocalyptic society devoid of humanity, with a main character(s) representing the spark of humanity, or “the breath of god”. In regards to The Road, The people they meet have mostly become scavengers and cannibals; humanity has degenerated into bestiality, and existence, “a grotesque survival of the fittest. Human beings are killed, gutted and eaten.” However, the father and his son are exceptions; they are presented to us as “the good guys” throughout the novel (Softing 710). In the Book of Eli Denzel Washingington plays what can only be called a badass warrior (or badass profit perhaps) who has been contacted by God, to take a copy of The New King James Bible West until he finds somewhere where it belongs, and can be safe. At the end of this film, Eli manages to arrive at his destination, a place of refuge from humanities achievements with preserved works of art, novels and other books.

With all of this being said, the question still remains, are they the “good guys” (referring now to both the Father and son and Eli). In today’s society killing out of self-defense is complicated by the law (and for good reason) however, in the post-apocalyptic word there is no law, just life and death and survival. With that being said, our father son duo, kill out of survival and self-defence, but is it that simple? The boy repeatedly asks his father whether they are still “the good guys”, which makes the novel probe into these ethical questions: what does it mean to be good? Can you kill and still be good? Does the end justify the means, or is the deed morally autonomous? (Softing 710).  The boy keeps asking, wanting and needing to be assured that they are still “the good guys” even though they do inhuman things. The father is always assuring the son, that this is the case, that they are still good, which the text reassures us by suggesting that “they do not eat people and they do not kill, except in self-defence” (Softing 710). In The Book of Eli, Eli kills out of self-defence, but mainly out of defense of the bible, in some instances one might argue he over steps this right, invading on aggressive killing. However, he feels like he has been chosen by his God to protect the last surviving bible on earth. Therefore, the movie begs similar questions.

Let us take a moment to look at the present day justification of self-defense. According to David Mapel’s article, “Moral Liability to Defensive Killing and Symmetrical Self-defense”, “Justified self-defense requires that a victim inflict only necessary and proportionate harm. As the necessity requirements suggest, self-defense is concerned with protecting human life and limb, not with punishment (198). Furthermore, this article also argues that self-defense is justified only if an attacker first violates the rights of others, making him lose his rights against attack. (207)

Focusing first on The Road, we can see that the boy has messianic qualities, he is constantly only able to see the good in people. Furthermore, the duo refuses to eat human flesh in order to remain pure, choosing starvation instead (128-129), this purity seems to aid their improbable survival against  the various situations in which they are prey. It is the existence of, “band roving cannibals and warriors that implies that this world rewards brute survival skills more (Kearney, 173-174). Take for example the scene in which the father has to shoot the cannibal who puts their lives in jeopardy, if we think back to when the father said, “I was appointed by God. I will kill anyone who touches you” (77) we know that the father is constantly on defense. If you consider that this cannibal was in fact an emanate threat, he had a weapon, and had every intention of kidnapping them for food, then regardless of whether or not he acted first, it could be justified that in such a situation, the father had to kill this man in order to save their own lives; and for the survival of humanity. Throughout this novel, the father only threatens to kill if it is a matter of self-defence and their own impending death, even with this, the boy still attempts to stop him always trying to see the good in people first. It could be argued that their actions are morally autonomous, as there are no laws to govern by, however killing and acting in what could be argued as unethical ways, are justified in any situation where their death is put into jeopardy, thereby justifying their actions.

In The Book of Eli however, regardless of whether or not his machete skills make him “badass” and provide action for the film, his actions when analyzed morally are sometimes unjust. Eli has been chosen by his god to protect the last surviving Bible on earth, which he takes as free reign to go about killing people, who stand in his way. With that being said, he doesn’t help the travelers being attacked by the biker gang even when he sees the innocent women who’s about to get raped (yes I know he’s blind but he’s very much aware) as he says to himself “stay on the path its not your concern, stay on the path it’s not your concern”. He is arbitrarily selective about the people he decides to save. Furthermore, he is an aggressive killer, though he does attempt to avoid conflict through his calm tones, attempting at first to resolve conflict non-violently, when he does have to act out of self-defense, there is something almost too enjoyable about the fast-effortless killing, this is especially obvious when Solara has to tell him to “please stop.”

