The Radical Change of the Ecosphere and the Loss of
Humanity in Cormac McCarthy’s The Road and Samuel
Beckett’s Endgame
Master in de Taal- en Letterkunde
Engels
2015
Vakgroep Engelse Letterkunde
[2]
[3]
Acknowledgement
I would like to thank Professor Dr. Stef Craps for the ability to get extensive feedback during the early
phases of writing this project, and for sparking my interest in the study of cli-fi. Due to his critical
approach towards my initial thesis statement and the several chapters that I had in mind, I was able to
write a more encompassing study of the relation between Becketts Endgame and McCarthys
The Road, while at the same time focusing more on the link between climate change and its possible
effect on what it means to be human.
I would also like to express my gratitude towards Dr. Sarah Haas, who taught me how to stay focused
while writing, and who has shown me the benefits of scribbling. Mr. Sean Bex has been helpful as
well on this part, as he expressed great interest in my writing process and the topic of my project.
Lastly, I would like to thank my family and friends. Some of them were kind enough to act as proof-
readers; others shared copious cups of coffee with me, and gave me the chance to express my
thoughts in such a way that it made the overall structure of my project clearer.
[4]
“Once there were brook trout in the streams 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 vermiculate patterns that were
maps of the world in its 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.”
[5]
Contents
Acknowledgement .................................................................................................................................. 3
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 6
I. The Radical Change of the Ecosphere in Cormac McCarthys The Road and Samuel Becketts
Endgame ............................................................................................................................................... 12
A. Apocalyptic Events in The Road and Endgame ........................................................................ 12
B. The State of the Ecosphere in The Road and Endgame ............................................................ 14
II. The Loss of Humanity: Human Constructs, Society, Culture, and Ideals in a Post-Human World
…… ...................................................................................................................................................... 21
B. The Return to the Nomadic Foraging Principle ........................................................................ 25
C. The Reorganisation of Society .................................................................................................. 29
D. Past-Humanity and Post-Humanity: the Forced Change in Human Ethics .............................. 33
E. The Loss of Language and Perception in Connection to the Destruction of the Anthropocentric
Ecosphere .......................................................................................................................................... 39
III. Resistance to the Destruction of the Anthropogenic Ecosphere ............................................... 45
A. Remembering the Past .............................................................................................................. 45
B. The Preservation of Humanity: Personal Ethics ....................................................................... 48
IV. The End of Humanity ................................................................................................................ 53
A. Imagining a Possible Future: Hope in the Rebalancing of Nature ............................................ 53
B. The Future of Humankind and Humanity after the Destruction of the Anthropogenic
Ecosphere .......................................................................................................................................... 56
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 62
[6]
Introduction
During the last five years, popular news coverage concerning climate change has not only increased
rapidly, it has also picked up on the term “Anthropocene”, a concept that is used to explain the
relationship between humans and the environment “at the scale of the Earth as a single, evolving
planetary system” (Steffen 842), and how we are directly influencing it 1 . It is also the name for a new
geological era, being the successor of the Holocene. Whether we are currently living in this new
geological era, is a question which will be answered in 2016. By then, the International Union of
Geological Sciences (IUGS) will issue a statement regarding the end date of the Holocene and the
beginning of the Anthropocene.
Given the recent agreement within the UN on how the problems of climate change should be dealt
with 2 , and the ever increasing amount of published data which emphasises that the climate is changing
rapidly, it is clear that politicians, scientists, but also „common people are aware of the issues that are
connected to a changing climate, though no significant steps have been taken to at least slow down the
deterioration of the climate. Nevertheless, the consequences can be severe, and not only for the planet,
but also for the millions of species that inhabit it. According to Steffen, not only is the world
endangered by a “sixth great extinction […] and the first caused by a biological species”, climate
change “may well threaten the viability of contemporary civilisation and perhaps even the future
existence of Homo Sapiens.” (Steffen 850, 862, his emphasis). In other words, “humankind has
become a global geological force in its own right” (Steffen 843), and we are well on our way to
radically alter the world we are living in in such a way that it may even threaten our own survival as a
species.
Even though the consequences of climate change could be disastrous for humankind, some scientists
have argued that our species is not the most important thing at stake. As a counter to a too human-
centred approach, scientists that adhere to the approach of Deep Ecology believe that the extinction of
1 The full definition, according to the OED is “Relating to or denoting the current geological age, viewed as the
period during which human activity has been been the dominant influence on climate and the environment.”
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Anthropocene, consulted on 29/12/2014. 2 See “UN members agree deal at Lima climate talks”, published on www.bbc.com on 14/12/2014, consulted on
the human species is not necessarily a devastating event for the planet, and that it urges us “to change
our view from anthropocentrism to ecocentrism” (Morton 2). In his introductory work to Ecocriticism,
Greg Garrard states that according to “The Population Bomb” (1972), written by the deep ecologist
Paul Ehrlich, the human species can be seen as an “eco-pathological threat” (Garrard 96), a disease of
the planet itself. This implies that our own species is damaging the ecosphere, and that we must deal
with these radical changes in a way that limits our impact on the climate, if needed, by our own
extinction.
Nevertheless, the disappearance of human life on earth does not necessarily mean the end of
anthropogenic climate change. As Srinivas Aravamudan rightly argues in “The Catachronism of
Climate Change”, “Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the
time scales associated with climate processes and feedbacks” (Aravamudan 8). In other words, even if
our species becomes extinct, the influence of humankind on climate might continue for an extended
period until the planet has rebalanced itself. This argument has as a basic premise that it is impossible
to destroy an entire planet, and that Earth is not “a static, fixed image”, but “a process rather than an
object” (Garrard 204).
Still, the way we are influencing climate and how this may lead to a possible extinction of our own
species, are topics that spark plenty of discussion among scientists and creative writers. In his essay
on possible Anthropocene futures, Frans Berkhout lists five scenarios describing how our generation
and future generations might deal with the concept of climate change. One of these is a scenario that
focuses on the societal, cultural, and economic issues that are connected to anthropogenic climate
change, namely the “task in seeking to understand not only the connectedness of global change and
sustainability problems, but also how interactions are shaping the social, cultural and economic
responses” (Berkhout 157). It is this scenario that is currently the most present in the debate on
climate change as depicted in literature in the sense that a certain collection of fictional works, from
now on referred to as “climate fiction”, have been and are written specifically in order to shift the
issues concerning climate change from the scientific to the cultural domain. By dealing with these
issues on a general level, more people are made aware of the problematic nature of climate change
[8]
and are thusly encouraged to actively discuss the influence of our own species on the rapid change of
the planets ecosphere.
The literary study that focuses on this representation of climate change in fictional works is part of
“the critical category of ecocriticism or environmental criticism” (Trexler and Johns-Putra 189),
though “Ecocriticism” is not limited to literature alone. According to Trexler and Johns-Putra, it “is a
hybrid discipline, loosely composed of researchers investigating questions to do with literature,
culture, and the environment” (Trexler and Johns-Putra 192). When discussing the issue of climate
change, Trexler and John-Putra move away from a more general definition of ecocriticism, which
emphasises the link between the physical environment and literature by stating that, based on
„historical and methodological reasons, the engagement of ecocriticism with climate change is a
more recent phenomenon (Trexler and Johns-Putra 189).
Climate Fiction, or the fictional works that deal with the issues of climate change, is in itself a
collection of different genres, though most of them can be labelled as „science fiction narratives that
deal with the future of planet Earth, and “imagin[ing] a future setting in a climate-changed Earth”
(Trexler and Johns-Putra 186, 187). What is crucial here is that these works set their narratives in a
world that has already been radically changed by climate change, and not necessarily fully explain
how this change has occurred. In this way, they focus on the possible consequences, an issue that is
far more frightening than possible scenarios of how we might be changing the climate.
Such literary works are often referred to as partially belonging to the subgenre of Environmental
Apocalypticism, which deals with an apocalyptic event caused by radical change in the environment.
It is a subgenre that „is born out of crisis and “is not about anticipating the end of the world, but
about attempting to avert it by persuasive means” (Garrard 107-108).The difference, though, is that
Climate Fiction barely hints at the cause of the apocalypse, and that the event itself already has
happened before the narrative starts. Climate Fiction is more about what happens after the end, than
about the end itself. It is an example of how the humanities “look ahead further into the Anthropocene
and even consider what might follow in the future” (Tickell 931).
