Books

When 'Art' Goes All Sci-Fi

Cormac McCarthy's 'The Road' stinks as literature and as genre fiction.

By Crawford Kilian, 6 Dec 2006, TheTyee.ca

Cormac McCarthy

Cormac McCarthy: couldn't find the words?

Literary authors sometimes like to take holidays in the shabby Third World genres like romance, thrillers and fantasy. Offhand, I can think of several who've landed in my own genre, science fiction: Paul Theroux in O-Zone, Margaret Atwood in The Handmaid's Tale, John Updike in Toward the End of Time.

I can understand the attraction. These authors go straight to the usual tourist traps -- nuclear war, overpopulation, oppressive governments -- pick up some local colour, and go home with stories that will both entertain and horrify their usual readers. It's not exactly sex tourism, but it suggests that mainstream literature can be a little too genteel and boring sometimes.

The latest tourist is none other than Cormac McCarthy, who has already partied in the western (Blood Meridian) and the regional novel (All the Pretty Horses). He is an author I both admire and detest: he's an amazing storyteller, but technically he's just another dumb gringo tourist who can't hold his mescal.

McCarthy's fatal flaw is that he can't go for two paragraphs without reminding us that he's a hell of a good writer, and that makes him a terrible writer. He's like a playwright who hangs around onstage, commenting on his actors' performance and stepping on their lines.

Gore with a cherry on top

In some of his earlier novels, McCarthy has dealt with murderous brigands and hapless young Texans trapped in Mexican jails. He describes appalling slaughter and torture in a high-calorie style that critics smack their lips over.

The effect is like contemplating a corpse whose eyes have been gouged out, each cratered crimson socket filled with thick whipped cream and a fine maraschino cherry. It's a style easy to parody, but it reveals a deeper problem in McCarthy's writing.

Well, here he is in The Road, a post-nuclear horror novel that's winning praise everywhere. I'll add a little praise myself: it is one of the scariest SF novels I have read in a long time. Some of the descriptions are brilliant -- if that's the word I want for a world lost in a blue-grey twilight. I had to stay up late to finish it. Most SF novels are instantly forgettable, but some of McCarthy's scenes will stick in my memory for years.

But it still stinks as science fiction, and it stinks as plain fiction.

Let's start with its failures as SF, a genre where the story simply can't happen without some plausible application of known science. In this case, McCarthy is very cagey: "The clocks stopped at 1:17. A long shear of light and then a series of low concussions." That's all he'll tell us about his MacGuffin, the plot gimmick that launches the story.

This seems to be a nuclear war, because for the next 10 years the earth is in some kind of nuclear winter. The sun never breaks through the overcast, and nights are pitch-black. It's always cold. It rains or snows all the time, but even after 10 years people need to wear masks to filter out the ashes that drift everywhere.

A nuclear war, however, would leave radioactive ashes. McCarthy's survivors suffer from malnutrition and cold, but not from radiation poisoning.

Those survivors appear to have suffered a total bankruptcy of social capital. Some "communes" exist, but we never see any. Instead we see small groups, like the protagonist and his son, or slightly larger groups of brutal cannibals, complete with sex slaves. Everyone has been reduced to scavenging for stray cans of food or roasting babies on spits.

This is very scary, all right, but it presumes a highly unlikely failure of social cohesion right down to the neighbourhood level. McCarthy's disaster couldn't have killed off every sergeant-major and police chief.

In SF, we've been kicking these post-disaster ideas around ever since Mary Shelley's The Last Man, her little-known follow-up to Frankenstein, and especially since Hiroshima. It's just not a plausible outcome.

The curse of the missing apostrophe

Even as straight fiction, The Road runs crooked. McCarthy is fond of that sure sign of literary pretension, dialogue without quotation marks:

What is it? she said. What is happening?
I dont know.
Why are you taking a bath?
I'm not.

The hero is sensibly filling the bathtub with water right after the disaster, and he's so concerned with this job that his use of apostrophes also becomes slapdash.