 

However it can also be argued that as the movie progressed we saw Eli realize that he himself had lost humanity focusing so much on his mission that he failed to realize he was being selective. This seems to change when he saved Solara from the cannibals. When he met Solara and their relationship developed, he realized he could protect her and complete his mission; that protecting others and remaining humane, was just as important as delivering the book itself.

Solara: I didn’t think you’d ever give up the book, I thought it was too important to you
Eli: It was, I was carrying and reading it everyday, got so caught up in protecting it, I forgot to live by what I’d learnt from it
Solara: And what’s that?
Eli: To do more for others than you do for yourself

After this, we see how he changes from aggressive self-defense, to simply self-defense, which shows a justification of his killings and a return to humanity, in post-apocalyptic society.

Therefore, the post-apocalyptic world does not suggest that killing is now humane; it simply suggests that due to a dramatic change in society, brute survival skills are at times a necessary method of self-defense. Just like all things change over time, the justification of moral self-defense must also be altered for a post-apocalyptic world.

 This is a short mash-up of scenes which do a pretty good job of telling the story, however, watch the film!

Work Cited:

• Kearney, Kevin. “Cormac McCarthy’s The Road and the Frontier of the Human.”Literature Interpretation Theory 23.2 (2012): 160-178. Print.
• Mapel, David R. “Moral Liability to Defensive Killing and Symmetrical Self-Defense.” Journal of Political Philosophy 18.2 (2010): 198-217. Print.
• McCarthy, Cormac. The Road. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006. Print.
• Softing, Inger- Anne. “BEtween Dystopia and Utopia: The Post- Apocalyptic Discourse of Cormac McCarthy’s The Road.” English Studies 94.6 (2013): 704-713. Print.
• The Book of Eli. Dir. The Huges Brothers. Perf. Denzen Washington, Mila Kunis, Gary Oldman. Warner Home Video, 2010. DVD.

 

The Road: The Absence of God

In order to be in tradition with apocalyptic novels, the characters would have to raise heaven, “one of the staple elements in apocalyptic narrative is the heavenly world… the principle as in heaven so on earth” (Kearney 167), the novel contradicts this as there is no parallel existence, instead, the novel expresses no promise of Gods goodwill, and his very existence is constantly in doubt. In Revelation, we understand the situation to be similar, with forces arraying against the people of God, the temptation facing the community is to abandon all hope. The author (John) describes the apparent hopelessness of the situation of the readers in a world ruled by the powers of evil (Carroll 57) which is very much consistent with our plot. Furthermore, Revelation states that the city has no need for the sun or the moon, because God is its light, “It is both a contrast to the greatest political power of the day and the fulfillment of prophetic hopes for the time when the radiance of God will shine” (Isa 60:1-5). In this novel, there is no sun, and there is no moon, just dark and darkness. Once more expressing parallels while still being perplexing and obfuscate.

Our first real indication of religion occurs on page 16, where we are told, “a single grey flake sifting down. He caught it in his hand and watched it expire there like the last host of Christendom” (16). This example of Christianity is just as convoluted as the novel itself, as it can mean the presence of God in even the simplest natural element, or its expiry could be representative of the end of religious symbolism. From a Lacanian standpoint, where the “other” is the producer of symbolic meaning and often associated with God and father, we can see how the absence of the “other” or of a “godly book” is consistent with a lack of hope for transcendence. As readers, we are forced to gesture toward the “real”, an imminent world marked by human finitude (Kearney 169).