[9]
In “Climate Change in Literature and Literary Criticism”, Trexler and Johns-Putra give an example of
such a work. To them, Cormac McCarthys The Road (2006), a story about a father and son travelling
through a post-apocalyptic landscape, „deals with the issues of climate change in a less direct way
(Trexler and Johns-Putra 188). It is a bleak story of how two people have to adapt to a radically
changed and dangerous world on a physical level as well as on a mental level. Similarly, it is a story
about what it means to be human in a non-human environment.A similar example of a work that deals
with issues regarding humanity in a non-human world is Samuel Becketts Endgame (1957), a play
that is characterised by its minimal scenery and nonsensical plot. It is more about losing everything
you care about, including who you are, than it is about two people who want to accomplish something
throughout the duration of the play.
Both works start from the same premise, namely, that an apocalyptic event has taken place that
resulted in a radical change in the ecosphere. Note that I have purposely chosen not to use the word
“destruction” in connection to the apocalyptic event when talking about the state of the ecosphere.
The OED definition of “ecosphere”, “The biosphere of the earth or other planet, especially when the
interaction between the living and non-living components is emphasized” 3 , specifically states that for
there to be an ecosphere, there should be interaction between its living and non-living components.
As a total destruction of the ecosphere would imply that there is no interaction possible, this would
result in a totally static world. Since the world in The Road and in Endgame still has interaction in it,
as they deal with events from the perspective of survivors, the ecosphere in its entirety is not
destroyed. Instead, I will argue that the post-apocalyptic ecosphere in McCarthys The Road and
Becketts Endgame has undergone a radical change in such a way that this resulted in the destruction
of the anthropocentric ecosphere, and the loss of the sense of humanity that is connected to it.
In order to accomplish this, I will do a close reading of both works in several chapters, focusing on the
radical change of the ecosphere, the loss of humanity connected to this, the resistance of the
characters to the destruction of the anthropocentric ecosphere and how this is expressed on several
levels, and the inevitable end of humanity within both works.
3 Found on http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/ecosphere, and consulted on 19/11/2014.
In part I, I will describe the radical change of the ecosphere in both works by focusing firstly on the
apocalyptic events that set the change in motion. Secondly, I will describe the state of the ecosphere
by focusing on the atmospheric condition, the presence of vegetation, the lack of variety in animals,
and the condition of the human species. I will conclude this part by stating that the post-apocalyptic
ecosphere differs from its pre-apocalyptic counterpart in such a way that the apocalyptic event that
changed the ecosphere can be seen as having destroyed the anthropocentric ecosphere.
Part II will focus on how the radical change of the ecosphere and the destruction of the
anthropocentric ecosphere resulted in the loss of humanity for the survivors living in the post-
apocalyptic world. I have divided this part into five chapters, which respectively deal with how a post-
human world forces a reinterpretation of human constructs, how the survivors have the option to
return to a nomadic foraging lifestyle, several possibilities to reorganise a pre-apocalyptic society and
turn it into a post-apocalyptic one, the forced change or abandonment of an ethical lifestyle that is
considered „human, and finally how the destruction of the anthropocentric ecosphere results in the
loss of language and a changed perception of the world.
The way in which the characters in The Road and Endgame offer resistance towards the destruction of
the anthropocentric ecosphere is the subject of the third part, which I have divided into two chapters.
The first chapter is an explanation of the problematic relationship between the characters and their
own memories, dreams, and desires, and how these memories are slowly being corrupted. The second
chapter deals with the ethical actions, or lack thereof, by the characters, and how these are seen as
either a resistance to the post-human, un-ethical life or an acceptance thereof.
The final part takes a step back from the narrative itself and discusses whether there is any hope for
the characters in Endgame and The Road of seeing nature restore itself within their own lifetime, and
why it is undecided whether the entire planet is in the same state as the setting of both works. It also
deals with the possibility of there being a future for mankind and humanity in a post-apocalyptic, non-
human ecosphere by focusing on the possibility of the next generation to carry on living an ethical
life. Lastly, it is a plea to reread both works from a deep ecologist perspective and explains why the
[11]
end of humanity is just a phase in the larger process of change and adaptation of the planets
ecosphere.
[12]
I. The Radical Change of the Ecosphere in Cormac McCarthy’s
The Road and Samuel Beckett’s Endgame
A. Apocalyptic Events in The Road and Endgame
Post-apocalyptic works of fiction in general do not deal with an absolute destruction of the ecosphere,
nor of the biosphere, but rather with a radical change in the balance between the living- and non-
living components. An absolute destruction would imply demolishing the possibility of even writing a
story about it. Since there would be no more interaction between Earth and the organisms that inhabit
it, the planet would be a cold, silent, barren piece of rock, destined to remain in that state until it, as
well, is destroyed by external sources. As McCarthys The Road and Becketts Endgame deal with the
story of humans and their interactions with each other, other organisms, and the world around them, it
is impossible to state that the ecosphere in both works is completely destroyed. It has, however,
changed in such a radical way that it is out of balance, and that its inhabitants must find a way to cope
with this „new world.
Both Endgame and The Road still have some sort of world as a setting, although it does not in any
way resembles the world before the apocalyptic event. Both works move beyond the apocalypse and
focus on the state of the ecosphere at the moment of the narrative, rather than the evolution from the
pre-apocalyptic earth to its post-apocalyptic counterpart. As James Berger argues in After the End:
Representations of Post-apocalypse (1999) “[the] world after the world, the post-apocalypse, is
usually the true object of the apocalyptic writers concern. The end itself, the moment of cataclysm, is
only part of the point of apocalyptic writing” (Berger 6, his emphasis). Bergers statement concerning
apocalyptic writing applies to both The Road and Endgame, as the bulk of the narrative is situated
after the cataclysm. Both works deal with what is rather than what was, and clear references to the
events that changed the ecosphere are treated as asides or are simply not present.
The Road and Endgame share a lot of similarities concerning the lack of references to the apocalyptic
event that reshaped the ecosphere in the narrative. The characters in Becketts play never talk about
the events that led up to their current human condition, nor is there clear evidence in the stage
[13]
directions. However, as can be read in the preface to Endgame, written by Rónán McDonald, most
critics connect the plays bleak descriptions with “post-nuclear apocalypse, the devastations of the
Holocaust or the ravaged Normandy landscape that Beckett drove through in 1945” (McDonald xiv).
Though the main assumption is one that explains the traumatic event as caused entirely by humans,
and that its duration was brief, spanning at most a couple of years 4 , Becketts reluctance to explain the
origin of his bleak worldview in the play opens up another way of analysing the play, as was done by
the ecocritic Greg Garrard, who, in a rudimentary version of “Endgame: Becketts Ecological
Thought” 5 , focuses on the possibility of the apocalyptic event being more linked to ecology than
previously thought. While it is true that placing the play in the context of the 21 st century and linking
it to the “modern anxieties” (Garrard 16) would be anachronistic, Garrard argues that “an ecocritical
reading at least has the advantage that imagery from nature really does permeate the play, and that the
„end of nature´ is its most literal environment and immediate context.” (Garrard 16).
In McCarthys The Road, the apocalyptic event that caused the profound change of the ecosphere is
just as obscure as in Endgame, though the novel contains more references to the aftermath of the
event. In a non-chronological way, the narrator informs the reader of various events that occurred
after the apocalyptic event. When put in a chronological order, these asides from the narrator enable
the reader to construct a mental picture of how the radical change of the ecosphere took place. These
asides deal with, for example, the moment just after the event itself: “The clocks stopped at 1:17.
A long shear of light and then a series of low concussions” (McCarthy 54), as well as the life on the
road the first years after the event: “In those first years the roads were peopled with refugees shrouded
up in their clothing” (McCarthy 28). Where Endgame focuses solely on the state of ecosphere in real
time during the play, The Road offers more clarification on the gradual evolution from the
pre-apocalyptic ecosphere to the post-apocalyptic ecosphere. However, the “exact cause of the event
[is still] ambiguous” (Hardwig 42) and not even necessary, as it enables the narrative to focus on the
4 Given that the apocalyptic event is seen as a singular event which possesses clear boundaries in time, such as
for example the detonation of a nuclear bomb or a conflict that has a clear starting and ending point, and that the
aftermath of such an action is not part of the event itself. 5 As found on Garrards Academia profile page, consulted on 20/11/2014:
consequences of a change in the ecosphere, and can even offer more insight in the traumatic nature of
survival after an apocalyptic event.
