358

Extrapolation,Vol.51,No.3©2010byTheUniversityofTexasatBrownsvilleandTexasSouthmostCollege

Utopia at last: Cormac McCarthy’s The Road as Science Fiction1

ChriStophEr pizzino

WhenItheoldsee,IknowhowmuchthenewIneed.—SamuelDelany

■ ToreadTheRoadassciencefiction is toreadagainstadauntingcriticalconsensus.SincethepublicationofCormacMcCarthy’slatestnovelinthefallof2006,reviewersandcriticshaveapproacheditasasignificantadditiontotheEuroamericanliterarycanon,sometimeswithaglanceatitsscience-fictionalpremise: theapocalypticdestructionof theworld.Although therelationshipbetweenparaliteraturessuchassciencefiction(hereaftersf)and“literature”isflexibleatpresent,claimsabouttheliterarynatureofTheRoadhavetendedeithertoberigidlyexclusiveortoallocateaportionofsfforMcCarthy’suse.Thelatter tendencyissharplyobservedbyMichaelChabon,whonotes that“manyreviewers,iftheyhavenotchosentobestowonTheRoadthedispensationof calling it a fable or a parable, seem to have readTheRoad as the turntowardsciencefictionthatanyestablishedliterarywritermayreasonablybepermitted”(24).Havingnotedthisprescriptivecriticaltendency,ChabonhimselfapproachesTheRoadnotassf,butasanepicinthemodeofhorror.Linkingtherespectedtraditionoftheepictohorrorfictionmightproductivelytroubleadifferentboundarybetweentheliteraryandtheparaliterary,butlikemanycriticsofthenovel,Chabonsuppressesgenericconcernsinfavorofmoralizing.HeturnsTheRoadintoanexerciseinguilt;itevokesthecontemporary“fear

359

Utopia At Last

ofknowing—aseveryparentfears—thatyouhaveleftyourchildrenaworldmoredamaged,morepoisoned,morebaseandviolentandcheerlessandtoxic,moredoomed,thantheoneyouinherited”(26).Inthisview,McCarthy’snovelpossessessignificantmoralimpactasahorrorstorywithaconscience,whichitsomehowwouldloseiftakenseriouslyassf.InthecaseofTheRoad,evenacriticsympathetictoparaliteraturesingeneralseemstofeelthatreadingitassfisboundtodamageorconfineitssignificance,collapsingitsmoralvalences. ThemorefaithfullywereadTheRoadusingthedominantcriticallogic,themorescience-fictionalapproachesmightseemnotmerelyunproductivebut repugnant.Thenovel is,admittedly,deeplyconcernedwith theerasureofmoral significance.The protagonist, named simply “theman,” fights topreserveasenseofmoralityinthefaceofsocialbreakdownencompassingwidespreadtheft,suicide,rape,murderandcannibalism.Fortheman,thereisaclearlinkbetweenthesespecificdepredationsandthelossofmoraltruthingeneral;hethinksofacannibalheisforcedtokillasone“Whohasmadeoftheworldalieeveryword”(75).Boththegoalandthemeansoftheman’sstruggleagainstthismultifarious“lie”istheprotectionandnurtureofason,referredtoas“theboy,”forwhomthemantriesto“[e]voketheforms”(74)ofdecencyandsocialorder.“Evoketheforms”isamongthemostfrequentlycitedlinesincriticaldiscussion,andhascometofigurethemanhimselfasthe novel’s primary evocation of goodness. Isolated by hiswife’s suicide,threatenedby increasing illhealth,filledwith longingfor theworldhehaslostandsteeledagainstdespairbyloveforhisoffspring,themanseemstobeanidealcornerstoneforacharacter-basedexaminationofmoralconflict.Itiscertainlydifficulttojustifyascience-fictionalreadingofTheRoadifweseeitasaportraitofselflessparentallove(or,followingChabon,overwhelmingparentalguilt).Inthisview,toshiftthefocusawayfromtheman,ortocritiquehisstruggle,mightfinishwhattheapocalypsestartedandsnuffoutthelastremainingsourceofmoralityinthenovel’sworld. Asithappens,TheRoadoffersthepossibilityofmoralandsocialorderoutsidethefather-sonrelationship.Neitherthemannormostofhissympatheticreaderstakethispossibilityseriously,eventhough,aswewillsee,theboy’ssurvivaldependsonit.Further,thenovelworkstocritiquethemanthroughaschemeatoncedeeplysympatheticandsystematicallyruthless.McCarthyultimatelyrevealstheman’seffortsasinsufficient,bothfortheirimmediateends—thephysicalandmoralnurtureoftheboy—andforthelargerworkofassertingorderinthefaceofanomy.Approachingthenovelascanonical“lit-erature”suppresses,withoutresolving,itsdeepestandmostproductivetensions.Thoughitsplotconcernssurvivalinthefaceofdeprivationandterror,itsmostabidingquestionshavetodowithnarrativevalue—indeed,withthequestion

360

Christopher Pizzino

ofnarrativeitselfasaproducerofvalues.ReadingTheRoadassfconfrontsuswithradicallydifferentquestionsaboutwherevalueliesinthetext,andaboutthedynamicwaysthecategoryofnarrativeoperatesinMcCarthy’svisionofapocalypse.Ifthecriticalconsensushasthusfarpositedthenovelasataleofsimple,desperatehumanvirtue,TheRoaditselfexpressesutopianimpulsesthatcomplicatetheframeworkinwhichvirtueisdefined. BydescribingTheRoadasutopian,Iwanttoevokeatemporallyinflectedsenseoftheconceptthatisfrequentlyvisibleincontemporarydiscussionsofsf.Initsearlyusage,descendedfromThomasMore,utopiaismostobviouslyaspatialtermnamingaplacewheresocial,moralorspiritualgoodnessandhealthprevail.Incontemporaryuses,includingthoseassociatedwithsf,thetermhasacquiredmoreandmoretemporalvalences,andrecenteffortstotheorizesfhavelikewisegivenprioritytothecategoryoftimeinrelationtoutopia.2InTheRoad,weseeutopianimpulsesexpressedlessasconcreteplanningforidealspacethanasanexpectationofsalutary,evenredemptiveevents.Thenovel’sruinedworldcertainlyforeclosesthepossibilityofagoodplaceresemblinganytraditionalmodelofautopia.However,thisdoesnotauthorizeareadinginwhichallvirtuesbelongtoavanishedpast,withthemanastheirlingeringrepresentative.Thereisstillthepossibilitythatlifecanbelivedonothertermsthanthoseofmurderandcannibalism,andthatthislifecancomenotfromremembranceofthepastbutfromanethicalcommitmenttofuturity—inthewordsofsftheoristMichaelPinsky,“anactingforthefutureandfromtheotherthatarrivesfromthefuture”(188).Itshouldbenotedthattheman’sgoalsseemspatiallyorganizedbutnotutopian.Thefatherhopesthatbytravellingsouth(fromwhatisnowthenorth-easternUS),heandhissonwillfindaplacewheretheycansafelysurvive,butthereisnoexpectationofanactualchangeinthenatureoftheirlives.Theboy’shopes,meanwhile,arefornewexperiencesandencounters,andtheyconnectthetexttosfthatanticipatestheadventofdifference,specificallythearrivalofnewformsofsocialbeing.Anunderstandingofsfastemporallyinflectedutopiannarrativewillbecrucialtomyreadingoftheboy,whotriestobridgethegapbetweenthestoriesthemantellshim,whichencourageresponsibilityfortheworldatlarge,andthewaythemanacts,whichgivesprimacytohimselfandtheboyonly. Toopenupthisgapandseeitasmeaningfuldemandsacriticalviewoftheprotagonist,whohaswonthesympathyofmostreadersandcritics.Theman’s efforts toprovide safety andwell-being forhis sonareusually readundertheheadingsofbiologyandethics;thenovelisassumedtobeaboutthedrive toprovideforone’soffspringandaboutfundamentalvalues thatfuelor complement this drive.BenjaminKunkel, in an essay on contemporaryapocalypticnarratives,dismissesTheRoadastypicalof“fantasiesofasocial

