Bird Box

The appearance of the creatures around the world turns formerly mundane tasks into potentially life-threatening ordeals, as Felix’s experience at the well and Cheryl’s experience feeding the birds demonstrate. Meanwhile, the ensuing collapse of civilization carries with it its own set of risks, including crime, disease, and more. Under these circumstances, it becomes necessary for characters to differentiate between worthwhile risks and foolhardy endeavors, and to act courageously as the situation may demand.

As Tom prepares to leave on his first excursion, he and Don argue back and forth about the risks and the potential rewards of doing so. Don insists, “There’s just no reason for [going out]” (96). Tom counters by explaining the security benefits that a pair of guide dogs would add to their home. In theory, both arguments are reasonably sound, with the question of how to estimate and weigh relative risks and rewards a subjective one. Tom and Don differ on a more fundamental level, however. Whereas Don prefers to wait and remain passive for as long as possible, Tom feels compelled to seek constant progress. As he explains, “Well, something has to change, […] We need to make progress. Otherwise we’re waiting for news in a world where there is no longer any news” (95). By the time that Tom is preparing for his second excursion, Malorie has come to view him as an indispensable asset, which makes her less inclined to accept the risks he takes, even as she longs for the medical equipment he plans to retrieve in anticipation of her baby’s delivery. Tom, however, has both the expertise to minimize risks through careful planning and the maturity to accept the risks that remain in the pursuit of a worthwhile goal.

His example leaves a deep impression on Malorie, who imagines him encouraging her over the next few years as she takes tentative steps to protect the children and improve their lives. Were it not for his influence, Malorie may well have remained in the house with the children indefinitely, or else left much later in their lives; early on, she wonders what the effect of “living like veal” for 12 years would have on the children (3), showing that she considered sticking around much longer. Her decision about when to take the children down the river is based on risk analysis: The longer she waits, the more helpful and capable the children will be during the journey, but the more time will have been lost in living under restricted conditions in the house. Malorie’s decision to take them when they are only four years old reflects a daring and optimism on her part that Tom would have approved.

In addition to these positive examples of taking meaningful risks, there are also examples of excessive risk-avoidance and risk-taking. Malerman implies that those who blind themselves to make it impossible for them to ever see the creatures, as Don suggests Malorie do to her children and as those at Rick’s settlement used to do, are too focused on eliminating risk. By contrast, those who live in denial of the creatures’ threat, such as Gary and, eventually, Don, are tempted to take excessive risks, as when Gary lets a creature into the house. Overall, Malerman’s presentation of risk-taking in Bird Box demonstrates that, while each case must be weighed and decided on an individual basis, most people benefit from being more daring and optimistic, like Tom, while avoiding Don’s cynicism.