Talk:The Road/Archive 1

message: I would move this to the apocalyptic fiction category, but I don't know how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.9.44.203 (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  apocalyptic fiction category 

message: This page spoils a very recently published novel -- this is not The Grapes of Wrath we're talking about here -- so for the time being at least it should contain spoiler warnings.Larry Dunn 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I came to this page hoping for background information and accidentally learnt of a major plot twist. Perhaps it was my fault for being nosy, but I do think spolier tags are justified! --121.45.115.9 04:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Many people would agree, but first, this is no longer a recently published novel, and second, the "spoilers" come in a section clearly marked "plot summary". Plot summaries are expected to include the plot points. You may wish to check out WP:SPOILER.--Cúchullain t/c 07:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, if you're reading a section called "plot summary" I think it's fairly safe to assume there are spoilers.  TastyCakes (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Spoilers

message: Why on earth is Isaac the best biblical parallel to the father-son relationship in The Road?  It occurs to me that Isaac, the son that Abraham was willing to sacrifice out of piety, is about as far from the son in The Road as any human being can be.  The father gives all (including his life) to keep the boy alive.  It's one of the things so uncharacteristically touching about this McCarthy novel.  Thoughts?Larry Dunn 21:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. Larry Dunn 21:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Isaac?

message: I've added a section pointing out the criticism of the writing style used in the book as well as a rebuttal to said criticism. I thought that since it's an important aspect of the book that it should be noted. Hopefully it sounds neutral.
Magicflyinlemur 22:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm reverting this, you need to cite criticisms on both sides, reading it now it is full of Weasel Words. LilDice 22:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Magicinflyinlemur, you need to cite them, you just can't say, some people say this, or some people say that. You need to link to a published criticism. I'm not against criticism, but the criticism needs to be verified. See WP:Verifiability. LilDice 03:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I know I'll set off the bigots again, but bluntly: this is what happens when a scientifically-illiterate writer writes a science fiction novel. He doesn't know or care about the idiocies in the set-up; it's all about the mood and the horrible set-pieces and the emotional burden of the father-and-son story. Mundane reviewers who also aren't bright enough to understand the impossibility of what is described were so moved by the emotion that they just ignore that stuff. No editor of even the worst science fiction publishing imprint would have bought this thing because of the idiocies involved. --Orange Mike 13:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is not for discussion of the novel's merits. However, I'll bite anyway. I think it's silly to say McCarthy doesn't care or idiocies set up. He's always been known to do quite a bit of research on his novels, particularly his Western novels. What he wasn't prepared to deal with was rabid fan-boys. As for this thing not being published by the worst science fiction publisher, who cares. It's obviously not a traditional science fiction novel and McCarthy is still the best living American writer, like it or not. Lil' Dice (yeah, I said it!) - talk 01:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, McCarthy must be the best living American writer... or, it could be that he omits punctuation, explanation of the cataclysm, explanation of how there's some living people and yet no ants or bugs or plants or fish (all of which are more robust than homo-sapiens!), explanation of how for the first time in history in the presence of adversity people revert to mass cannibalism and a whole slew of other things simply because he wanted to write a book about a man and his son in a world of horrible adversity in which they can only rely on each other; which is promptly disproved as soon as dad dies. I guess the important lesson in this book is that the distrusting father's continuous fear (and attempted murder) of everyone else in the world resulted in a life of misery and torture for his son that was eradicated as soon as he died and got out of the way. The problem is for those of us who actually think about sciences such as physics and biology, the glaring omissions and unresolved fallacies mount and mount throughout the book until it's so distracting we can barely concentrate enough to decipher the laborious, unaccredited, unaddressed, unpunctuated dialog. But by all means, let's delete the criticism section, because it's clearly biased against the emperor, who is clearly wearing the most amazing invisible clothes I've ever seen in my life. His "Crossing" books were interesting though, and I thought the dialog in them was supposed to be period/setting specific. I guess it's just laziness after all. Krep 02:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None of these criticisms are even remotely valid. The novel's event was NOT a nuclear war. It was the Eschaton. The Eschaton explains everything.Slagathor (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to make two points about this argument.  1) Orangemike suggests that the novel is flawed because the author clearly has no knowledge about science.  This is flawed on several accounts, the first being that as we are given no concrete description of the event causing the situation of the novel, it is difficult to say that the science on this is flawed (this is perhaps due--as Slagathor points out--to the unnecessary assumption that the cataclysm involved is nuclear in nature).  Secondly, McCarthy is known to frequent science conferences, is friends with many scientists, and regularly proofreads their work.  So, he probably knows something about science, enough at least to know his limitations and avoid giving a the cataclysm and resulting effects the sort of insultingly faux-scientific explanations we see in much (though certainly not all) science fiction.  Finally, to read this work for concrete scientific details about the cataclysm seems to defeat the purpose of reading the novel, it seems to fail to see the cataclysm as the mcguffin it is, it sees the cataclysm as the point rather than the setup to the point.  2)  Slagathor contends that the cataclysm is the Eschaton, backing up this assertion with the fact that the book makes reference to Revelations.  I may be misunderstanding Slagathor's point, and if so I apologize, but this supposition seems to suffer from its own set of problems.  The primary problem is that simply because a reference to the bible is made, does not mean that the events of the novel must or even should be interepreted Biblically (this seems to be a common problem in McCarthy criticism).  For instance, using the example of Cat's Cradle that Slagathor brings up, we can see a work that yes does reference the Bible, but does so in order to satirize it (as well as a variety of other ideas).  That is, if one is writing a "post-apocalyptic" story, parallels will naturally be made to the most influential model of apocalyptic though in Western cultture.  The point being that there are many different forms of apocalyptic imagination in the early 21st century--nuclear, religious, pestilential, biological, technological, supernatural, etc.  The novel does not seem willing to commit to any of these. Likewise, his previous books frequently reference the Bible, and yet these references seem to do very little, by which I mean that the novels do not commit to a Biblical vision, but instead seem to present these references in an agnostic context along with the various other means by which humans create meaning--their myths, laws, social systems, etc.  So, if we say that the cataclysm is the Eschaton, this presents a problem with the final passage of the novel, in which the child is being cared for by a religious woman, whose views can at best be described as trite, cliche, even childish attempts at ascribing meaning to the meaningless.  If we read this as critical of religion, then we must then read the interpretation of the event as eschaton as itself unsatisfactory, as it merely reiterates the pat interpretation of events made by this character.  Anyway, just my two cents.  (Oh, andd I'm not suggesting any of this should be added to the article, that would be original research; I'm just being argumentative)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.81.250.130 (talk) 01:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticisms

message: Very strange, anyway I'll start adding to this article as well as the main McCarthy article.....so weird. LilDice 02:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WTF Oprah's Book Club

message: There is no indication that they pass through Gatlinburg, Tennessee, though the article currently claims this.  There are several things here that are not cited or established as fact.  The route is nebulous.  Yes, it seems to run through Tennessee and into the Carolinas (one or both) generally, but we shouldn't be any more specific than the text.  Our speculation should be left out.  Reliable secondary sources should be cited when they become available. This is not the place for refuting book reviews. Josh a brewer 21:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe there's a mention of the United States in the book, in the context that the states don't exist any more and that they certainly are no longer united. 173.71.190.118 (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geography 

message: Someone took something out of the info template and the book cover is looking pretty freaky now.  Can someone fix?  Larry Dunn 21:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't look "freaky" on my end.  I edited the original version of the image because it had unnecessary whitespace surrounding it and therefore was not appearing correctly (at full size) in the infobox.  I copied the original licensing info and description from the previous version, as well, so there shouldn't be any problem on that end.  Perhaps you merely need to dump your cache.  María (habla conmigo) 23:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book Image 

message: I've been hearing a lot of anecdotal statements of the book being a controversial addition to the Oprah Book Club because it's so unlike the types of books usually nominated for the club ... and so anti-Oprah demographic. Has there been any officially reported "backlash" or controversy over the decision? The article includes a statement from a professor who was surprised to see it nominated, but what about reports of grandmothers taking the book back to the store and demanding refunds (one of the anecdotal stories I've heard?). Obviously anything in the article needs to be sourced so we can't just add this sort of thing outright. Personally I think the book is great, but its placement on Oprah's list as as unexpected as if she were to have placed Naked Lunch on there or something. 68.146.8.46 12:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't be terribly surprised if there was some objection or surprise from Oprah viewers. But like you say, unless there are reliable sources about it, we can't include it. Also notice that the McCarthy scholar was surprised not that Oprah picked the book, but that McCarthy was giving a TV interview after all these decades, and that he's giving it to Oprah. And I think it's also important to note not all Oprah's book selections are fluff; especially in recent years the books tend to be "high literature", including stuff by William Faulkner, Toni Morrison, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, and John Steinbeck.--Cúchullain t/c 21:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Any Oprah backlash?