361

Utopia At Last

situationradicallysimplifiedandennobledbytheimperativeofsurvival—alifeinwhichgood-versus-evilisallthatcanbesaidtoremainofeitherpoli-ticsormorality”(91).WhileIseethenovelasfarmorecomplex,Kunkel’sdescription,intendedasacritique,accuratelycapturesthedominantattitudeamongthenovel’smanyadmirers.Theblurbfeaturedonthefrontcoverofthefirstpaperbackprintingofthenovelclaimsitisa“taleofsurvivalandthemiracleofgoodness”(Villalonn.pag.).Notablehereistheconjunction“and”linkingtwokindsoftalesnottraditionallythoughtofasanaturalpair.Thereis certainly no given connection between them in theworld ofTheRoad,wherestarvingpeopleabandonmoralitytotheextentofcannibalizingothers,including(inatleastonecase)theirnewbornoffspring.Thisisonlythemostobviouswayinwhich“survival”and“goodness”areinconflict.Asthenovelunfolds, theoppositionbetweensurvival,asthefatherdefinesit—hisson’slifeastheultimatepriority,hisownlifeasvaluableonlyintheserviceofthatpriority—andalargersenseofgoodnessbecomesunmistakable. Thelinkbetweenmoralcertitudeandmortalstruggleoftenseemsclearinthenovel’searlychapters,especiallywhenthethird-personnarrator’svoiceflowsseamlesslyintoandoutoftheman’sperspective.Asinhisotherworks,McCarthydispenseswithquotationmarks,andthisstylisticchoicehelpstoauthorizetheman’sattachmenttohisson:“Heknewonlythatthechildwashiswarrant.Hesaid:IfheisnotthewordofGodGodneverspoke”(5).Theselinesinvitethereadertoaffirmwhatnarratorandprotagonistseemalreadytoknowwithcertainty—thattheboy’sexistenceisanunequivocalgood,andthatanythingdoneintheserviceofthisgoodhasdivine“warrant.”Giventhatthemanandtheboyareisolated,“eachtheother’sworldentire”(6),theman’sutteranceiseffectivelyakindofreaderaddress,interpolatingusinatrinityofmoralcertitude.However,thisinterpolationquicklybecomesunstable.Infact,thereisnooneotherthanthereadertowhomthefathercandeclarehiscertainty,becauseheiseithertoofearfulortoocautioustoconnecthimselftoalargercommunity.Whenhissonsightsaboyandencourageshisfathertoseekoutthegrouptowhichtheboymustbelong,thefatherrefuses.Heclaimstheriskistoogreat,andanumberofthenovel’sincidents—near-capturebycannibals,forinstance—showthatthefather’scautionisgroundedincommonsense.Yetcommonsensemightalsosuggestthatalivingchildisevidenceofparentsorguardianswhoarenotcannibals,andtheman’srefusaltofollowhisson’ssuggestionisachoicetodefinebothgoodnessandsurvivalinnarrowlyfamilial terms.The “warrant” the childprovides is exclusive, and themaninterpretshisson’sinterestinsomeotherchildasbothimpracticalandwrong. Thisincidentisthefirstsignificantclashbetweenfatherandson,exposingagapbetween“survival”(asthefatherconceivesit)and“goodness”(astheson

362

Christopher Pizzino

understandsit)thatbecomesmorevisibleasthenovelprogresses.Theboystartstoobjecttotheman’sinsistenceonkeepingawayfromotherpeople,particularlyasthisinsistencebearsontheproblemofresources.Whateverdestroyedtheworldhashadtheeffectofanuclearwinter;plantandanimallifearealmostentirelydead,andfoodsuppliesareaccordinglylimitedanddwindling.Theboyrequeststhathisandhisfather’sfoodbesharedwithothers,butthefathereitherrefusesorallowsgrudgingandminimalsharing,underscoringthedifferencebetweenhisownunderstandingofgoodnessandhisson’s.Whenthesonurgeshisfathertoseekouttheotherchildhehasspotted,hevolunteerstogiveuphalfhisfoodsothattheboycanlive.Hissuggestionisriskyinconditionsofnear-starvation,butitdoesnotexactlyjustifytheman’sconvictionthathisson’sinterestintheboyistantamounttosuicide:“Doyouwanttodie?Isthatwhatyouwant?”(85)hedemands.Mostrelevanttothescience-fictionalqualitiesofTheRoadaretheson’sincreasinglyprobingandskepticalquestionsaboutthevalueshisfatherhasbeenimpartingtohim.Wearetoldthatthefatherhastriedtocommunicateasenseofmoralordertohissonthroughthetellingof“oldstoriesofcourageandjustice”(41).Thesestories,weassume,providethebackgroundforthenarrativethemanfabricatesinthepresent,whichisthatheandhissonare“carryingthefire,”aphrasethatrecursthroughoutthenovel.Theman’svagueformulationseemsanattemptto“[e]voketheforms”(74)ofmoralitywithoutsayingexactlywhatitmightbe.Thesondemonstratesanincreasingdesiretospecifythemeaningofhisfather’swords,andtotestthatmeaningagainsttherealityofhisfather’sactions.Afterthefatherkillsacannibaltoprotecthisson,theboyasks,“Arewestillthegoodguys?”(77).Inthisinstance,thequestionleadstoanaffirmativeliturgysharedbyfatherandson,whoassureeachotherthattheyarethegoodguysand“alwayswillbe”(77),butthismutualagreementdoesnotpersistinthelatterhalfofthenovel.Atonepoint,theboyaskswhetherheandhisfathermightmeetother“goodguys”ontheirjourney;thefatherreplies,“Idon’tthinkwe’relikelytomeetanygoodguysontheroad”(151).Theson’sequivocalretort,“We’reontheroad”(151),suggestsaskepticismaboutboththefather’sassuranceofhisowngoodnessandthefather’suniversalfearofothertravelers. The clashbetween father and son comes to a headwhen the sondoubtstheworthofthenarrativeshisfatherhasbeenconveyingtohim.Ofparticularimportanceisthefollowingconversation,inwhichthefatherspeaksfirst:

Doyouwantmetotellyouastory?No.Whynot?Theboylookedathimandlookedaway.Whynot?