Just like the reader, the characters in both Endgame and The Road never find out, or refuse to talk
about, the exact nature of the event that resulted in a radical change of the ecosphere.
Their lack of awareness of the apocalyptic event only adds to their role as victims and survivors of a
highly traumatic experience, as they are “marked with the imprints of catastrophe but without clear
knowledge of what exactly the catastrophe was” (Berger 49). This enables both narratives to focus
more on the physical state of the post-apocalyptic ecosphere and the physical and mental state of the
survivors of the pre-apocalyptic ecosphere. This double duality, the post-apocalyptic ecosphere and
the survivors of the pre-apocalyptic ecosphere on the one hand, and the physical and mental state of
those survivors on the other, implies that it is difficult, if not impossible, to disconnect the changed
ecosphere from the survivors 6 who have to adapt to it, while at the same time it focuses on both the
physical and mental reality of such a forced change.
In the next chapter, I will describe the physical state of the ecosphere, as perceived by human beings,
in both Endgame and The Road, by focusing on the living organisms, by which I mean animals and
humans, the vegetation, and the atmospheric condition of the post-apocalyptic world. In the
subsequent parts of this dissertation, I will discuss the way humans are forced to deal with this
changing physical reality and what this implies for them on a physical and mental level, as well as
their inability to deal with this change and their resistance to this forced change in their reality.
B. The State of the Ecosphere in The Road and Endgame
Through descriptions of the atmospheric condition, by which I mean weather phenomena such as
precipitation and temperature, but also the (lack of) sunlight, descriptions of the state of vegetative
organisms, and the state of animal populations and the human species alike, I will examine how the
post-apocalyptic ecosphere in The Road and Endgame differs from their pre-apocalyptic counterparts.
Both works contain a bleak description of the earths condition, although Endgame offers a far more
6 Although every living organism after the apocalyptic event can be seen as a “survivor”, I will focus solely on
human survivors.
[15]
negative state of the ecosphere than The Road. Additionally, I will also stress that these descriptions
are perceived by humans, and thatthe post-apocalyptic ecosphere does not necessarily present itself as
problematic for the planet, but for the people who live on it.
Unsurprisingly, the general description of the scenery in Endgame and The Road is similar, and is
well-adjusted to the bleak themes that can be found in the narrative. Both worlds are described as
„greyish, both in colour and sentiment. Every area is unappealing; every new landscape is identical to
the previous one. In the case of Endgame, in which there are no descriptions of the landscape other
than those made by the characters, the „world, meaning the stage set “suggest[s] the bleakest of living
spaces, but beyond this, we understand, things are even less hospitable” (Hamilton 614). Even the
characters find no excitement in studying the world around them. As Clov uses binoculars to describe
the scenery to Hamm, “he reports on the worlds nullity and grayness” (Hamilton 614).
The Road contains similar descriptions: “He woke before dawn and watched thegray day break”
(McCarthy 10), “There were days when the ashen overcast thinned and now the standing trees along
the road made the faintest of shadows over the snow” (McCarthy 107), “Long days. Open country
with the ash blowing over the road” (McCarthy 229). Rune Graulund reaches the same conclusion in
“Fulcrums and Borderlands. A Desert Reading of Cormac McCarthys The Road”: “the scenery of
The Road is drab [and] monochrome. […] The landscape is so monotonous, so flat and so dull, that it
does not really matter whether one moves or stays put. […] There is nothing to cherish in the
landscape, nothing to differentiate it from the next place down the road” (Graulund 60).
Though in general, both ecospheres are highly similar, a more in-depth analysis reveals that in
Endgame, the ecosphere is more desolate than the one in The Road. In a sense, the world in Endgame
consists of an inactive ecosphere. The weather, for example, is not dynamic anymore: “Hamm:
“Whats the weather like?” Clov: “The same as usual.”” (Beckett 19). This is expressed in various
weather phenomena. There are no more storms, no more gales, it does not even rain anymore:
“Hamm: “Itd need to rain.” Clov: “It wont rain.”” (Beckett 7). Even the sun seems to have given
out, and there are no more waves: “Hamm: “The waves. How are the waves?” Clov: “The waves?
[…] Lead.” Hamm: “And the sun?” Clov: “Zero”” (Beckett 21). The play suggests that there is
[16]
something fundamentally wrong with the ecosphere and the planet, and that this is irreparable.
The apocalyptic event resulted in the sunlight being blocked out: “Zero” (Beckett 21); and gravity,
which influences the tides, is out of balance as well: “Clov: “Theres no more tide.”” (Beckett 38).
The characters in the play are aware of this problematic inactiveness of the ecosphere, and simply do
not seem to care anymore. They know that there will be no more change, no more action. Every day
will be exactly like the day before. New observations are no longer necessary: “Hamm: “Look at the
earth.” Clov: “Ive looked.”” (Beckett 19).
Although the atmosphere in Endgame seems to be irreversibly static, descriptions in The Road portray
an atmosphere that is still active, the weather phenomena closely resembling those of the pre-
apocalypse, albeit the dominance of an atmosphere that is filled with ash, as described by use of
“ashen overcast” (McCarthy 107), the ash polluting the entire world: “everything was covered in ash”
(McCarthy 191). The narrative mentions various common precipitations and meteorological events
such as rain: “In the morning a cold rain was falling” (McCarthy 87), “they stood in the rain like farm
animals. [T]hey went on […] in the dull drizzle” (McCarthy20), snow: “The new snow lay in skifts all
through the woods” (McCarthy 79), “By late afternoon it has begun to snow” (McCarthy 189); but
also (lightning) storms, often paired with heavy downpours (McCarthy 49, 251-252).
Moreover, there is ample evidence that the climate is changing as well, the narrative starting with the
father and the boy on the run for winter as “[i]ts getting colder every day” (McCarthy 42). However,
there is no evidence that this is a repeating pattern. It might simply be the case that the world is
turning colder, without any chance of spring or summer ever occurring again. The “alien sun” is in
“cold transit” every day (McCarthy 189), meaning that the sun is not always visible through the
blanket of ash in the atmosphere, which consequently turns its presence in the sky into something
strange and not common. The same ash blanket may also influence the suns capability to heat the
planet, serving as a layer of insulation which largely blocks the suns rays.
Yet, the narrative in The Road does not contain the same view of the ecosphere as Endgame, the
former being an ecosphere of change, as is expressed in the descriptions of the atmosphere, the latter
[17]
providing a bleak image of a static ecosphere in which nothing moves anymore. As Hamilton has
suggested, “[t]he deadness is general, the universe itself a kind of tomb” (Hamilton 614).
This tomb-like image in Endgame is also supported by the references to vegetation, or rather, the lack
of growth of plants. In one scene, Hamm and Clov discuss Clovs project of growing new plants, only
to conclude that “[t]hey havent sprouted” and [t]heyll never sprout” (Beckett 11-12). Together with
Clovs comment that “[t]heres no more nature […] [i]n the vicinity” (Beckett 10), the inability to
grow new vegetation adds to the idea that the characters are living in a desolate, barren world in
which the only way to „see forests, or nature in general, is by dreaming about them (Beckett 6).
Similar to Endgame, The Roadrarely contains imagery of vegetation that is not connected to death and
barrenness. The narrative especially emphasises dead trees, with references to “barren woodland”,
“cedar trees that lay about in hillocks of snow and broken limbs”, “a few standing trunks that stood
stripped and burntlooking ” (McCarthy 14-15, 103), and finally: “All the trees in the world are going
to fall sooner or later” (McCarthy 35). The imagery in these descriptions refers to the all-out
destruction of vegetation in the sense that even the mightiest, oldest examples of vegetative life, i.e.
the trees, cannot survive in this post-apocalyptic world. Even though they might be still standing, they
are broken, or burned black; and all are dead and bound to fall down eventually. Not one tree has
escaped the apocalyptic event. No matter how far the protagonists travel, they always encounter the
same imagery, namely, endless clusters of dead trees: “The country went from pine to liveoak and
pine. Magnolias. Trees as dead as any” (McCarthy 209). Apart from explicit descriptions of dead
trees, the narrative also includes references to other plants, which are found in the same state, whether
they are simply grasses: the “dead sedge” (McCarthy 103), beautiful flowers: “[a] tangle of dead
lilac” (McCarthy 26), or man-made hedges “gone to rows of black and twisted brambles” (McCarthy
20).