message: Would kill the article to say nuclear winter, meteor impact, or some other catastrophic event. Naming one does privilege the interpretation, and needlessly so.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.136.124.67 (talk) 13:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently this would be a shocking display of bias and opinion which would ruin the whole article.  It would also overlook the apparently legitimate views of religious nutcases.  I agree with you.  219.90.244.87 (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Make it less didactic

message: Why is there put so much focus on the fact that it was selected by some book club as their book of the month? No one outside of the US knows or cares about this book club.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.170.93 (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oprah's Book Club is highly notable in this circumstance, so mentioning it in this article isn't just mere publicity for the book club or Oprah herself.  That it was a selection for the book club is directly correlated to the popularity of the novel, its high number of sales, and perhaps even its choice for the Pulitzer, as has been suggested by various news sources.  I've restored what has been deleted. María (críticame) 16:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oprah's Book Club - worthy of mention? 

message: I am very inclined toward reverting the edit the added a mention
:to the Eschaton of Christian belief (as evidenced through the allusion to Book of Revelation 1:17 on p. 52, and the appearance of the Prophet Elijah on p.161-175)
Actually, in the novel, "1:17" is the time at which clocks stopped, and "Elijah" is just an old traveller the main characters meet on the road, which gives his name as Ely.
Fascinating and convincing as this interpretation might be, it remains POV unless source somehow. Has some critic, or McCarthy himself, pointed out that "1.17" is to be read as a Revelation allusion etc.?
(Minor point: how do we cite page numbers? which edition is this? on mine, the Picador paperback one, the pages are respectively 54 and 171-185.) Goochelaar (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's very common to allude to biblical verses in a roundabout way instead of being direct. EG in the film Magnolia, a reference to Exodus is carried on hotel room numbers, the time shown on clocks and so on. In Vonegut's Cat's Cradle, likewise, specific allusions to biblical passages are made by simply stating a number (in the Vonnegut case, 43 to refer to a psalm). It's not out of the ordinary. Revelation 1:17 is a cool allusion.Slagathor (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Citing page numbers requires that either the same edition is used throughout the article, or at least that the edition is given in the footnote. This, however, is original research; unless some source can be found discussing it, it needs to stay out.--Cúchullain t/c 17:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Easy enough to argue that everything has come to an end. For example, the Father even states that he has no idea what month it is, although he suspects that it's October. Eschatology, by the way, is not just the study of the end itself. As the Catholic Encyclopedia states, Eschatology is: "That branch of systematic theology which deals with the doctrines of the last things (ta eschata)."  The Road presents a pretty consistent approach to the field. As far as research goes, it doesn't matter how many people have had a simultaneous idea, it only matters who publishes it first.Slagathor (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This qualifies as original research. I wouldn't be surprised if McCarthy indended the Revelation and Elijah references, but it can't be stated as if it's obvious, and it must have a reliable source if it is to be included.--Cúchullain t/c 02:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right about the original research criticism. I've taken steps to rectify that and have submitted an article to The Explicator. WIth any luck, they'll accept it, and then I'll be able to cite myself. That's just too funny, isn't it?Slagathor (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great.  Best of luck with the publication.  If it is accepted, then it certainly belongs in the article.  Which passage will you explicate?  Josh a brewer (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eschaton? 

message: So I was noticing that throughout the book, almost all of the contractions are missing their apostrophes (i.e. dont, cant, etc.), and I was wondering why this was. Has anyone heard any reasoning behind this? Just curious. -Grahamdubya (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This style is generally used by writers who feel that the apostrophe is unnecessary in terms of understanding the text, and that such "excess" punctuation can clutter the page and impact readability, or focus attention on the text rather than the image being created. It's probably a good complement to the frequent starkness of McCarthy imagery. --72.150.58.61 (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. I've never heard of this before, but that sounds pretty reasonable. What kind of other works do this? Is there a page for the technique that could be mentioned/linked to in the article? -Grahamdubya (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

text: He says Im instead of I'm a couple of times, though I'm too lazy to find an example now. 64.252.35.132 (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The thought occurred to me that it's the first step toward the language of Russell Hoban's Riddley Walker. 173.71.190.118 (talk) 13:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Goes to show that good writing is about more than prescriptive punctuation rules. Plenty of great writers have done similar, not least of all James Joyce and William Faulkner.--Cúchullain t/c 18:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Punctuation