363

Utopia At Last

Thosestoriesarenottrue.Theydon’thavetobetrue.They’restories.Yes.Butinthestorieswe’realwayshelpingpeopleandwedon’thelppeople.

(267–68)

Thefatherchangesthedirectionoftheconversationinsteadofaddressinghisson’sfinalobjection,whichsuggests that it isvalid,notsimplyamatterofachild’sinabilitytodistinguishharshfactfrominspiringfiction.Thechildperceivesthatthefunctionofthestoriesismoretroublingthanthefatherwilladmit.Thelattertells“oldstoriesofcourageandjustice”nottoshowthesonhowtolive,buttomirroranidealizedimageofthefatherhimself.Itiscrucialthatthefatheractuallydoestellthesonstoriesthatimplyalargerobligationtotheworld;apparentlyhedoesnottellstoriesthathaveactuallyhappenedtothetwoofthem,whichwouldall involvehisactingforhissonalone.Itisequallycrucial that themorethechildreflectsonthesestories, themoreglaringlytheydifferfromtherealityofthefather’sbehavior.Twothingsareclarifiedinthispassage.Mostimmediately,weseetheson’sgrowingadher-encetoalargersetofethicalobligationsencompassingothersbesideshimselfandhisfather.However,andimportantly,thisadherenceisdirectlyinspiredbythefather’steachings.Ifthedifferencebetweenwhatthefatherpracticesandwhathepreachesisthecatalystfortheson’sconvictions,thisdifferenceisneverthelessproduced, ifunintentionally,bythefatherhimself.PassagesliketheaboveinvalidateBenjaminKunkel’scritiqueofTheRoadasabookthat“pitsfamilyvaluesagainstthecannibaluniverse—thegoodguysversusthebadguys,inMcCarthy’sunironicterms”(94).TheRoadshowshownar-rativesof“thegoodguysversusthebadguys,”taughttothesonbythefatherwithoutahintofconsciousirony,ironicallypushthesontowardanewpositiondifferenteitherfromhisfather’sorfromthatofthecannibalistic“badguys.” Thefullnessofthisironyisrevealedwhenthemansuccumbstoinjuryandillnesswithoutcommittinghissontothecareofothers.Ashedies,themanconverseswithhissonabouttheboyhesightedearlierinthenovel.Thesonwonders“whowillfind[thelittleboy]ifhe’slost,”andthefatherassureshim,“Goodnesswillfindthelittleboy.Italwayshas.Itwillagain”(281).Notably,theman gives utterance to temporal expectation—as opposed to his usualspatialplanning—andinwhatfollows,hisseeminglynaïvevisionofgood-nessinabadworldbecomesreal.Astrangerapproachestheboyandinformshimthatheispartofagroup(includingtwootherchildren)whoarewillingtotakehimin.Theconnectiontotheearlierincident,andtheearlierboy,isunmistakable,andcreatesanarrativesymmetrythatallowsustodescribethenovel’seventsthus:Amantravelingalonewithhissonavoidscontactwithallotherpersons,eventhoughhishealthisfailing.Ratherthanseekoutaboy

364

Christopher Pizzino

hissonhasspotted,hechoosestoremainapartandfocussolelyonhisson’swell being.Later,when themanhimself has died, anothermanmakes theoppositechoiceandapproachestheman’ssonwithasincereofferofcareandcommunity,revealingthatthemanhad,fromthefirst,beenmistakennottoriskcontactwithothers.Mostcriticshavetakenlittleaccountofthisfinalturn.Inthecaseofthosewhoaffirmthefatherasthemoralcenterofthestory,thisiscertainlyunderstandable, since theconclusionundermineshisprivilegedposition.Alsounderstandable,fromadifferentangle,isKunkel’sinsistencethathopefulendingsdonotalterthefundamentallylimitedstanceofcontem-poraryapocalypticfiction,TheRoadincluded:“Thisfinalhopefulglimpseofavaguepaleradiancesuchasdyingpeoplearesaidtoseeseemsintendedtosignifysomethinglike‘theimmortalresilienceofthehumanspirit’ratherthananypossibilityofadecentearthlypolitics”(94).Butiftheadoptionofonechildintoanexistingcommunity(whichhastheshapeofanuclearfamily)isnotacompleteprogramfora“decentearthlypolitics,”neitherisitmerelyanexpressionofhumanistsentimentality.GiventheprecisenarrativesymmetryMcCarthyestablishes,thenovel’sfinalturntransformsthemeaningofwhathasgonebefore;“survival”and“goodness”arenotconnectedintherestrictivewaythemanimagines,atleastupuntilthemomentofhisdeath. TheconclusionalsorevealswhatChabon’sreadingofTheRoadasanexerciseinhorrorignores:theexpansionofscalethatiscrucialtoMcCarthy’snarrativedesign.Aestheticsofscalehavelongbeenunderstoodasimportanttosfinallmedia(mostfrequentlyundertheheadingofthesublime),butthewayscaledistinguishessffromhorrorisperhapsmostreadilygraspedinthecontextoffilm.3VivianSobchackarguesthathorrorfilmtendstocenteronmoralconflict,traditionallywithinanindividualstrugglingbetweendifferentaspectsofhisorherself.Somenewerhorrortrendshavetendedtokeeptheconflictsexternal;thestarvillainsofslasherfilmsrarelyseemtohaveanyinternalqualmsabouttheiractions.Thequestionofmoralityhasneverthelessremainedcentral,evenwhen,asinrecent“torture-porn”films,theissueisthetotalabsenceorperver-sionofmoralorder.ExtendingSobchack’spoint,wemightnotethatthenadirofmoralityinhorrorfilmsisusuallyrevealedinconfinedscenarios(secludedcabins,caves,basements,etc)thatsimplifymoralquestions,whilesffilmtendstopresentitsconflicts,moralorotherwise,frommultiplepointsofviewthatallowfordynamiccriticalevaluation.InSobchack’sphrasing,“Thepassionandhumanhungerofthehorrorfilmisreplacedbythesatisfactionsofobjectivity.Terrorisreplacedbywonder”(38).Frequently,ashiftofscaleispartofthisreplacement;asingle,confinednarrativeisrevealed,throughanenlargementofperspectiveorachangeofsetting,tobeonlyonenarrativepossibilityamongothers.TheRoadcertainlyfeelslikeaconfinednarrativeatseveralmoments,notleastwhenthe