In contrast with the abundance of dead vegetation, in The Road, there are barely any signs of animals,
the single two instances of animal life found on its own being the memory of a flock of migratory
birds: “He never heard them again” (McCarthy 55), and the scene in which the boy hears a dog in the
[18]
distance: “They listened. Then in the distance they heard a dog bark” (McCarthy 87). Both the
characters and the reader can assume that all other animals have become extinct, either because of the
lack of food resources or because they have been hunted down and eaten by other life forms. In the
post-apocalyptic world, humanity is the most dangerous predator alive, willing to hunt down every
other animal to ensure its own survival. However, there is still uncertainty about the condition of
zoological life other than humans. It is possible, however improbable, that somewhere on earth, some
animals might have survived. In a way, the characters still hope that they have been misled by the
inability to know whether everything is dead or not. This sentiment is expressed by the father when he
takes a moment of reflection after their arrival at the seaside and imagines what could still be out
there: “He thought there could be […] life in the deep. Great squid propelling themselves over the
floor of the sea in the cold darkness” (McCarthy 234).
As mentioned above, zoological life has largely gone extinct and the remainder of it has been hunted
down by humans as a source of food. Examples of this can be found in the various descriptions of
hunting groups and scavengers who live on the road and are constantly searching for resources
(McCarthy 62-63, 96, 207). Unlike other life forms, the human population is still visibly present in the
world, though they are not thriving and are well on their way towards extinction themselves.
As with the discussion of vegetation in Endgame, the references to animal life are non-existent, except
for a small flea (Beckett 22), a rat (Beckett 33), and a little child outside (Beckett 46),whichall seem
to turn up out of nowhere, as if they just came into existence or are figments of the characters
imagination. Besides these strange occurrences, the play suggests that there is only life in Hamms
shelter, the last geographical space in which zoological life can be found: “Hamm: “Theres no one
else.” Clove: “Theres nowhere else.””(Beckett 8).At the same time, the characters do not seem to be
able to completely come to terms with this emptiness of their universe. When talking about crossing
the sea on a raft, Hamm and Clov think about what they might expect there, their hope focused on
“other … mammals” (Beckett 23). This idea, which is also present in The Road, is connected to the
hope of not being entirely alone, which is a type of assurance on an existential level, and which
enables the characters to continue to survive. Perhaps someday, they will meet other people who are
[19]
equally minded, animals that have survived, and plants that are able to thrive. It is an example of
„existential hope, as opposed to „existential fear, which both deal with the idea of being alone in the
universe, the former emphasising the possibility of not being the last one, the latter focusing on the
dread of being the only one left.
In summary, the ecosphere in both Endgame and The Road is severely limited based on the state of
vegetative and zoological life. The Road emphasises the imagery of dead trees as a way of portraying
the inability of plants to grow back, whereas in Endgame, the landscape is completely barren to the
point that vegetative life seems non-existent. The state of animal life is equally desolate.
In Endgame, the characters seem to be the only people alive, and their shelter is the only geographical
space that is suitable for some life to endure: “Endgame […] imprisons its characters in a room which
might be the only place on earth to house human life.” (Pattie 76). The Road also describes a highly
limited diversity of animals, all of the species being on the brink of extinction, including humanity,
which has so far succeeded to survive by, in part, hunting down other animals and using them as a
food source 7 . Lastly, based on meteorological phenomena, Endgame suggests that the ecosphere is
entirely inactive, and that there is no more possibility of immediate improvement. The narrative in
The Road, however, does contain descriptions of weather that closely resembles its pre-apocalyptic
counterpart.
Even though the ecosphere in The Road might seem less deteriorated than the ecosphere in Endgame,
both works still deal with a world that radically differs from the pre-apocalyptic one we are currently
living in. Critics such as James Wood, Ben De Bruyn, and Greg Garrard have argued that this change
in ecosphere signifies the „end of nature, by which they mean „nature as perceived by human beings,
nature as a form of human construct. Garrard explicitly states that, in the case of Endgame, the fact
that the characters do not perceive nature anymore serves as a “tragicomic exploration of the end of
nature” (Garrard 393). By only seeing an ecosphere that does not resemble its pre-apocalyptic
counterpart, the belief that there is still a habitable world quickly vaporises.In this way, it is not the
7 Besides hunting down animals, most people are also scavengers, and some even turn to cannibalism. This will
be discussed in further chapters.
[20]
ecosphere that has been destroyed; it has simply changed in such a radical way that the human view of
this ecosphere, the „anthropocentric ecosphere, has been destroyed. In a sense, the ecosphere has
moved beyond its human construct. This is expressed in James Woods “Getting to the End”, in which
he describes McCarthys imagery, dealing with the destruction of the ecosphere, as profoundly
changed in such a way that it might even be called “post-human” (Wood 44). This implies two
important observations, firstly, that this „post-human ecosphere is not to be perceived from an
anthropocentric point of view, and secondly, that human beings have to become „post-humans in
order to fully adapt to this non-anthropocentric ecosphere.
As to the first implication of James Woods statement of a „post-human ecosphere, Ben De Bruyn
points out that “it may be difficult to imagine the destruction of the human world, but it is even more
difficult to imagine the annihilation of the earth itself” (De Bruyn 778). It would be egocentric to
presume that because humanity has severe difficulties with trying to survive in a
post-apocalyptic world, the entire ecosphere has been irreversibly destroyed. Nevertheless, there is no
escaping the fact that the post-apocalyptic ecosphere is not the ideal ecosphere for humanity to thrive
in. It is a non-anthropocentric, post-human ecosphere that affects the way humanity deals with its
surroundings. In chapters A, B, C, and E of part II, I will present a discussion of this non-
anthropocentric ecosphere and how human concepts of nature and culture are directly influenced after
the apocalypse by focusing on the link between the human concepts of nature and culture, the re-
establishing of the nomadic foraging principle, the reorganisation of society, and the loss of language
and perception.
The second implication is that, in order to ensure their survival in a post-human ecosphere, humanity
must move away from their definition of the concept of humanity. In other words, the circumstances
might force them to indulge in actions that are considered non-human or inhuman when approached
from a pre-apocalyptic viewpoint. I will deal with a discussion of such actions in the penultimate
chapter of part II, which deals with a forced change in human ethics.
[21]
II. The Loss of Humanity: Human Constructs, Society, Culture, and
Ideals in a Post-Human World
A. A Post-Human World: A Reinterpretation of Human Constructs
The discussion of the state of the ecosphere in Endgame and The Road in part Ihas shown that the
ecosphere is non-anthropocentric, and therefore moves away from a human-centred point of view.
This implies a change of the physical reality of the survivors, but also in the way they think about
nature around them. The concept of “nature” can be seen as a human construct, as is expressed by
Timothy W. Luke, who, in Ecocritique: Contesting the Politics of Nature, Economy, and Culture
(1997), writes on the changing meaning of “nature”. To him, the meaning of the concept is moving
towards “Denature”, as almost the entire world is a “built environment” (Luke 195). This concept
cannot simply be opposed to “culture” anymore. Both are influenced by human agency, and both are
seen from an anthropocentric perspective, with the goal of organising an anthropocentric reality.
This implies that, in the case of Endgame and The Road, the human concept of “nature” is faltering, as
the physical reality and the constructed, anthropocentric reality move away from each other.
The pre-apocalyptic concept is in need of re-interpretation, either by accommodating to the radical
change in reality, thereby providing a new definition of “nature”, or by moving away from the
concept entirely and opting for a post-human interpretation of “nature”.
Since the physical reality of the world after the apocalypse differs radically from the reality of the
pre-apocalyptic world, a re-interpretation of the concept would change the definition in such a way
that there would be two entirely different, even opposing definitions for the same concept; the first
one describing nature as a concept that implies an abundance of life, as seen in the pre-apocalyptic
reality, the second interpretation being its opposite, namely a barren ecosphere. This problem is
solved by moving away from the pre-apocalyptic, anthropocentric concept of “nature”, and instead
adopting a new concept that is un-anthropocentric: the “post-natural” (Huggan& Tiffin 206).