Therefore, it could be said their survival is due to a combination of “the breath of God” or the “fire” and the father’s keen survival skills. The man, possess the means to navigate through difficult situations, with a strong sense of danger even before it has crept upon them. We understand this to be a consistent trait through the section of the novel beginning with the scene in which he fills the bathtub with water at the beginning of the power outage. His intuition leads him to act in such as way to protect his family from struggle of searching for resources. Critics have looked at this in a few different ways, as though religion alone is not enough of a guide to keep these two alive, or as if it is his belief in God that is giving him the power to react successfully in dangerous situations and lastly, that the “fire” inside his son makes him a “god-like figure” guiding them safely through the novel, and acting always as a moral compass. This idea is backed up by a series of quotes, ” I was appointed by God. I will kill anyone who touches you. Do you understand?” (77) Here, the father is both expressing his connection with God as a sort of Shepard watching over the boy and admitting to the necessity of the boys survival.  The sons eventual understanding of this is then expressed on page 259, where the conversation states:

“you’re not the one who has to worry about everything.
The boy said something but he couldn’t understand him. What? he said.
He looked up, his wet and grimy face. Yes I am, he said.
I am the one.”

If this was the case and the son was “carrying gods breath” and representing a god like figure, as McCarthy and the father would lead us to believe, then there would in fact be “heaven on earth” after all. However, as per always with McCarthy we are presented with counter-beliefs. This is a clip from the movie, where the boy begs the father to help the elderly man, as per his insistence on kindness and trust in human beings, however, this man “Ely” ( coincidence? I think not) expresses his concern for the young boy being a “god-like” figure.

Nevertheless somehow, these characters have persevered through illness, near starvation, and multiple threats from groups of cannibals. Somehow, with the “spark of God” or the “fire” they are carrying- especially the boy, who is carrying the fire inside himself- they are guided away from harm. His father tells him: “It’s inside you. It was always there. I can see it” (298). And it could well be that the father is right and that this is how we are meant to see these two remarkable characters; as people chosen by God to carry the light on through the darkness, to preserve humanity within themselves as exemplars of human existence, and that this is the reason why they seem predestined to avoid moral degeneration (Shorting 711).

Work Cited:

• Kearney, Kevin. “Cormac McCarthy’s The Road and the Frontier of the Human.”Literature Interpretation Theory 23.2 (2012): 160-178. Print.
• McCarthy, Cormac. The Road. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006. Print.
• Carroll, John T. “Revelation 4:1-11.” Interpretation: A Journal of Bible & Theology 63.1 (2009): 56-8. Print.

The Road: Ecological Predictions

Religion is a predominate theme in McCarthy’s The Road, the novel insists on a godless universe which is indifferent to the values and stories told by the man. The novel seems to suggest a fear of the finite over the belief in a heavenly transcendence as depicted through a complete ecological and societal downfall (Kearney 163). More so, much of the novel expresses the tension between the boy and his “fire” and the immanently mortal world which appears to lead towards a frightening future devoid of humanity.

In an article titled, “The Pursuit of the Apocalypse” by Jean-Francois Mouhot, he discusses the relationship between Christian apocalyptic literature and ecological predictions of the end of the world.  According to the Bible, as the end of times approaches:

 …“The waters will turn, bitter; ocean-dwelling creatures will die and ‘on the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. The sun, the moon and the stars will be obscured and then the sun will heat up and burn mankind.”

Therefore it is not a stretch to interpret these passages as a presage of actual environmental problem; however there is an absence of ecological themes in Christian apocalyptic literature since 1945 (Mouhot).  McCarthy’s novel seems to present the idea that mankind are the makers of the own destruction through some unknown destruction of the ecosystem. The ecosystem is portrayed through vivid depictions of dead landscapes throughout the novel, “a long drive with dead grass. Dead ivy… dead trees. Cold and silent” (117). This focus on the destruction of the ecosystem and a post-apocalyptic novel could be McCarthy’s way of bringing the attention back to the need for humans to once more focus on the protection of the ecosystem, which we all know human survival to be depend on, but we still allow ourselves to neglect. This is further implied through McCarthy’s poetic requiem at the end of the novel:

“Once there were brook trout in the mountains. You could see them standing in the amber current where the white edges of their fins wimpled softly in the flow. They smelled of moss in your hand. Polished and muscular and torsional. On their backs were vermiculite patterns that were maps of a world becoming. Maps and mazes. Of a thing which could not be put back. Not be made right again. In the deep glens where they lived all things were older than man and they hummed of mystery” (287).