365

Utopia At Last

mandiscoversahellishbasementwherecannibalskeeplivingpeopleasafoodsource.Thesenseofconfinementisneverthelessundoneintheconclusion,whenapointofviewinitiallyannouncedasasourceoffundamentaltruth,seeminglyguaranteedbyourtrinitarianlinkingwiththemanandthenarrator,turnsouttobeacontingentperspectivenotsharedbyother“goodguys.”Whatfirstadvertisesitselfasanarchetypalstoryofgoodnessinapost-apocalypticworldbecomesastory thatexistsalongsideviable,evensuperioralternatives.Thisdoesnotentirelydispelthenoteofhorrorthatdominatesearlierportionsofthenovel,suchasthewrenchingscenewheretheman’swife,justbeforecommittingsuicide,insists,“We’rethewalkingdeadinahorrorfilm”(55).However,McCarthydoesinvalidatetheideathattheentirebusinessofliving,outsideoftheman’seffortstokeephimselfandhissonalive,isadamnedenterprise.Further,weseethatalternativesaremadepossiblebecausepeopleotherthanthemanfollownar-rativesdifferentfromtheoneheaccomplishes.Indeed,hisutopiandeclarationthat“Goodnesswillfindthelittleboy”isfulfilledonlybecauseothersenactakindofgoodnessthemanhasrefused;hespeaksacollectivetruthdespitethefactthathehasparticipatedinitsmakinginalimitedway. Andyet,thefatherdoesplayakeyroleinpreparinghissontoliveinthecommunitythatadoptshimbyencouraginganexpectationofcareandmutualaid.Inaninterludeatthecenterofthenovel,whenfatherandsonarerestinginabombsheltertheyhavediscovered,theson,takingahotbath,suddenlyremarks,“Warmatlast”(147).Thefatherisbothpleasedandbemused,asking,“Wheredidyouget that?”(147),but thesourceof theremarkisclearlythefather’sgenuinecarefortheboy’sphysicalwellbeing.Asenseofprotection,howeverthreatened,has created in theboy the expectationofphysical comforts andpleasureshehasnotyetexperiencedbutmayexperience“atlast.”Thelocationofthisscene,resonantwithColdWarxenophobia,mightreasonablymakeusskepticaloftheboy’ssatisfaction,butitdoesnotcomeattheexpenseofanyoneelse.Indeed,theboy’ssatisfiedhopeisnotphrasedintermsofexpenseorevenexpenditure.Shornofthetrappingsofcommodityfetishism—theboy’sdesirehasnotbeenshapedbyadvertisements,pre-packagednarrativesofluxury,orwindowshopping—andabsentanysenseofearnedordeservedreward,thishopeforshelterandsustenanceisonekindofutopianexpectationinitsnakedform,madepossibleby the father’s care.Morebroadly, the father’s storiesof“carryingthefire,”howeverlittletheymayfithisownconducttowardtheworld,neverthelessshapetheboy’sencounterwithhisnewcommunity.Thisisespeciallyevidentinthefollowingexchange,inwhichtheboyspeaksfirst,followedbythemanwhowilladopthim:

Areyoucarryingthefire? AmIwhat?

366

Christopher Pizzino

Carryingthefire. You’rekindofweirdedout,aren’tyou? No. Justalittle. Yeah. Soareyou? What,carryingthefire? Yes. (283)

Thisconversationechoestheliturgicalrhythmsthatanimateearlierexchangesbetweentheboyandhisfather.Thefactthatthephrase“carryingthefire,”whileunfamiliartothenewguardian,yetservesasthebasisforanunderstandingbetweenhimandtheboy,showsthatthestoriesthefathertells,inexceedingtheethicalvalencesofhisownconduct,constructananticipatorybridgebetweentheboy’spresentandfuture. Whentheboyconnectshimselftoanactualcommunitybyreferencingvalueshehassofarencounteredprimarilyinnarrative,weseethatthefather’snurturehasunintentionallyfunctioned,toreturntoPinsky’sphrasing,as“anactingforthefutureandfortheotherthatarrivesfromthefuture”(188).Thisformulationderivesfromanunderstandingofsfasattunedbothtoanethicsofdifferenceandto theunfoldingofconcreteprocesses.ForPinsky,sfoscillatesbetweenthetwo,attendingbothtothehorizonofalterity(theOtherasapproachedbyLevinas)andto thespecificmaterialandtextualformsinwhichitmanifestsaswe apprehend it (techné as articulatedbyHeidegger).4This enactment isfundamental to thestructureandpurposeofTheRoad.At thesentence leveloftextualcomprehension,itdemandsmeticulousattentiontothedetailsoftheprotagonists’lives.NeverhasMcCarthy’swell-knownfocusonparticularsofsettingandaction—lessanaestheticinterestinsurfacethanaconcernwiththespecificityofexperience—beenmorefullyandurgentlyelaborated,andneverhave theparticularsmorestronglychallengedus to interrogatewhatwesee.Weighingthedetailsseriously,wemightbeled,liketheson,toquestiontheman’sactions.Ifheisdedicatedtohisson’ssurvival,whydoesheavoidallotherswhenitseemslikelyhisownhealthwillfailbeforehissonisoldenoughtofendforhimself?Ifhewantstoshowhissonhowto“carrythefire”ofcarefortheworld,whydoeshenotseekouttheboyhissonsees,whenheisaviableindicatorofagoodcommunity?Itispreciselyinaskingsuchquestionsthatwebegintoglimpsethehorizonbeyondthefather-sonrelationship—ahorizonbothblockedandanticipatedbythatrelationship.5Wearecertainlypromptedtodis-tinguishthefundamentallybackwardlookingnatureofthefather,whoimagineshissonseeshimas“analien...[a]beingfromaplanetthatnolongerexisted”