[22]
The implications of such a radically unanthropocentric concept are discussed in Graham Huggan and
Helen Tiffins Postcolonial ecocriticism: Literature, animals, environment (2010), in which is stated
that this new concept not only changes how nature should be perceived, it also changes the way
humanity is perceived, as the discourses that deal with the „post-natural also deal with „a crisis of
humanism (Huggan & Tiffin 206). Since nature and humanity are intertwined (Clark 6) 8 , an un-
anthropocentric take on nature automatically enforces an un-anthropocentric take on everything
related to humanism as well. In other words, radical changes in the environment dictate radical
changes in concepts that are human constructs 9 , including the concept of humanity.
This forced change in human constructs is clearly present in The Road. As Ben De Bruyn argues:
“[The protagonists] struggle for survival leads them through the ruins of nature and culture alike”
(De Bruyn 776). This ruin of culture is expressed in the all-out destruction of material, man-made
objects, human-made fossils as it were, such as burned roadside hedges (McCarthy 20), the wreckage
of cars (McCarthy 11), stranded boats (Beckett 236), books (McCarthy 199), and tracks in the melted
roads (McCarthy 50), but also non-physical constructs such as “[n]ation states, [and] social codes of
civil conduct” (Graulund 60). De Bruyn is right to question the significance of this total destruction:
“But what if the condition of ruin affected the entire human world? In that case, our entire sense of
self, memory and place would dissolve” (De Bruyn 781). The destruction of the anthropocentric
constructs brings forth a complete post-human approach to the post-apocalyptic world, in which every
symbol, image, and concept has to be rethought and approached from a post-human perspective.
Some concepts have lost their meaning entirely, an example of this being books (see below), while
other meaningless concepts such as tracks have become highly significant in the post-apocalyptic
world (see below). In this sense, The Road is very much “radically unanthropocentric” (Phillips 446):
“The reassuring smoke of the human community is replaced with ash storms, the fertile pastures and
inviting houses have been laid waste, the enveloping nature lies dead, the harmonizing “luminosity” is
8 In The Cambridge Introduction to Literature and the Environment, Timothy Clark defines nature “at its
broadest” as “the sum total of the structures, substances and causal powers that are the universe. In this sense,
evidently, humanity is part of nature” (Clark 6). 9 A „human construct can be the valorisation of a certain item or an additional layer of meaning connected to a
certain image, sign, or idea. In the terminology of De Saussure, the human construct is the „mental concept
connected to a certain sign, the signifié.
[23]
replaced with faded murk and the freezing observer has to scout ahead with his binoculars and hide
under a plastic tarp, for lack of a living tree” (De Bruyn 778).The post-apocalyptic world is a world of
survival and constant danger, and is therefore unlike the world humans are accustomed to living in.
It has moved beyond the human constructs of civilisation and security.
Examples of these post-human centred approaches are found in the change of the symbols which have
lost their original link to humanity or have become exactly the opposite of what they implied in a pre-
apocalyptic world. The symbolism of fire, smoke, and ash, for example, has undergone significant
changes. In the pre-apocalyptic world, fire and smoke were seen as signs of human activity, connected
to warmth and companionship, and besides that as a sign of danger if the fire is not controlled. In the
post-apocalyptic world of The Road, however, fires are always dangerous if not lit by the protagonists
themselves. Smoke and fire might mean other people, and other people are unpredictable and solely
focused on their own survival, making fire and smoke signs of possibly dangerous encounters.
A lack of smoke or fire in the vicinity, therefore, is safer than seeing a distant glow on the horizon:
“Nothing to see. No smoke” (McCarthy 7), “watching for any sign of a fire or a lamp. There was
nothing” (McCarthy 8). Additionally, the residue of fire, namely ash, has become a sign of safety.
When the protagonists observe scenes in which everything has been covered in ash, they are able to
let their guard down. Nothing has moved, therefore no one has passed through this area for quite some
time: “The city was mostly burned. No sign of life. Cars in the street caked with ash, everything
covered with ash and dust” (McCarthy 11). By observing the ash itself, they can also approximate the
moment the fire burned out, either on its own or because the people who had lit it decided to leave.
Besides the changed meaning of certain concepts, signs, and symbols, other constructs have either
gained significance or have lost it entirely. Books, for example, used to be connected with knowledge
and wisdom, though after the apocalypse, their knowledge has become useless and out of date.
Since they only tell stories of the past, they have no place in the post-human world. This is expressed
in a scene in which the father visits the ruins of a library, and where he “pick[s] up one of the books
and thumb[s] through the heavy bloated pages” (McCarthy 199), only to discard it almost
immediately and “[make] his way out into the cold gray light” (McCarthy 199). Books have become
[24]
insignificant. They are useless items that have lost their connection to the world, and are worth as
much as all other garbage that was left behind.
Contrary to books, there are also signs of which the signifié was marginally important in the pre-
apocalyptic world, but which has been expanded considerably in the post-apocalyptic world of
The Road. Tracks, for example, have become more meaningful to every human being that encounters
them. They are connected with (human) activity, either long ago or very recently: “Bye and bye they
came to a set of tracks cooked into the tar. […] Someone had come out of the woods in the night and
continued down the melted roadway” (McCarthy 50). In the post-human world, they signify
potentially problematic situations; the emotion attached to it being “fear”.
Even though both Endgame and The Road deal with what comes after the apocalypse, Becketts play
does not provide clear examples of a necessary re-interpretation of the human constructs as the play is
more about „not dealing with change rather than „adapting to a new world. The absence of post-
human imagery is in line with the minimalistic approach to the narrative. The characters are incapable
of leaving, either because of their indecisiveness or their physical disabilities. They are
simultaneously saved by, and trapped in, the pre-apocalyptic constraints of their shelter. As argued by
Rónán McDonald in the introduction to the play, Endgame consists of “terrible strictures […], spatial
and temporal” (McDonald viii). They are not forced to deal with the changed world; there is simply
no reason why they should step outside. Their world consists of the shelter, the last place that is
„familiar and „human to them. Additionally, they are stuck in the pre-apocalyptic world in such a
way the world outside has moved on and has become post-human. As Greg Garrard argues in his
essay on ecology in Endgame, the play is very much about “„the end of nature” (Garrard 395), and its
characters already inhabit „the world beyond the apocalypse (Garrard 395). They are not capable of
dealing with this new world, or are unwilling to do so.
It is the way of how the protagonists live their lives that makes Endgame and The Road so different,
although both works deal with similar themes. The next two chapters will discuss how the characters
[25]
in Endgame and The Road organise their life by focusing on how they deal with the lack of food
sources and how they deal with the possible presence of other humans in the vicinity.
B. The Return to the Nomadic Foraging Principle
Though Graulund argues that the life of The Roads characters on the road “rapidly dissolves into
meaninglessness” (Graulund 67); there is still a biological force that ensures that they keep moving,
namely, their survival instinct in general, and their fear for starvation and the feeling of hunger in
specific: “Two more days. Then three. They were starving right enough” (McCarthy 136). In this
sense, their journey south is not meaningless, they are actively trying to find a place that, because of
its geographical locations, lessens the difficult task of survival on the road: “They were moving south.
Thered be no surviving another winter here” (McCarthy 2). The protagonists in The Road spend most
of their time moving from one resting stop to the next, constantly worried about their meagre food
stock (McCarthy 16) and their weak physiology: at one point, the boy has a high fever that the father
needs to treat (McCarthy 265) while the father himself suffers from a disease that resembles
pneumonia, of which he eventually dies (McCarthy 300).
Since the father and son are almost always on the verge of starvation, they are often forced to keep
going, even if that means the possibility of ending up in a dangerous situation: “Well have to take a
risk. We need to find something to eat” (McCarthy 83).Together with the inability to stay in one place
and grow vegetables, their struggle for survival forces them to lead the life of foragers. However, due
to the lack of fresh food sources and animals that they could hunt, they are reliant on canned goods
that they happen to find. They are foragers of human-processed food sources and have to closely
examine every shelter, house, or supermarket since there may be some food that has not been found
by others: “In the produce section in the bottom of the bins they found a few ancient runner beans and
what looked to have once been apricots” (McCarthy 21-22). Because of their reliance on human-
processed food sources, their diet consists only of what they are able to find. They are foraging
omnivores that eat whatever they can find, and this sets them apart from the blood cults and cannibals
on the road, who have chosen to be mainly carnivorous hunters of their own kind (see below).