By choosing to end the novel with this requiem, we see McCarthy begging us to see the beauty in the ecosystem, to look upon simple brook trout and see the maps of the future. The use of the word, “wimpled” which is often used to describe a nuns a headdress, and the word “vermiculite” implying light,  shows readers towards the belief that God has his hand in everything. We can see McCarthy begging us to see the future of humanity through our own ecosystem. Now that we have hypothesized that McCarthy’s novel is bringing back awareness to the traditional and biblical reference of apocalypse as a destruction of our ecosystems. We must look at whether or not the characters successfully bring heaven onto earth as a means of restoring humanity.

 

Work Cited:

• Kearney, Kevin. “Cormac McCarthy’s The Road and the Frontier of the Human.”Literature Interpretation Theory 23.2 (2012): 160-178. Print.
• McCarthy, Cormac. The Road. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006. Print.
• Mouhot, Jean-François. “In Pursuit of the Apocalypse.” History Today 62.8 (2012): 6-7. Print.

The Road: Frontier of the Human

The Road is a dystopia, it is, the story of a father and son traveling through a post-apocalyptic world, destroyed by the unknown. In a dystopia, humanity is often threatened, and Cormac McCarthy spares no details to prove that here. In this novel, human beings are up against something much larger than themselves, nothing with which the science or technology we have come to rely on can remedy; instead, it is something that in a moment was capable of causing a total degeneration of humanity (Softing 708).  In an Interview McCarthy said, “Good literature deals with issues of life and death and literature that does not deal with these huge issues, seem strange” (Softing 705). There is no doubt, that life and death are the central theme in this novel as well, The Road gestures towards the idea of a “world without us” it is both the idea of a re-birth, and of eventual extinction, thus resulting in its obfuscation. The Road depicts cities populated by rocks and bones after a collapse so destructive the future of life itself is almost completely wiped. Critic Kevin Kearney writes, “I argue that the ‘‘real’’ cause of the apocalypse exists as a hole in the text that parallels a potential hole in human existence: the complete absence of human futurity and the absence of life itself” (161). Focusing mainly on the idea of human futurity, or simply the future of humanity we can see how The Road is filled with anxieties regarding the regeneration of human kind and specifically humanity itself. On a similar note, Inger-Ann Softing writes, “the dead land is like a nihilist agent seeking to destroy human kind” (708). It can be said the post-apocalyptic challenges are far greater than the first settlers who pushed the frontier westwards, as these characters are now human frontiers pushing humanity. The duo spends this novel attempting to retain and continue ideals and ethics which appear to be no more than fading memories. Thus, leading to one of the novels major themes- memory, “the names of things slowly following those things into oblivion. Colors. The names of birds. Things to eat. Finally the names of things one believed to be true” (93). At one point, the boy questions his father by saying, “you forget some things don’t you?” to which he replies, “yes. You forget what you want to remember and you remember what you want to forget” (12). By beginning the novel with this statement, McCarthy is suggesting that to forget, is to lose humanity, that when that happens humanity is also a thing of the past and then it would be as if the past never was (Softing, 708). When we combine these ideas, we see how The Road is about the idea of human futurity being subject to the characters ability to retain memories and thereby continue, and promote, humanity. This is done through the act of, “carrying the fire” (which I believe to be first introduced to us on page 83). The need to resist annihilating and to pass on life is presented through the “fire”, a mysterious entity which exists within the man and his son. This “fire” can has been viewed in multiple ways, it can signify the spark of civilization, the promise of regeneration, or the life breath of god (Kearney 162). Despite the fall of the world surrounding them and the death to seemingly every living creature, this “fire” is kept safe within the boy, akin to his soul. It is the guarantee of the fire, as repeated throughout the novel (pages 83,129,216, 278 and 283), that weaves this novels story; a tale of promise in a world marked by destruction and death, with nearly no hope of passing the fire. However, his father’s dying words remain, “it’s inside you. It was always there. I can see it” (279). Throughout this novel, the father has carried a gun containing two bullets, suggestive of the act of killing both he and his son should the need ever arise, furthermore he plagues the novel with questions of whether or not he would be capable of killing his son if he was put in such a position, “Could you crush that beloved skull with a rock? Is there such a being within you of which you know nothing?” (120). By changing the ending from a murder-suicide to a generally peaceful death, and a hopeful remark, we actually are able to see what could be considered a “happy ending”. Had the father used his bullet on his son, it would have been consistent with being symbolic for the end of humanity (Softing 7012). However, by not killing him, the boy is able to frontier the future. In the novel, he does so when introduced to the man in the yellow ski jacket (yellow… fire… coincidence? I think not!) who has followed them in an attempt to bring them to their shelter, when the boy asks this man, “are you carrying the fire” (283) and the man responds with yes I am, the boy has essentially been successful in developing a collective group of “good guys”. In the film, by focusing on the boy’s awe at the site of a bug, we see a suggestion of futurity and hope, at the possibility of other life forms, the boys futurity and the hope of a rise of humanity as well. (Kearney 172). This is a clip from the end of the film, I was hoping to find one which showed the bug, however this will have to do. Pardon the totally inappropriate music transition and if you are looking for a laugh take a peek at the comments.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NUlkdtQY_I