367

Utopia At Last

(154),fromtheorientationofthetextasawhole,whichseesthefather’scareforhissonasapartialinstantiationofanethicsthatwillbemoreradicallyandfullyrealizedlater.Simultaneously,thelavishlyrenderedspecificsoftheman’sdailystruggletofeed,protect,andinstructhissonbecomeaprolepsis,pointingtowardtheveryfuturethemanconsciouslydenies. ThenarrativedynamicIamdescribingmakesTheRoadanunusualinstanceofsf;itexplorestheworkingsofutopianenergyinawaythatisintimateyettransformative.Ofparticularinterestisthefactthatthenovelinsistsonthedifferencebetween the father’s values and the son’swhile also tracing theconnections that bind them.The possibility of human care defined in new(non-familial,non-individualistic)termsisassertedasafundamentalrealitythatmakesutopianthinkingandfeelingpossible.Further,utopianpossibilityisdefinedasdecisivelydifferentfromthefather’snarrowlyfocused“warrant”;thenovelrefusestheideathattheson’svaluesaresimplythesameashisfather’s,onlywiderinscope.Thefather’scareforhissonistakenoverbyacommunitythatcaresformorethanitsownchildren,sothatthenovel’sinitiallynarrownotionofgoodnessmustbetransformedinordertosustainanymeaning(ifalladultsactedasthemanacted,hischildwouldnotsurviveintoadulthood).Atthesametime,theson’sutopianexpectationofthepossibilityofalargercommunity—oneinwhichpeopleotherthantheboyandhisfather“carrythefire”—iscreatedpreciselybyhisfather’sstories,which,intheireffectontheboy,exceedthefather’sownethicalboundaries.Whenthesonpointstothedifferencebetweenthevaluesthefathernarratesandthevalueshelivesby,heis,doubtless,pointingtothefather’sshortcomings.Hisownabilitytopointouttheseshortcomings,however,isitselflinkeddirectlytowhathisfatherhastoldhim.If,asheassertsinanargumentwithhisfather,heistheone“whohastoworryabouteverything”(259),theurgetoworry,toregisterthelargerworldasasubjectofcare,comesfromhisfather’sdirectiveto“carrythefire,”tobecountedamong“thegoodguys.”Thedetailsofthefather-sonexchangearesparse;weknowfarlessthanwemightwishaboutexactlywhatkindsofstoriesthemantellshisson.Whatweknowforcertainisthatgoodnessonlyfindstheboybecauseittakesformsotherthanthefather’sown,evenastheson’sabilitytoanticipateandenactgoodnessismadepossiblebythecarethefatherundertakes.6 Insofarasthefather’sstories,derivedfromavisionofthepast,enableagraspoffuturityfortheson,TheRoadisanovelabouttheoriginofsfnarratives—aboutwherewe“get”them,inthefather’sterms.ThisraisesthequestionofhowTheRoadcanbesituatedagainstthelargerbackgroundofsfasabodyofliterature,andhereIwanttousethenovelasavantagepointfromwhichtodistinguishtwoavenuesfortheorizingsf.Onetendency,towhichIhavealreadyalluded,promotes

368

Christopher Pizzino

sfasautopiandiscourse.Thistendencyisnotnew;itwasimplicitinseveralmajorattemptstodefinesfinthe1970s,especiallyinSuvin’sMetamorphosesofScienceFiction(1979).Asiswell-known,Suvinarguesagainstcriticswhoseesfasprimarilyagenreofextrapolation,claiminginsteadthatitsmainfunctionisanalogical.Whatsfdoesmostproductively,accordingtoSuvin,isreflectontheproblemsofitsowntimeandplaceinawaythatdoesnotsimplypredictfutureeffectsfrompresentcauses,buttransformsourunderstandingofthepresentitself.Atcertainmoments,Suvingoesbeyondthehorizonofanalogyandgrantsthatsf’sanalogicaltendenciesindicate“anatleastinitialreadinessfornewnormsofreality,forthenovumofdealienatinghumanhistory”(84).Inthepastdecadeofsftheory,therehasbeenincreasingemphasisonthetransformative,utopianelementsthatcontributetoa“readinessfornewnorms.”InCriticalTheoryandScienceFiction(2000),CarlFreedmanhasarguedforsfasexplicitlypoliticalwritingthatdoesthesameworkascriticaltheoryandis“privilegedwithregardtocritiqueandutopia”(86),whileFredricJamesonhasofferedaviewofsfasaspeciesofnegativedialecticsinArchaeologiesoftheFuture:TheDesireCalledUtopiaandOtherScienceFictions(2005).Tothesewell-knownworksshouldbeaddedPinksy’sFuturePresent(2003),discussedabove,whichmediatesbetweenthematerialistemphasistypicalofmuchEuroamericansfcriticismandanethicsofOtherness.Whateverthedifferingtermsandemphasesofthesearguments,theyallshiftthegroundofdefinitionawayfromanalogyproper,andevenfurtherfromprediction/extrapolation,towardsfasanecessarilyutopiannarrativemodethatpointsbeyondwhatiscurrentlyknown(orcanbeaccuratelypredicted)toradicaldifferenceandthechallengesofencounteringorfosteringit. Thisemphasisinrecentsftheoryhasscarcelybanishedallinterestinpredic-tionorextrapolation;abidingcriticalinterestincyborgsandinthecategoryofthe“posthuman”haskeptthesesquarelyinview,thoughwithaneyetoradi-cal,possiblyutopiantransformationaswell.7Nevertheless,asecondinteresthasalsobecomeincreasinglystronginthelastdecade:sfasaformofculturethatservesasthenexusoffandom.8Thisinterestisnotnecessarilyantitheti-caltotheutopian,butitdoesraisetheverydifferentquestionofsfasasetofsharedandrecognizableconventions,whichconnectsftextstooneanotherandconnectcommunitiesofreadersandviewersaswell.Intherealmofsftheoryassuch,DamienBroderick’sReadingbyStarlight(1995)articulatestheapproachmostappropriatetothisquestion.Broderickseessfasdefinedbyawebofconventions,motifs,andthematics,a“mega-text”(xiii)thatmakessfworksinherentlyintertextual.Thisdefinitiondoesnotautomaticallyexcludeanyconsiderationoftheutopianaspectsofsf.Broderickisatsomepainstofinessehowsfconventionsoperate,andtoemphasizetheirtransformativeanddestabilizedqualities;hewishestoarguethatsf,atitsmostenergetic,canbe

