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: 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.