Work Cited

• Kearney, Kevin. “Cormac McCarthy’s The Road and the Frontier of the Human.”Literature Interpretation Theory 23.2 (2012): 160-178. Print.
• McCarthy, Cormac. The Road. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006. Print.
• Softing, Inger- Anne. “Between Dystopia and Utopia: The Post- Apocalyptic Discourse of Cormac McCarthy’s The Road.” English Studies 94.6 (2013): 704-713. Print.

Introduction

Through out this blog I wish discuss the idea of the loss of humanity. Working my way through a series of novels and films, I will be touching on ideas such as, the reseasons for loss of humanity, looking at the apocalypse as a cause of loss of humanity, religion and humanity, the justification of killing as an act of humanity, what zombies are metaphorically representing, different types of death and what it means to be dead, and lastly, the reversal, bringing back humanity to those who have lost it.  In doing so I will be asking, and answering (hopefully) related questions such as:

• What is “death”?
• What does it mean to be “alive”?
• Can someone who is alive be considered dead?
  • Can someone be alive and be considered a zombie?
  • Do you have to be dead to be a zombie?
  • Is there any reversion once you’ve become a zombie?
• Are there different kinds of deaths?
• Can (or when) is it okay to kill, can this be done humanely?
• Are there different types of zombies?

THERE ARE SO MANY QUESTIONS! When I think of this topic I feel like a curious 4 year old continually asking “why?” “why?” “why?” Therefore, the idea is that by the end of this, we will have answered some of these and hopefully not have even more questions!

Though many of these may seem easily answerable, these topics are also sensitive to individual opinion.  However, I will lead with as much knowledge as I have and hopefully my readers can appreciate my position, and of course, be free to share their own.

For starters there are many types of zombies (voodoo, viral, sci-fi etc.) and the most generic zombie definition that relates to all types of zombies is: A living being stripped of its will, humanity and normal behavior by outside forces, either supernatural or mundane.

I like the exclusion of the word “death” and I love the idea of humanity, meaning that the zombie can be merely a metaphor for any human being stripped of its humanity. The zombie is all about the corruption or loss of humanity, the spark of humanity whether soul or mind is gone. This concept is interesting, as we will see whilst reading The Road that there are no zombies such as those seen in The Walking Dead.  However, some of these people have lost their spark of humanity and resorted to disturbing behaviors such as cannibalism; hence leading to the phrase “carrying the fire”- this duo is carrying with them humanity.

When we think of death, we often think of those around us who have passed away however, there are in fact different types of death, such as a Social death – people who are not accepted as fully human by wider society are imprisoned by strategic essentialism, this social death kills off a part of you. These people have also lost everything that they once new and understood leaving them confused and lost in world that has resorted to survival of the fittest.

Now that we  understand a little better where this blog is going. Looking at The Road by Cormac McCarthy and The Walking Dead by Robert Kirkman, along with secondary sources such as the movies The Book of Eli and Warm Bodies for support and also theorist and journals of a large variety we will dig into what it takes to be dead and to be a zombie.