369

Utopia At Last

animatedbyitsconventionswithouttherebybeingconventional.9However,therewouldseemtobeanirreducibletensionbetweenanotionofsfdefinedbyitsopennesstodifferenceandanticipationofotherness,andanotiongroundedinthesamenessofsharedconventions,nomatterhowdynamicthoseconven-tionsmaybe. Decidedlyutopianbutnotstronglyintertextual,TheRoaddemandsthatweacknowledgethepossiblelimitationsofansf-as-cultureapproach.McCarthyisdeeplyfamiliarwithmanylandmarksoftheEuroamericanliterarycanonintowhichhehasbeenwelcomed,andhehasmadelittleattempttoconcealhisinfluences,onceremarkingthat“booksaremadeoutofotherbooks”(“Venom-ous”31).TheRoadisobviouslyintertextualinthisbroadsense,andinformedreaderswillbeabletoplacethenovelindialoguewithahostofearliertexts,nottomentionwithMcCarthy’sownwork.Inthemorenarrowlyscience-fictionalsense,however, thenovelproceedswithoutanecessaryor intrusivemega-textualapparatus.Whilereadersmayfeellessdisorientediftheyarefamiliarwithothersfnarrativesofapocalypse,thereisnoneedforsuchfamiliarity.McCarthywritestheapocalypseafresh,withminimalintertextualdialogue(thewife’smentionofhorrorfilmisoneofaveryfewreferencestopre-existingnarrativeconventions).Fromthesebeginnings,TheRoadtellsthestoryofa“readinessfornewnorms”(Suvin84)emergingintheboy’sconsciousnessthroughhisfather’snurture.Thefactthattheboy’sexpectationispromptedby“oldstoriesofcourageandjustice”(41)presentsuswithachoice.Ifacon-nectiontothe“mega-text”isnecessaryforsf,thenitispossibletosaythatMcCarthyispoachingonparaliteraryterritoryusingtheconservativethematicsofadventurenarratives,ortheelevatedstyleofhigh-literarywriting,orboth.Itismorefruitful,Ibelieve,tosaythatTheRoadstandsorfallsasanimportantsfnovelregardlessofitsindifferencetoexistingconventions.Infact,Iseeitasanovelthatsucceedsassfpartlybecauseofitsindifference.Thefactthatthefatherspurshisson’sutopianexpectationsthroughtraditionalstoriesthatwouldseem,inthemselves,tohavenoparticularlyutopian(orscience-fictional)contentonlystrengthensthedynamicqualityof thefather-sonrelationship,andtheradicalwayvaluesaretransformedfromonegenerationtothenext.Theman’sbeliefs, intendedtocounterbalancethedestructionof theworld,mustthemselvesbedestroyed—atleastinthelimitedformsthroughwhichthefatherunderstandsthem—inordertoreachfulfillment,andthisdynamicofdestructionandfulfillmentunfoldsinthenovelitselfwithouttheadvantagesorimpairmentsofprecedent. AsmuchasTheRoadfrustratesabeliefthatsfisperforceintertextual,italsodisruptskeyassumptionsincriticismofMcCarthy’spreviouswork.Asweknowfromaninterviewgivenin2005,McCarthyhasanumberofunpublished

370

Christopher Pizzino

manuscriptsnearcompletion,andheclaimsthattheirorderofreleasehasnothematicdesign;thisshouldchastenanyclaimthatTheRoadbyitselfindicatescommitment to a newdirection (“CormacCountry” 104).Nevertheless, toapproachTheRoadfromtheangleIamsuggestingistodepartfromacriticalconsensusaboutthecategoryofhistoryinMcCarthy’swork.TheconsensushasbeenpartlyobscuredbytwointermittentdebatesconcerningMcCarthy’sorientationasawriter.First,thereisthequestionofphilosophy:isMcCarthyahistoricallyinformedwriterwhoconceivesofhumanityintemporallyandculturallyspecificterms,orauniversalist,committedtoatranshistoricalgraspofhumannature?Second, there is thequestionofpurpose:doesMcCarthyconceiveofhisworkas redemptive,capableofameliorating the illsof theworld,orishemerelyanablebutdisinterestedhistorian?Despitethesepointsofcontention,thereisageneralcriticalassumptionthathistoryanddesolationarelinkedforMcCarthy.Whetheritshapeshumannatureormerelyprovidescircumstancesforitsexpression—andwhetherMcCarthywritesredemptivelyorotherwise—historyisalmostalwaysassumedtobringbadnews,eitherthedestructionofspecificformsofvaluebyworseformsorsimplythecancella-tionofvaluealtogether.InthestandardcriticalviewofMcCarthy,historicalexperiencecauseshumanitytobecruellytornfromitsinnocence,drainedofitsstrength,misledintoindulgingitsworstimpulses,orsimplygivenvariousopportunitiestodiscoveritsisolation,insignificanceoriniquity.10

Onepowerful recent articulation of this consensus isCormacMcCarthyandtheMythofAmericanExceptionalism(2008),inwhichJohnCantargues:“McCarthydeliberatelysetsouttogivehistextsmythicformand...hedoessoinsuchawayastopointoutthedestructiveconsequencesofstructuringtheconsciousnessofindividualsbymeansofpowerfulmythologieswhichtheyarenotinapositiontoliveout”(9).Thisargumentmightwellbeagestureofcriticalreconciliation.ForCant,McCarthyisbothaculturaluniversalistwhobelievesinatranshistoricalhumannaturecontainingthepotentialforgoodandevil,andahistoricistwhoseesspecificculturaldevelopmentsaseithercausingorfail-ingtopreventspecifichistoricalwrongs.Heis,likewise,bothamythographerandadeconstructorofmyth.ThoughIamnotpreparedtodifferwithCantasregardsMcCarthy’sworkingeneral,IdofindthisapproachinadequatetoTheRoad.Cantstressesthevirtueandnobilityofboththefatherandtheson,whorepresent“theinherentvitalityoftheardenthearted”(270),andtheworthless-nessofabroaderculturethathasdestroyeditself,oratleasthasbeenunabletopreventitsowndestruction.11Butdespitethestarkrealitiesofitsapocalypticscenario,TheRoadultimatelyrejectssuchbinariesasinnocenceandtheFall,vitalityandenervation,mythand itsdeconstruction.The father-son relation-shipisnotasinnocentorasclosedasCantsuggests;itneithertranscendsmyth

371

Utopia At Last

norisdestroyedbyit.BorrowingCant’slanguage,Iwouldarguethattheman“structur[es]theconsciousnessof[theboy]bymeansofpowerfulmythologieswhich[heis]notinapositiontoliveout.”Theman’steaching,however,doesnothave“destructiveconsequences”intheexpectedsense.Theboyabsorbsandre-formshisfather’smythsashestepsintoanewhistory. WhattheboytakesfromthefatheriswhatreadersmighttakefromTheRoad:acommitmenttobroaderethicalhorizonsandahope,howeverfraught,thatthefuturewillbringnewformsofcareandcommunity.Itisunfortunatethattheman—forMcCarthyavehicleoftransformationwithinhistory—hasbecomesimplythemeasure,adequateornot,ofnarrativeandhumanpossibil-ity.ItislikewiseunfortunatethatTheRoadisreadasterminatingdiscussionofhistoricaltransformationwhenitgivesformtomoreutopianaspirationthananyofMcCarthy’spreviousworks. Isuggest,finally, thatmanycriticsandreadersenergeticallysubscribetoadecidedlyliteraryandhumanisticreadingofTheRoadnotbecauseitisn’tsf,butpreciselybecauseitis,andinawaythatdemandsbothathinking-throughandathinking-beyondthecategoriesofvalueassociatedwithacceptedliterarycanons.Atthesametime,thenovelusefullydisruptsanoverlynarrowsenseofwhatcountsassf.Itbypassesconsciousorovertconversationwiththetraditionofsf,anditoffersusaninstanceofutopiananticipationrootedin(yetmovingawayfrom)moretraditionalnarra-tives.Sfhascontinuallystruggledwithitslinkstovariouspre-existinggenericconventions, fromtheadventure-romancemodelsunderpinningmuchearlymagazinefictiontothehard-boiledclichésthatcharacterizedtheachievementsofcyberpunk.InTheRoad,wehaveansfnarrativethatembracesandfore-groundsthisproblem,bothatthemicro-levelofthetwocentralcharactersandatthemacro-levelofthenarrativeasawhole.Thenovelenactstheemergenceoftheutopianthroughwhatinitiallyappearstobeaconservativeexerciseinbomb-shelter ethics.What should strike us aswondrous aboutMcCarthy’sstoryoffatherandsonisnotthecapacityofindividualstobegoodinabadworld,ortochoosegoodmythsoverbadones,butthepossibilitythatutopianenergiescanarisefromlimitedformsofgood.Thisreadingusefullychastensasenseofsfasaclosedenterprise,practicedbyspecialistsincodedlanguagetotheexclusionofuntutoredoutsiders.ThefailureofsfcriticstoseizeTheRoadasasignificantinstanceofutopianwritingsuggeststhattheproblemofexclusivityoperatingbetweensfand“literature”has,atlast,beguntoworkinbothdirections.Inhis1996essay“ScienceFictionandtheQuestionoftheCanon,”CarlFreedmanwas right toobserve that “Thedangerwill alwaysexistthatsciencefictioncanonizingmayrepressmuchthatisgenuinelynewandcriticalwithinandbeyondthegenre”(119).Thatakeyinstanceofthisrepression is itself concernedwith the dangers of exclusionmight sharpen