message: Just out of curiosity, but why is the importance of this book rated "high"? I mean, sure, it got a prize, but does that make it so important? 24.123.3.106 (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By a prize you mean the Pulitzer, that's not like a trophy from your little league coach, seriously. In the scheme of novels, I'd say it's pretty important. --IvoShandor (talk) 08:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

text: A large number of thinkers -- critics, literary figures, and readers -- consider it highly important. People even cite it for political causes, following an environmentalist interpretation I consider utterly daft, but showing significance nonetheless. Estemi (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Read the section up at the top under "Genre"; according to those who watch this article, this is not a science-fiction novel but a work of litrachoor and thus is not eligible for the Hugos (which of course are restricted to frivolous works about talking squids in space). --Orange Mike  |  Talk 18:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You consider Earth Abides by George R. Stewart, A Canticle for Leibowitz by Walter M Miller (a Hugo winner by the way), The Long Tomorrow by Leigh Brackett , and many other highly sophisticated and intelligent science fiction post-apocalyptic novels associated with talking squids in space?!--aajacksoniv (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I should have read your comment more carefully and followed the hyperlink! Sorry--aajacksoniv (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

text: On a more serious note: the science fiction readers who nominate and vote for the Hugos did not consider this a very good novel, and it got a fairly small number of nominations. The style; the lack of information as to the nature of the disaster; the attitude of all the characters; the scientific, economic and sociological implausibilities: none of these is calculated to endear you with genre readership. That may say as much about the subset of SF readers who vote on Hugos (especially Best Novel Hugos) as it does about this particular SF novel: remember that even at the heyday of the New Wave movement in SF, New Wave works seldom won Hugos; the only novel winner that I'd class as New-Wavish was Stand on Zanzibar. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 15:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not Science Fiction because the publishers didn't wan't to market it as Science Fiction so why would they have submitted it to win any Sci-Fi awards like the Hugo. There's still a huge stigma on labeling something as Sci-Fi in terms of publishing and marketing. (Even though, yes, the book is - among other genres - Sci-Fi).24.190.34.219 (talk) 06:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the importance high? 

message: Books that are similiar to The Road are Nevil Shutes "On the Beach".  Set in Australia, the world is dying due to radiation poisoning following nuclear bombs.  The final families deal with how they are dying.  Recommended reading.  Currently Terry Brooks "Armageddon's Children" series also dealing with post-apocaleptic world.1jagfan (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Books 

message: McCarthy explicitly mentions 'communes' in the novel several times, especially the encounter with the one handed man who steals their cart.
I wonder what this means? Some could be cannibal communes , tho those gangs in the novel seem to sort of nomadic or descended into only feral owners of 'food' prisons.
One wonders if McCarthy means there are some 'civilized' communes? 
I don't know if one could cultivate Fungi and Root tubers in such an environment? 
John Christopher has this being done in his post-apocalyptic novel  The Death Of Grass (aka No Blade Of Grass)--aajacksoniv (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Communes? 

message: I'm removing the lines "This raises the question of whether maintaining such seemingly pointless nobility in such a situation, while admirable, is ultimately suicidal, at its core a failure to adapt to a changed environment." (a comment on the man and boy's belief in the survival of some form of Ethics in the post-Apocaliptic world.) 
These words are clearly meant to favor a specific point of view, and one quite opposed to the view in the book itself, at that. They do not belong in the Plot Summary section anyways.
--85.136.79.149 (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased comment

message: Hi.
It's incredible that, each time I put this link to a great article about The Road, someone systematically erase it, with false arguments.
Let me tell you that this is an excellent critic, maybe one on the best that I've read so far AND it brings to English and American readers a French point of view IN ENGLISH !
Regards.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.198.238.205 (talk) 07:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't generally accept links to blog posts. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 15:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: About Juan Asensio's review of ''The Road''

message: The book sports some similarities with another one written in 1943 by René Barjavel, titled Ravage Choronzon (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Stephen King Long March. Neville Shute On the Beach.ROxBo (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What does this conversation have to do with improving the article? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similarities 

message: Is he five? Ten? Fifteen?
I truly have no idea. 
Can some indication be added to the article please? Only needs an approximation.
HiLo48 (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: His age is not given. However, we know that his mother's pregnancy was before the disaster, and the book begins about 10 years after it took place. We can infer that he is about 9.Mk5384 (talk) 13:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you HiLo48 (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  How old is the boy? 

