Reading homework.

‘Not with a bang, but a whimper.’ (T.S. Eliot) The man dies, the boy is safe. 
Message board on About.com 

Only with a certain naivety can we believe that the boy is safe, through reasoning of simply understanding that every other character within the book ( except eli ) has either been cannibals or thieves we must not jump to the conclusion that the boy is now living safely with this " new " family, as a simple reading the end of the book does seem to be a bit of a cop out- but this only reflects the rest of the book which doesn't really have that much going on within it to make the reader get excited- it is deliberately written to reflect the monotonous lives the characters  experience, so " whimper " would be suitable for a description. 

The ambiguity throughout this novel gives it a sense of timelessness. There are some great questions left unanswered at the end of The Road.I have read it a few times now, and I still don’t have the answers. 
Amazon reader review 

The Road seems to be deliberately written to leave us abruptly un-omniscient , i mean the characters are given no names- they have been left for us to sculpt within our own interpretations, giving the book an ending to answer all the questions would make the rest of the novels ambiguity pointless, only through the lack in description does the novel seem timeless in that it can leave every single one of us with our own view and sense of it, making it more personnel to us.

What happens is a redemption, of sorts, arguably absurd in the face of such overwhelming nihilism. In the mind of this reader anyway, this sense of hope is utterly inconsistent with all the despair and lack of trust that has preceded it. 
More importantly, ‘what happens’ at the end of the story is not a consequence of any decision of the two protagonists, nor is it linked in a causal way to any event, character, or fictional motif or any other literary device in the story. What happens is a kind of much- desired, undeserved and unexpected, merciful redemption. The problem with this kind of conclusion in fiction is that a redemption resolution must have its roots in the earlier part of the narrative. 
http://markrossiter.info/ 

This seems to be the most agreeable response, the writer recognises that any other ending would simple not fit within the rest of the novel as it ties in with the repeated hopelessness that has preceded it and it is a good point that with any kind of resolvable ending it "  must have its roots in the earlier part of the narrative. " also the fact that " at the end of the story is not a consequence of any decision of the two protagonists " reflects on how the two characters do not particularly have free will within the book, they are driven to walk the road because of the events preceding it, its only fitting that the end would not be a decision made by them but in fact an unfortunate consequence of another action.

But the father was right about goodness: it arrives on cue as a deus ex machina that has been following the pair and swiftly enfolds the boy savior into a holy family, maybe a holy commune, where they talk of the breath of God passing ‘from man to man through all of time.’ Then McCarthy ends with an eloquent lament: a vision of mountain trout that ‘smelled of moss in your hand. Polished and muscular and torsional’ in a time gone when the world was becoming; and what had been was ‘a thing which could not be put back. Not be made right again.’ And all things ‘were older than man and they hummed of mystery.’ Brief and mystical, this is an extremely austere conclusion to the apocalyptic pilgrimage. Of the boy’s becoming, or his mission – redeeming a dead world, outliving death? – nothing is said. The rhythmic poetry of McCarthy’s formidable talent has made us see the blasted world as clearly as Conrad wanted us to see. But the scarcity of thought in the novel’s mystical infrastructure leaves the boy a designated but unsubstantiated messiah. It makes us wish that that old humming mystery had a lyric. 
William Kennedy, New York Times

i have nothing to say about this.

The ending, despite its tragedy, is still absolutely beautiful. Knowing that some hope can be found for humanity in the form of the harmless young boy provides a glimpse of optimism in an otherwise completely depressing setting.

Amazon reader review 

this sums up the boys part within the novel, he is simply shown to have the only innocence and optimism ( moral compass ) that is shown as a kind of naivety ignored by the man throughout the novel- his realisation that the boy " was the good one " depicts how we all come to realise that the only hope left in the other wise dead world is within a naive young boy too young to understand the evil in the world- making us all wish we had the simplism and view point of a child once again, to be able to look at the world with a full sense of optimism and no real understanding- but be happy with that.

it’s generally an impressive book ... But the more I think about it, the more I think the ending is a cheesy cop out. 
Guardian commenter on Comment is Free  

the opinion of someone who has gone into no real analysis of the book, i to thought this when i first finished the book- seems too easy to find the family with a child " of about you age " or something like that. but this shows the " deus ex machina "

I’ve read The Road twice now and marvel at how McCarthy ties all of his story together. The book could easily be read from back to front and around again. Timeless is timeless. McCarthy knows this truth well. 
John Holt, California Literary Review 

Yeah.

I took the ending to mean that the boy has been seduced into thinking the man with wife and children was one of the good guys but he wasn’t really. It felt like an uplifting ending for about 5 minutes and then I thought ... ‘hang on a bit, why do we think this guy is a good guy when we haven’t come across any good guys in the whole book!’ I think the boy, released from his father’s relentless pessimism, reverts to his naïve faith in the adult world. 
Guardian commenter on Comment is Free