372

Christopher Pizzino

ourdesiretokeepsfcriticismopentothearrivalofvaluablenewnarratives,whatevertheirorigins.

Notes

1. IwouldliketothankChannetteRomeroandAidanWasleyfortheirinvaluablesuggestions.ThanksalsotoDaleKnickerbockerforgenerouseditorialsupport.

2. Itisimportanttonotealong-termshiftofprioritiestowardthecategoryoftimewithinsciencefictionasawholesincetheearlymodernperiod;seeSuvin72-75.However,anincreasingsensethattemporalcategoriesarecrucialtoutopiacanalsobeobservedinrecentdecades.SeeforinstanceJameson’sArchaeologiesoftheFuture:TheDesireCalledUtopiaandOtherEssays,inwhichthenewmaterialcomprisingthefirsthalfofthetextismuchmoretemporallyorientedinitsconcep-tionofutopiathantheearliermaterialcollectedinthelatterhalf.CarlFreedman’sarticulationofBlochian“hermeneutic”utopianismislikewisestronglyinflectedtowards the temporal;seeCriticalTheoryandScienceFiction63-86.SeealsomydiscussionofPinskybelow.Foracontemporarytreatmentofutopianismthatgivesmoreorlessbalancedattentiontobothspaceandtime,seeWegner.

3. Forageneraldiscussionofsfaestheticsofscale,seeRoberts54-59.Foranadmir-ablycomprehensivetreatmentofsfandthesublime,seeCsicsery-Ronaychapter5.

4. ForPinsky’selaborationsoftheseconcepts,seechapters1,2and8.

5. TheviewIamsuggesting,promptedbyPinsky’sunderstandingofsf,offersamuchdifferentsenseofTheRoad’sethicalschemethanthatsuggestedbytwopreviouscritics.ThroughaprescriptiveuseofSchopenhauerianethics,EuanGallivanshedsalargelypositivelightonthefatherandascepticallightonthenovel’sconclu-sion,contractingitsethicalhorizons.PhilipSnyder’sreadingofTheRoad,likemyown,considersitsrelationtoaLevinasianethicsoftheOther.However,SnyderavoidswhatIbelieveisMcCarthy’sradicalcritiqueofthefather.ForSnyder,thesonhimselfisthechieffocusoftheman’sethicalobligations,“thesourceofthefather’smostessentialandinfinitecalltoresponsibility”(75).Snyderdoesnotmakeclearhowthebiologicalbond,theonethemanfeelsmostnaturallytotheexclusionofallothers,alsooccupiesthespaceofOtherness.Itisworthnotingthatinhiscatalogueofencountersbetweenthetwoprotagonistsandothercharacters,Snyderleavesouttheson’ssightingoftheotherboy—anomissionwhichdisturb-inglyrepeatsthefather’sowndiscountingoftheson’svalues.

6. TherecentfilmadaptationofTheRoad,directedbyJohnHillcoat,providesause-fulcontrastwiththeintergenerationalstorythenoveldevelops.Placingthefilmandthenovelside-by-side,weseeimmediatelythatMcCarthypossessesstylistictoolsasawriterforwhichHillcoatpossessesnocounterparts.Inparticular,theseamlessnessofMcCarthy’sprose,itspowertostrikeandsustainparticularnarra-tivenotes,contrastssharplywiththejump-cutsinHillcoat’srendering.BasedonthisfilmandhisearlierfeatureTheProposition,itwouldseemthatHillcoatdoesnotencouragehiscinematographerstoshootfortheeditingroom,and(inaddition

373

Utopia At Last

tocreatingachoppynarrativequalityaboutwhichsomecriticshavecomplained)thisreducesthefilm’scapacitytoconnectchangesinthefather-sonrelationshipto identifiable causes and effects.Three other elementsmove the film furtherfrom the novel’s view of intergenerational conflict. First, andmost obviously,thekeyexchangeinwhichtheboypointsoutthedifferencebetweenthefather’sstoriesandthefather’sactionsisexcised,obscuringasensethattheson’sdesiretofindtheboy,andtobewithother“goodguys,”stemsfromtheteachingsandstoriesofhisfather.Second,ViggoMortensen’sportrayalofthefatherconveysanemotional instability,occasionallyvergingonhysteria, thatunderscoreshisuntrustworthiness;itisdifficulttoimaginehimasatellerofconvincingstories.Third,thereisaslightbutsignificantchangeintheson’sage.Thenovelmakesclearthattheboyisundertenyearsold,andhismistrustinhisfatherisclearlyaneffectofhisearliertrust.Inthefilm,theboyisslightlyolder,adolescentoronthevergeofadolescence,andthismakesitpossibletoseehisconflictswithhisfatherasresultofhisage,orevenasadifferenceofpersonalityorcharacter.Theeffectofthesechangesistounbalancetheman’sroleintheboy’sdevelopment,neutralizing thesubtledynamicwherebythefather’sstoriesmotivaterebellioninhissonpreciselybecausehebelievesthem.Turningfromthefilmbacktothenovel,wegainarenewedsenseofthecomplexityofitsdesign,andoftheutopianvectorofitsintergenerationalnarrative.

7. SeeforexampleBukatman(1993),Hayles(1999),Foster(2005)andClarke(2008).

8. Historiesofsffandomarenotnew;seeMoskowitz(1954)andWarner(1969and1976).However,thepasttwentyyearshavecertainlyseenanincreaseincriticalacademicstudiesofsffandom,alongwithstudiesoffandomasawholethatgivesignificantattentiontosffandominparticular.ForasamplingseeJenkins(1992)chapter6,thevolumeeditedbySanders(1994),MacDonald(1998),Bacon-Smith(2000),andBury(2005)chapters1and2.