This hero is nameless: he's just "the man" or "he," and his son is "the boy." His wife, until she commits suicide, is "his wife." They live in a world without names, described in prose that might be called Icelandic baroque. The flat, saga-like style suddenly erupts with gaudily unlikely expressions:

The blackness he woke to on those nights was sightless and impenetrable. A blackness to hurt your ears with listening. Often he had to get up. No sound but the wind in the bare and blackened tree. He rose and stood tottering in that cold autistic dark with his arms outheld for balance while the vestibular calculations in his skull cranked out their reckonings.

The paragraph from which I take this excerpt is typical. The average word in it has 4.6 characters, and the average sentence is ten words long. The Flesch-Kincaid readability scale says a grade 5 pupil could understand it.

But McCarthy must have his cold autistic dark and vestibular calculations -- better said, his protagonist must have them. The man is clearly very smart and very educated, a capable survivor. We see the story through his eyes and understand it with his vocabulary. Dying of TB, driven by the need to protect his son, he still thinks and perceives with a vocabulary as rich and perceptive as Cormac McCarthy's.

Absent language: a symbol of what?

The man realizes that words are disappearing; humanity is becoming dehumanized by its loss of language. (The moral significance of language is of course yet another SF convention, understood and exploited by authors from Thomas More to Kurt Vonnegut.) He has taught his son to read, and tells him stories when they've camped for the night. The two of them pore over ragged road maps as they plod southward toward the sea and some hope of warmth.

You would expect such an intellectual, especially in such conditions, to be a positive chatterbox, revelling in names, telling stories and reminiscing while he and his son push their shopping cart down the road. If the world of language was vital to the man before the clocks stopped, he should be trying to pass along to his son as much as possible of that world. Instead, his speech has dwindled to catchphrases: "We're the good guys. We carry the fire."

The namelessness of McCarthy's world makes the setting literally generic: the closest we can guess to the region is that it's somewhere in the U.S. south, where kudzu -- dead at last -- covers the blackened hills. The only place name in the novel is Tenerife, the home port of a wrecked yacht that the father plunders when they reach the sea at last. Why mention Tenerife and not the names of the Alabama or Mississippi towns they've walked through?

I could accept and believe the man as a destroyed intellectual, smart enough to survive at the cost of his language -- if McCarthy's language had only reflected that destruction. After ten years of nuclear winter, terms like "autistic dark" and "vestibular calculations" should not even occur to him.

So McCarthy won't even respect the integrity of his own protagonist's suffering, much less give him a name. All the awful events of this novel are just occasions for Cormac McCarthy to remind us that he, not his miserable cart-pushing pilgrim, is the real hero of The Road.

 [Tyee]

6  Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • Reader11722

    5 years ago

    Comments on "When 'Art' Goes All Sci-Fi"

    This review was scathing. Just short of demanding censoring of the novel (Actually a very astute review). Seriously though, censorship is becoming your neighbor to the South's favorite past-time. The US gov't (and their corporate friends), already detain protesters, ban books like "America Deceived" from Amazon and Wikipedia, and fire 21-year tenured, BYU physics professor Steven Jones because he proved explosives, thermite in particular, took down the WTC buildings, Keep up the solid reviews though.
    Last link (before Google Books caves to pressure and drops the title):
    http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-38523-0

  • James Burns

    5 years ago

    Censorship??? I'm not sure where the previous commenter was trying to go with that notion, other than to hijack the column and comments to draw attention to something he/she is concerned with in the US. Nothing in Killian's column suggests he's advocating censorship of McCarthy's material.

    I'm split on Crawford's opinion of the literary crowd's dabbling in genre fiction, and sci-fi in particular. I have no doubt authors new to a genre will make rookie mistakes, and they are allowed to get away with it because of their literary oeuvre. I can understand how that can make those who toil in the genre, and who come up with far more original material, irritated. But literary authors who delve into genre are simply interested in it as a device to explore larger themes. They aren't interested in producing original genre fiction. So I'm afraid I find Killian's critique of McCarthy's story being bad sci-fi rather beside the point. I do think, however, Killian is on to something in aspects of his critique of McCarthy.