[26]
Although they are not in any position to leave food behind, being constantly on the verge of
starvation, the man and the child sometimes opt for not taking and eating certain goods because it
would slow them down significantly: “What are we going to do with all the stuff? Well just have to
take what we can.” (McCarthy 159-160) or for fear of becoming sick: “Someone before him had not
trusted [the jars of tomatoes] and in the end neither did he” (McCarthy 21). Should one of them
become so ill or hurt that they could not keep up the pace, they would both rapidly starve. Being ill or
hurt significantly lowers their chances of survival: after the fathers leg has been pierced by an arrow,
their journey towards the sea consists of him “limping along behind the cart and the boy keeping close
to his side” (McCarthy 289).
However, their survival relies more on luck than on skill. There is no security on the road, no certainty
of a future, no back-up plan. Their inability to solve specific problems urges them to avoid these
problems at all costs: “If they got wet they would probably die” (McCarthy 14). It is not their life on
the road that is meaningless; it is life in general that relies more on chance than on skill. In other
words, the protagonists in The Road do not control their own destiny. They may starve before finding
the necessary food source that may sustain them for at least another day. They can be killed by other
people on the road because they might be in the possession of items that those other people can use to
improve their lives. Their deaths would be of no significance: “There was a good chance they would
die in the mountains and that would be that” (McCarthy 29).
The opposite of their life on the road, a sedentary life, would be impossible without a well-stocked
shelter. Even though the father and son stumble on a bunker (McCarthy 146-147, 153) that is filled
with crates and crates of the necessary supplies to survive for months or even years, they make the
decide not to stay there, for fear of other people and what they may do to the father and son if they
were to find out about their abundance of food: “How long can we stay here Papa? Not long. How
long is that? I dont know. Maybe one more day. Two. Because its dangerous. Yes.” (McCarthy
157). Moreover, even if no one else discovers this shelter and tries to take it by force, they would have
to venture out at one point, as the shelter is an artificial, man-made oasis that cannot sustain people for
[27]
the duration of their entire life: “the bunker is at best an ambivalent space, an industrial Eden whose
goods can be consumed but not renewed” (Warde 10).
In the case of Endgame, the characters need not to worry about the dangers of a life on the road. They
have a secure location in which they can stay until supplies have run out. They do not need to forage
for canned goods as it seems that, at the moment, they have everything they need in the bunker.
However, because of the various physical disabilities and the general indecision of both Hamm and
Clov, they are also stuck in their secure shelter. Hamm, for example, is a blind wheelchair user and
relies on the services of Clov, who cannot sit down. Since they are “obliged to each other” (Beckett
48), they have formed a symbiotic bond that is difficult to break. Throughout the play, Clov threatens
to leave Hamm, even though he fully realises that there is nowhere for him to go. The play ends with
Clov standing at the edge of the bunkers interior, “impassive and motionless” (Beckett 49),
seemingly unsure of what comes next, “his eyes fixed on Hamm, till the end” (Beckett 49). Hamm,
Clov, and Hamms father and mother are confined to the last space that belongs to the human world.
Outside their bunker, there is nothing left 10
that can be called „human. The bunker is insulating in the
way that it keeps the last of humanity in, while at the same time keeping the post-human world out.
To Hamm, the bunker is his world, anything on the outside is non-existent to him: “Take me for a
little turn. […] Right round the world!” (Beckett 18).
Even though they might be safe from the outside world, the characters are unable to ignore the fact
that, as Clov rightly points out, “something is taking its course” (Beckett 12). They are running out of
food, either because their stocks have been depleted: “Theres no more pap” (Beckett 10), “There are
no more sugar plums!” (Beckett 34), or because Hamm refuses to share whats left in the larder: “Ill
give you nothing more to eat” (Beckett 9), “Clov: “I dont know the combination of the larder””
(Beckett 9). Additionally, random human-created items seem to disappear: “There are no more
bicycle-wheels” (Beckett 9), “There are no more rugs” (Beckett 40).In contrast to food, these are not
necessary to ensure the survival of the people in the bunker. They are, however, examples of a human
world that is slowly vanishing. Consequently, there will be a point when the characters are given the
10
See I. B. “The State of the Ecosphere in The Road and Endgame”
[28]
choice between starving or venturing out in search of food. The former guarantees a safe but slow and
painful death; the latter forces them to deal with the insecurities of the post-human world outside their
bunker.
The choice offered to the protagonists in Endgame and The Road when they are confronted by an
eden-like shelter, filled with canned goods and other necessities, is an existential dilemma in itself. Do
they opt for a comfortable death by staying inside the bunker even when all food has ran out, or do
they prefer a hazardous life on the road that can end any day should they run into unfriendly people or
have the bad luck of not finding anything to eat for an extensive period?
The nomadic, foraging lifestyle that is propagated in The Road has as many advantages as it has
disadvantages. It offers the possibility to meet people who are like-minded. Furthermore, it is possible
to more or less avoid potentially dangerous situations if one is careful. In contrast, random events
might develop into hazardous encounters with people who want to take what is not theirs, and
sometimes the urge to survive after having to spend days without food can force one to do reckless
things. A life on the road harbours much insecurity, and random events may end up being positive
experiences, such as finding the necessary goods to survive another day, or negative consequences
like encountering a group of cannibals.
Similarly, a life as described in Endgameis neither entirely positive nor negative. The thought of
having everything necessary to survive gathered in a secure and comfortable place might seem utopic,
but the reality of the play has shown that there is no place for utopia in the world after the apocalypse.
A secure bunker is only secure when the necessities needed to survive are renewable, which is
definitely not the case in Endgame.It is just a temporary solution to a systemic problem. If new plants
cannot be grown, and animals cannot be bred, humanity must rely on human-processed goods to
ensure its survival. As a consequence, survivors of the apocalypse are forced to deal with the post-
apocalyptic world and the other survivors that inhabit it. This also has an influence on the way these
people organise their social life, as the pre-apocalyptic society has disappeared almost entirely. The
destruction of the old dogmas of what a human society should be like, opens up an array of
[29]
possibilities in the post-human world: do people opt for a nomadic, solitary life or are they willing to
form little groups or even a small band of like-minded souls? And what are the consequences of these
choices?
C. The Reorganisation of Society
The protagonists in both Endgame and The Road all choose a life outside the post-apocalyptic society.
The father and son in McCarthys novel try to avoid other people as much as possible while Becketts
Hamm and Clov prefer a total lockdown of their bunker. No one can enter it, and they are unable to
leave it. In the previous part, I have already discussed the physical consequences of these choices.
However, I have not discussed the mental aspects that are related to a nomadic, solitary life on the
road and to a sedentary but secluded lifestyle, nor have I described other ways of living on the road.
This chapter will focus on the issues mentioned above, and will also describe the lifestyle of the
people who travel in nomadic caravans in The Road.
The nomadic, solitary lifestyle of the father and son in McCarthys narrative is, as described in the
previous chapter, focused on avoiding conflict as much as possible, while at the same time trying to
find every piece of food in the area. This is as exhausting as it is nerve-wracking, and often brings
both the father and son to the brink of severe anxiety: “The boy was frozen with fear” (McCarthy 63).
Most of their days are spent on the road, scouting out possible locations where they might find some
supplies. At the slightest hint of danger, however, the man either leaves the road or turns back.
Staying out of sight or fleeing are the two best actions that are available to them, since they cannot
defend themselves against entire groups: “This was not a safe place. They could be seen from the road
now it was day.” (McCarthy 3). They are on their own and have no reliable weapons to defend
themselves: “You aint got but two shells. Maybe just one. And theyll hear the shot” (McCarthy 66).
The fact that they are on their own in an unknown and dangerous world makes the father and son
unable to relax. They are constantly vigilant and have to remain aware of potential signs of other
people who might have prepared an ambush for them. Their life on the road has made them paranoid
as they have issues with exploring seemingly abandoned houses and are do not easily trust other
[30]
travellers: “We got a man hurt. Itd be worth your while. Do I look like an imbecile to you?”