message: At the very end of the credits it says that the movie was also shot in Mount Saint Helens, Washington. Quote from the credits of the DVD "Shot on location in PENNSYLVANIA, OREGON, NEW ORLEANS and MOUNT ST. HELENS"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.24.93 (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct Locations for the Movie 

message: This is a post-apocalyptic novel, according to the corresponding article. Post-apocalyptic fiction is a sub-genre of science fiction, wheather the reason for the apocalypse is defined or not (as in this case).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.55.21.138 (talk) 10:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Road:Post-Apocalyptic fiction 

message: There is no evidence that Oprah Winfrey herself actually read the book cover-to-cover. Suggest remove the reference until sufficient evidence is provided. --71.245.164.83 (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No claim is made that she read the book "cover-to-cover," as you put it.  Though, I doubt she could interview the author unless she had done so.  Therefore, I see no reason to remove the information. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 04:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviews 

message: I have deleted the statement that the presence of the little girl at the end of the book implies a future for the human race. Mr. McCarthy throughout the entire book, explains that there is no future for the human race; that the world is dying. The fact that there is a young girl who could procreate with the young boy does nothing to change this. Pregnant women and infants are encountered throughout the book. Repopulation is not the issue. The issue is that there is no food.Mk5384 (talk) 07:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Whilst it is never mentioned specifically, the world is clearly in nuclear winter.Mk5384 (talk) 13:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is zero evidence for that. Firstly the ambiguity of the catastrophe is an element of the story. Secondly there are things described in the book that rule it out, such as ships tossed up into the landscape, and the survival of humans but not a number of animals considerably less susceptible to radiation poisoning.Jenston (talk) 02:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ships can be tossed by storms etc. (remember New Orleans), but I have to agree that the absence of *any* plant or animal life would contradict the notion that there has been a nuclear war. 130.89.165.44 (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Jesus H. Christ. It's post Catholic apocalypse left behind Tribulation fiction. All of the stuff from the destroyed ships to the absence of grass is all from the stupid book of stupid revelations.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.219.175.152 (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Sorry for the nitpicking, but mushrooms are not "vegetation", since this term generally describes plants. Goochelaar (talk) 08:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  future of human race 

message: Can we please restrict editing privileges to users who are logged in? Certain IP addresses keep vandalizing this article and such a restriction would be a huge help.
FruitSalad4225 (talk) 19:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The vandalism is not frequent or heavy enough to justify a call for semi-protection. We do want to encourage editing by anybody willing to abide by our rules. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Various clues in the book suggest it takes place in Europe, not the US. For instance it is mentioned the man was in the piedmont at one point. And the boat is Spanish in origin.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.83.248.124 (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI: Piedmont_(United_States) ElectricValkyrie (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: About page 230(?), "interstates" (highways) are mentioned, suggesting the US. The boat being Spanish is inconclusive. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Very early on (page 21 in my edition) they pass a barn with "SEE ROCK CITY" painted on it, which means they are in the southeastern United States. 67.176.61.216 (talk) 08:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily; those signs used to be scattered all over the rural U.S., although admittedly they were far more common in the S.E. U.S. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location 

message: Does this really belong here? It smacks of riding a political hobby horse.  Who made George Monbiot the spokesperson for all the environmentalists in the world? Why does his opinion, in this particular instance, matter?  It's a work of fiction about a cataclysm of unknown origin.  If Monbiot wants to get a little extra publicity for his views by dovetailing on a successful book, he's more than welcome to it.  That doesn't make his view in any way relevant to this article. I like the book and movie.  I appreciate the articles of Monboit I have read. This is an open door to mischief.  Jtgelt (talk) 05:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Environmentalist Response=

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on The Road. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070205013337/http://www.bookcritics.org:80/?go=finalists to http://www.bookcritics.org/?go=finalists
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I notice that not a single mention is made of McCarthy's queer writing style. McCarthy doesn't follow grammar rules of English at all; he eschews as much punctuation as possible, even occasionally at the expense of clarity. This seems to me to be something worth noting; I only mention it here instead of just including it in the article because I'm slightly afraid that I've missed something. The complete lack of any sort of mention at all is worrying.--Kierkkadon (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Our article on the author doesn't go into his style either.  Probably should be covered. The Interior (Talk) 23:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Agreed. I personally found the style so frustrating to read that I didn't enjoy the book. It at least merits mention. Joe Garrick (talk) 21:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writing Style