    Having read some of McCarthy's other books, his style leaves me with the impression of someone with a Rococo soul. Elaborately worded ornament appears to be his end, rather than his vehicle for revealing larger truth. He's decidedly weak on plot, and he loses meaning in his desire for spectacle. As a result his stories tend to read like a series of tenuous yet brightly imagined hallucinations. He's the "Baby, the Stars Shine Bright" of literary fiction: entertaining, pretty, and overwhelmingly narcissistic.

  • charlesdemers

    5 years ago

    Great review -- though I'm sorry to hear the book is so lacklustre. McCarthy's great -- Blood Meridian is one of my top ten books of all time.

    Out of curiosity, Crawford, how did you like Atwood's Oryx and Crake?

  • Crawford

    5 years ago

    Oryx and Crake started out OK but fell apart well before the end. Blood Meridian seems to me a master class in literary pathology.

  • Percy

    5 years ago

    Roccoco is a good work to describe the McCarthy style. It does take a little getting used to, like Faulkner, but once you're into it, it just accentuates the horror. Blood Meridian is one of the most compelling books I've ever read. Mr. McCarthy has been called the most important living writer in the English language, something nobody ever called Mr. Kilian. But then, Mr. McCarthy's message is at heart one of moral conservatism, so I suspect he can expect to be slagged by progressive writers of little talent!

  • Elmsley

    5 years ago

    I am not prepared, presently, to give any comment on either McCarthy's work or Kilian's--however, the general topic of "literary" writers slumming in genre fiction can be addressed without extensive knowledge of the particulars.

    Please note that I do not use scare quotes lightly--my use of them here indicates my rejection of the implication that genres of writing exist which are not literary.

    There are, of course, rotten science fiction books, just as there are rotten books in any genre--by no means the least in mainstream, or "literary", fiction.

    In my experience, bad mainstream novels are more easily camouflaged than bad genre novels. It sometimes seems that, as long as a work uses an intellectual vocabulary and address Important Issues (like Abortion or Human Rights), it is considered respectable, no matter how banal the message is, or how tediously belabored. Science fiction and fantasy, at least, have far less tolerance for pretension--and I suspect the same is true of the other genres as well. Pretension, in genre fiction, is immediately noticed. Certainly there are trite science fiction novels, but few of them pretend to be Deep and Meaningful—and the ones that do tend not to be successful.

    Just as there are bad books in any genre, there are also great ones. I will not explain this: if you do not know it already, I will never convince you.

    There is no reason that an author should be trapped in a single genre. Many writers have written excellent work in more than one genre. But those who choose to write in a genre should respect it's existing cannon, and make themselves familiar with it. They should especially read the books similar to those they intend to write, and have at least some passing familiarity with the Grand Masters (or their equivalent in the genre in question). Some of them do; some do not.

    To write a science fiction novel without familiarity with H.G. Wells or Robert A. Heinlein is as much an affront as to write about philosophy without familiarity with Plato or Nietzshe, and shows the author as full of hubris.

    But worst of all is the distinct sense that these authors are, as I said in the beginning, slumming. That they consider authors who write exclusively for the genre to be beneath them, and the genre itself to be largely inferior (which is why they don't bother reading the cannon). They bring with them the pretension of their “literary” roots, insult the intelligence of the genre community at large, don't bother reading the genre’s great works, and appear to presume that their work will naturally be superior, because of course they can do better than, for example, the common science fiction writer, whom they regard as a hack.

    This is the result of a persistent, groundless prejudice against genre fiction--one which, I might add, largely prevents genre writers from being considered “the most important writer in English” of their time—although similar praise is given to many mainstream authors, relative importance being largely a matter of opinion. But most people exclude genre writers from consideration.

    H.G. Wells, for example, is still not generally regarded as a terribly important writer outside the genre—and yet, according to one of my former English professors, very few writers (from any time) are named among the influences of as many current writers--across genres and international boundaries--as he is.

    I may easily be mistaken, so feel free to correct me, but I believe these issues are at the heart of at least some of Kilian’s objections to McCarthy’s recent work. I, however, have no idea whether classifying it this way is appropriate—my comments are intended, rather, to reflect what I see as general trends.

    • No best comments selected by an editor for this story yet. To see all comments, click the All Comments tab, above.
    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.