(McCarthy 67).
Even though their lifestyle may seem dangerous, they are also able to easily find shelter that would be
inaccessible to larger groups: “They […] made their camp in the dry dirt under the rocks” (McCarthy
8). They do not need plenty of supplies to survive, and are able to transport everything they have in a
shopping cart. These benefits turn them into flexible survivors, who can easily adapt to even the
grimmest circumstances. Their practice of never staying in the same place for too long, combined
together with their lightweight equipment and small headcount, significantly raises their chances of
not being hunted down and killed.
This solitary lifestyle has a negative side to it as well. If something should happen to either the man or
the boy, they can only rely on themselves. When the father is hit by an arrow, he yells at the boy for
not reacting to his questions: “Get the first-aid kit, damn it. Dont just sit there.” (McCarthy 284).
Later, he apologises, and the father and son agree so start anew: “Im sorry I yelled at you. He looked
up. Thats okay, Papa. Lets start over. Okay.” (McCarthy 285). They cannot afford to argue.
They need each other, as no one else is going to help them. They are alone and do not easily trust
other people on the road.
Becketts Endgame has its own version of a solitary lifestyle, namely a sedentary life of seclusion that
is a-social rather than anti-social. Rather than avoiding other people, they are safely locked away in
their bunker. It is made clear that, even in the earlier days, Hamm only focused on his own survival
and only had visitors, which he refused entrance and help (Beckett 27), rather than him going out to
visit others: “Hamm, Clov, Nagg, and Nell seem to exist within no community other than that which
they themselves form” (Lyons 204). Together with his parents and his loyal servant, he inhabits a
place that is not part of the world outside. Even more so, to him, the only world that matters is the one
that can be found in his immediate vicinity. He is literally the centre of his world: “Am I right in the
centre?” (Beckett 45).
[31]
This centrality of Hamm is expressed in his bond with Clov as well. Since they both suffer from
physical disabilities, they need each other to make their lives more comfortable: Hamm needs
someone to take care of him and administer his medication: “Is it not time for my pain-killer?”
(Beckett 42). Hamm often reminds Clov that if it were not for his generosity of taking in the little
Clov all those years ago, the child would have died of starvation. They have a symbiotic agreement in
the idea that they need to look after each other, even though the years of seclusion have eroded their
friendship: “Clov: “Theres one thing Ill never understand. Why I always obey you. Can you explain
that to me?” Hamm: “No… Perhaps its compassion. A kind of great compassion”” (Beckett 45) and
further: “Its we are obliged to each other” (Beckett 48).
Although Clov bears a lot of responsibilities and has always been obedient, Hamm does not trust him
enough to give him crucial information such as the combination to open the larder (Beckett 9). In this
way, Hamm refuses to make Clov an equal. Clov is Hamms subject, bound to his master because he
was generous enough to let him stay. Throughout the play, Clov becomes more defiant of his master,
and the play ends with Hamm possibly being left by the only one that can take care of him: “Clov!
Nothing. Clov!” (Beckett 48).
The characters in Endgame experience a considerable amount of social pressure in the sense that in
order for them to survive, there can be no long-term arguments that might threaten the bond that they
have. This also implies that they have to refrain from being honest to each other or from openly
discussing problems. As they are incapable of living on their own, they are trapped in their
deterministic little world in which each endless day looks exactly the same. Even if they were capable
of leaving their bunker, they know nothing of the post-apocalyptic world outside and are certainly not
prepared to survive in a world they are not accustomed to. They are simply not ready for any type of
change that might occur.
Besides the lifestyles of the protagonists in Endgame and The Road, certain scenes in McCarthys
novel describe another way of organising your life in a post-apocalyptic world, namely, those that
deal with nomadic caravans. These are groups of people who have formed a small community and
[32]
travel in numbers to ensure their safety. However, this lifestyle is a fragile one, as the slightest
misadventure might make them turn against each other.
The scenes in The Road describe these caravans as “stained and filthy” (McCarthy 62), carrying
weapons like “clubs” (McCarthy 62) and “lengths of pipe” (McCarthy 63). The narrator describes
them as a “phalanx [carrying] spears or lances tasselled with ribbons, the long blades hammered out
of trucksprings in some crude forge upcountry” (McCarthy 96). They are armed to the teeth and
prepared to defend their supplies, but at the same time they are not afraid of actively trying to murder
other people just because they might have additional supplies.
Since they travel in conspicuous groups, have to make use of diesel trucks to transport their supplies
(McCarthy 63), and mainly follow the roads towards their various destinations, conflict with other
groups is inevitable: “when these large bands encounter “others” in possession of more resources,
there will be little to no chance of avoiding conflict over gaining or retaining those resources”
(Lawrence 166). The most important advantage is that larger groups raise the potential of survival
when attacked. Not only is there safety in numbers, some members of the group can choose to stay
and fight while others choose to escape and hide, making it more likely to have at least some
survivors.
Though large groups might seem intimidating, they are also very vulnerable. First of all, the more
people are in the group, the more resources are needed to ensure the survival of everyone in the group.
This implies that not everything can be carried on ones back, and that other means of transportation
are needed. The diesel truck, as mentioned in McCarthys narrative, is as useful as it is a burden to the
group. It can carry an enormous amount of extra supplies, but it needs plenty of fuel to keep it
running. If it breaks down, repairs can stall progress for several hours: “The motor [of the truck]
sounded ropy. Missing and puttering. Then it quit.” (McCarthy 64).
Secondly, the group needs to spend more time collecting supplies. Since these supplies are not easily
found, the group is forced to stay in one place for an extensive period, as the people in it cannot afford
to hastily scour locations but need to be sure that they have collected every useful item. This is time-
[33]
consuming and dangerous, as an immobile group is easily attacked. Moreover, should they be unable
to find enough food, some members of the group might turn on other members to ensure that they
have enough to eat. A large group is like a miniature society, and these societies in the post-
apocalyptic world are based on only one principle: the strongest survive by preying on the weakest.
Since the bond between them is mostly an artificial one, unlike the bond between the father and the
son, it is unlikely that the people in the group would have each others well-being in mind. If the
dilemma would present itself, the individual members would choose to act in such a way that they
may have a bigger chance of survival than the other people in their group.
The nomadic caravans in The Road are examples of fragile miniature societies that can provide safety
if they do not encounter bigger, more powerful groups and if they do not have a shortage of supplies.
The people in the group cannot avoid being spotted as the use of vehicles forces them to use roads.
A potential breakdown of their equipment might stall them for an extensive period. This is time they
cannot afford to lose, as they are in constant need of more supplies.The group might turn on itself if
there would be any shortages.
When compared to each other, a life spent in nomadic caravans is not inherently safer than a solitary,
nomadic life as lived by the father and son. It is a life that has only one guiding principle, namely that
one needs to do anything to survive and that one is the most important person in the group. This
deviates significantly from the lifestyles of the father and son, and Hamm and Clov in Endgame.
Ethics are of marginal importance in nomadic caravans. I will provide a detailed discussion on this
change in the ethical approach to the post-apocalyptic society in chapter D: “Past-Humanity and Post-
Humanity: the Forced Change in Human Ethics”.
D. Past-Humanity and Post-Humanity: the Forced Change in Human
Ethics
After the reinterpretation of human constructs, the return to the life of nomadic foragers, and the
reorganisation of society, I will discuss another aspect that is directly linked to the loss of humanity
after an apocalyptic event, namely, the forced change in human ethics. In this chapter, I will discuss
[34]
how the ethical actions of the protagonists and other characters in The Road and Endgame illustrate
that there is no more room for a conventional ethical lifestyle in a post-apocalyptic world. To this end,
I will discuss the relationships in The Road between father and son, the father and his wife, and the
„us versus them mentality, as well as the actions that are influenced by this. Similarly, I will describe
the relationship between Hamm and Clov, Hamm and his parents, Nag and Nell, and again, the „us
versus them mentality. I will conclude by giving a description of the blood cults and cannibals in The
Road, and how this marks the end of an ethical lifestyle in a post-apocalyptic world.