9. ForBroderick’sdiscussionofsfconventionsee19-20,57-63.

10. TwofiguresdifferingsharplyfromthetypicalviewofhistoryinMcCarthy’sworkarePhillips(1996)andParkes(2002).IvalueParkes,inparticular,forhisinsist-enceontheperformativeaspectsofMcCarthy’sBloodMeridian,whichsuggestthat“thescriptofAmericanhistoryremainsopentorewriting”(120).

11. Cant’suseoftheterm“ardenthearted”isderivedfromMcCarthyhimself;seeAllthePrettyHorses6.

Works Cited

Bacon-Smith,Camille.ScienceFictionCulture.Philadelphia:UofPennsylvaniaP,2000.Print.

Broderick,Damien.Reading by Starlight: Postmodern Science Fiction. London:Routledge,1995.Print.

Bukatman,Scott.TerminalIdentity:TheVirtualSubjectinPostmodernScienceFiction.Durham,NC:DukeUP,1993.Print.

374

Christopher Pizzino

Bury,Rhiannon.Cyberspaces of TheirOwn:FemaleFandomsOnline.NewYork:PeterLang,2005.Print.

Cant, John.CormacMcCarthyand theMythofAmericanExceptionalism.London:Routledge,2008.Print.

Chabon,Michael.“AftertheApocalypse.”Rev.ofTheRoad,byCormacMcCarthy.TheNewYorkReviewofBooks54.2(2007):24–26.Print.

Clarke,Bruce.PosthumanMetamorphoses:NarrativeandSystems.NewYork:Ford-hamUP,2008.Print.

Csicsery-Ronay, Istvan.The SevenBeauties of Science Fiction.Middletown,CT:WesleyanUP,2008.Print.

Delany,Samuel.Nova.NewYork:Doubleday,1968.Print.

Foster,Thomas.TheSoulsofCyberfolk:PosthumanismasVernacularTheory.Min-neapolis:UofMinnesotaP,2005.Print.

Freedman,Carl.Critical Theory and ScienceFiction.Hanover,CT:WesleyanUP,2000.Print.

———.“ScienceFictionandtheQuestionoftheCanon.”ScienceFictionandMarketRealities.Ed.GaryWestfahl,GeorgeSlusser,andEricS.Rabkin.Athens,GA:UofGeorgiaP,1996.111–121.Print.

Gallivan,Euan.“CompassionateMcCarthy?:TheRoadandSchopenhauerianEthics.”TheCormacMcCarthyJournal6(2008):98–106.Print.

Hayles,N.Katherine.HowWeBecamePosthuman:VirtualBodies inCybernetics,LiteratureandInformatics.Chicago:ChicagoUP,1999.Print.

Jameson,Fredric.ArchaeologiesoftheFuture:TheDesireCalledUtopiaandOtherScienceFictions.London:Verso,2005.Print.

Jenkins,Henry.TextualPoachers:TelevisionFans&ParticipatoryCulture.London:Routledge,1992.Print.

Kunkel,Benjamin.“DystopiaandtheEndofPolitics.”Dissent55.4(2008):89–98.Print.

MacDonald,Andrea.“UncertainUtopia:ScienceFictionMediaFandom&ComputerMediatedCommunication.”TheorizingFandom:Fans,SubcultureandIdentity.Ed.CherylHarrisandAlisonAlexander.Cresskill,NJ:Hampton,1998.131–152.Print.

McCarthy,Cormac.AllthePrettyHorses.1992.NewYork:Vintage,1993.Print.

———.“CormacCountry.”InterviewbyRichardB.Woodward.VanityFairAugust2005:98–104.Print.

———.“CormacMcCarthy’sVenomousFictions.”InterviewbyRichardB.Woodward.TheNewYorkTimes19Apr.1992:SM28+.Print.

———.TheRoad.2006.NewYork:Vintage,2007.Print.

Moskowitz,Sam.TheImmortalStorm:AHistoryofScienceFictionFandom.Westport,CT:Hyperion,1954.Print.

Parkes,Adam.“History,Bloodshed,andtheSpectacleofAmericanIdentityinBloodMeridian.”CormacMcCarthy:NewDirections.Ed.JamesD.Lilley.Albuquerque:UofNewMexicoPress,2002.Print.

375

Utopia At Last

Phillips,Dana.“HistoryandtheUglyFactsofCormacMcCarthy’sBloodMeridian.”AmericanLiterature68.2(1996):433–460.Print.

Pinsky,Michael.FuturePresent:Ethicsand/asScienceFiction.Madison,NJ:FarleighDickinsonUP,2003.Print.

TheProposition.Dir.JohnHillcoat.Perf.GuyPierce.FirstLookPictures,2005.Film.

Roberts,Adam.ScienceFiction.2nded.London:Routledge,2006.Print.

TheRoad.Dir.JohnHillcoat.Perf.ViggoMortensen.Dimension,2009.Film.

Sanders,Joe,ed.ScienceFictionFandom.Westport,CT:Greenwood,1994.Print.

Snyder,Philip.“HospitalityinCormacMcCarthy’sTheRoad.”TheCormacMcCarthyJournal6(2008):69–86.Print.

Sobchack,Vivian.ScreeningSpace:TheAmericanScienceFictionFilm.2nded.NewBrunswick:RutgersUP,1987.Print.

Suvin,Darko.MetamorphosesofScienceFiction:On thePoeticsandHistoryofaLiteraryGenre.NewHaven:YaleUP,1979.Print.

Villalon,Oscar.“InaTimeofWarandTrickery—TheYear’sBestBooks.”Sfgate.SanFranciscoChronicle,17Dec.2006.Web.07Jan.2010.

Warner,HarryJr.AllOurYesterdays:AnInformalHistoryofScienceFictionFandomintheForties.Chicago:Advent,1969.Print.

——.AWealthofFable:AnInformalHistoryofScienceFictionFandominthe1950s.VanNuys,CA:SCIFIPress,1976.Print.

Wegner,PhillipE.ImaginaryCommunities:Utopia,theNationandtheSpatialHistoriesofModernity.Berkeley:UofCaliforniaP,2002.Print.

Contributors

344

Christopher Pizzino isanAssistantProfessorofEnglishat theUniversityofGeorgia,where he teaches comics, science fiction and contemporaryAmericanliterature.HeiscurrentlyworkingonabookentitledArrestedDevelopment:ComicsattheBoundariesofLiterature.

Jessie Stickgold-Sarah isadoctoralcandidateinthedepartmentofEnglishandAmericanLiteratureatBrandeisUniversity.Sheiscompletingadissertationongeneticsinpost-DNAAmericanliterature.ShehastaughtliteratureandwritinginboththeEnglishandBiologydepartments,andisthedirectoroftheBrandeisWritingCenter.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.