In earlier chapters, I have argued that since the ecosphere in both Endgame and The Road changed so
radically, it should be called „post-human. The post-human ecosphere implies the destruction of the
anthropocentric view on nature, and this results in the survivors of the apocalyptic event having to
adapt to a radically changed world around them. This adaptation to the post-human world influenced
not only the way people live their lives, but also how they organise themselves. However, the
apocalypse did not only change how the characters in both works lead their lives, it also changed how
they think about who they are and what they are supposed to do. In other words, the post-human
world forces the characters to change their ethical stance in life as well: “The apocalypse would
replace the moral and epistemological murkiness of life as it is with a post-apocalyptic world in which
all identities and values are clear” (Berger 8). In After the End: Representations of Post-apocalypse,
James Berger argues that apocalyptic events influence how people think about their own ethical
position and how they act in the world after the apocalypse, and that these positions and actions are
more distinct from each other. An example of this is the „us versus them mentality that is found in
both Endgame as The Road. In essence, everyone that is not a close friend or that does not belong to
ones family is a potential enemy.
This distinction between friend and foe is represented in The Road by the father caring for his sons
survival after the suicide of his wife. His son is the single most important person in his life. He does
not care for other people: “Hes going to die. We cant [sic] share what we have or well die too.”
(McCarthy 53). The father spends most of his time looking after the well-being of his child, but also
[35]
teaches him how to survive on his own, knowing that he will not be around indefinitely to protect him
from the dangers in the world.
In a flashback, the father and his wife discuss their situation and whether it is still worth trying to
survive in a world full of people who want to do horrible things to them: “Sooner or later they will
catch us and they will kill us. They will rape me. Theyll rape him. They are going to rape us and kill
us and eat us and you wont [sic] face it” (McCarthy 58), especially if there is almost nothing left that
is worth living for: “Were not survivors. Were the walking dead in a horror film” (McCarthy 57).
This is a first example of how two people who are in the same position have a different ethical view
on life. The mother prefers to kill herself rather than taking care of her son and staying with her
husband, while the father wants to survive as long as possible in order to protect his son from harm.
Throughout the narrative, the father occasionally refuses to eat and drink so he can offer his son more
food (McCarthy 23), thereby consciously refusing to follow his own survival instinct, as he knows
that he is only growing weaker every day (McCarthy 198-199, 202).
Still, the father realises that the world in which they live is not a safe one and that he cannot always
protect his son. Since it is impossible for him to kill his own son (McCarthy 120), in order to keep
him away from things that are far worse than death, he teaches his boy how to hold a gun and how to
commit suicide with it (McCarthy 119).
Throughout the novel, the father is educating the son in surviving on his own. He protects him from
the dangers in the world, while at the same time teaching him invaluable survival skills. He also
divides the food in such a way that the son is able to eat more than the father. In essence, he is the
protector of someone who is weaker, which makes him an ethical human being who wants to protect
those that cannot protect themselves. His role as a father, however, is expressed in the way he treats
his son when they are not in danger. He is a kind, loving man who wants to bring joy to his sons life.
Examples of this can be found in the scene in which they share a Coca-Cola can (McCarthy 22), and
in the scene where the boy can shoot the flare gun (McCarthy 258).
[36]
Besides his son, there is no one whom the father seems to care about. With the suicide of his wife, he
has lost everyone who was important in his life. He is reluctant to form new relationships with other
people on the road, as he feels they cannot be trusted: “What are you eating. Whatever we can find.
Whatever you can find.” (McCarthy 66). He often treats them harshly, having only the well-being of
his son on his mind: “Although the father commits acts that […] are at least reprehensible, he does
these things solely for the safety of the child.” (Kunsa 59). Sharing food and performing hospitable
actions towards anyone else might result in a more difficult life (McCarthy 53). The father and son are
part of the „us versus them organisation of social life, and stick to their own companionship. They
only have each other, and only desire each others company. Other people cannot be trusted: “of those
few living humans, most are barely human at all” (Kunsa 57).
The post-apocalyptic ethical behaviour of the father in The Road is focused on survival. There is no
room for benevolence towards other people, the only exception being his son. The parental bond
between them is only expressed when they are not in danger, as all other actions which the father
performs are focused on the ethical idea that a strong person must protect a weak person, and this is
taken for granted in a healthy father-son relationship. Since his actions are only limited to his
immediate nuclear family, or what is left of that family, the ethical position of the father in the
post-apocalyptic world is one that is almost non-existent. The survival and protection of his son are
the only things that are of any importance.
As opposed to The Road, there is no immediately visible society in the post-apocalyptic world of
Endgame, other than the one that is formed by the four characters in the shelter. As was explained in
previous chapters, the characters are unable to sustain this pre-apocalyptic society. On a practical
level, they are running out of supplies. On an ethical level, however, a similar evolution is noticeable.
The actions and conversations in the play show that the pre-apocalyptic ethical conduct of life is
disintegrating. The basic assumptions of how an ethical human being should act are slowly vanishing,
as “[i]n a world that is total desert, humanity cannot prevail, no matter how hopeful, good, innocent,
or moral” (Graulund 75, his emphasis). This is most noticeable in Hamms treatment of his parents
and his servant Clov, but also in his position towards other people who ask for his help.
[37]
Hamms treatment of his parents does not resemble any pre-apocalyptic bond between a son and his
parents. As argued by Rónán McDonald in the preface to the play, the relationship between Hamm
and Nagg and Nell is an example of “the erosion […] of the value-system [of] the family” (McDonald
xv). Hamm actively mistreats his parents by shouting at them on various occasions, and by keeping
them in bins filled with sawdust and sand: “It was sawdust once. Once! And now its sand” (Beckett
14). To him, they are simply mouths to feed and not worth any love whatsoever. Even more so,
Hamm exhibits more love for his fake pet dog than for his parents (Beckett 45). When Clov confirms
the death of Hamms mother, Hamm reacts with a very cold question: “Is she buried?” (Beckett 27).
Even though Hamm is not affectionate towards his parents, and in this way fails as a son on an
emotional level, his ethical position towards Clov is more meaningful. Just like the father in The
Road, Hamm acts as a mentor and protector to Clov, whom he saved from the outside world by taking
him in when he was still a little child (see above). Other than the father in McCarthys novel, his
ethical reasoning for this is questionable. He only tolerates Clovs presence because he is in need of
someone to look after him. He thinks that Clov owes him his servitude, as he was the one that saved
him from starvation.
Similar to the father in The Road, Hamm is also a teacher to Clov, but not in a conventional way.
Rather than teaching him how to survive, Hamm fills Clovs head with the idea that there is no point
to life anymore. Clov is implicitly taught to be an egocentric person who does not need to care about
anyone else except himself. In the scene in which Hamm asks about his mother, Clov replies that he
will not bury her, and neither will he bury Hamm when he dies (Beckett 27). Rather than focusing on
the future, Hamm keeps referring to what was. Hamms actions are characterised by a “strongly
subversive and shocking refusal of the values of life, the family, and „progress.” (McDonald xv).
To Hamm, Clov is a tool, and the only reason why they have a relationship is because Clov is useful
to him. However, this is not a relationship based on friendship. Instead, it is pragmatic, “caustic and
embittered.” (McDonald viii).
[38]
From a broader perspective, Hamms actions are solely focused on his own survival. However, his
psyche contains signs of malign tendencies. Other people mean nothing to him, and do not deserve his
help. His refusal to share food with a father who has a young child to feed (Beckett 31-33) and his
neglecting of Mother Peggs plea for lamp oil (Beckett 44) fill him with “sadistic delight” (Garrard
391). This makes him an active agent in the overall decline of an ethical lifestyle towards a self-
centred lifestyle that pardons any non-ethical acts because they are done for the sake of
survival.However, this does not explain Hamms cruelty when his own survival is not endangered.
Perhaps he is simply a bad human being, and the condition of the post-apocalyptic world only
enhances this part of his character.
The enabling of cruel acts without any consequences whatsoeverin a post-apocalyptic world is clearly
present in The Road. Numerous descriptions of cannibals and blood cults sketch the idea that in the
world after the apocalypse, there are barely any ethical human beings left. According to Mullins,
every character in The Road must deal with the same set of ethical questions. Since they are all
hungry, […] this physical reality leads to metaphysical dilemmas that can only