I think Cormac McCarthy chose not to give the names of the main characters because in a way it did not matter or contribute to the story. The main part of the plot is how love sustained the boy and the father. The fact that McCarthy did not use names actually makes the story more relatable. He wants the readers to comprehend the message in the story, and the names take away from the message he is trying to send us, "You said you wouldn't ever leave me. I know. I'm sorry. You have my whole heart. You always did" (McCarthy 279). The author's writing is very minimal; he gives little detail about the back story to make it darker. By the author not giving the main characters names it adds darkness and mysteriousness to the story, "Just remember that the things you put into your head are there forever-You forget what you want to remember and you remember what you want to forget" (McCarthy 18). The main emphasis of the story is the aftermath of the apocalypse. The little amount of description of the main characters I think is done purposefully because it gives the reader a sense that anybody (including you) could in this type of situation, further adding to the darkness and mysteriousness of the story.
I agree with the comment above, the dad and the boy not having a name was not impactful to the story or plot. McCarthy also used a unique writing style that involved no sections or chapters. "There's no one here"(McCarthy 106). This quote describes the emptiness in the setting of the story and shows how there were a very small amount of characters mentioned. Although not likely the cause of why he didn’t put names, but readers knew who he was talking about even without a specific name. A main tone and feature of the story like she said in the above comment was darkness and mysteriousness. "He leaned to the fire and blew the coals and he put more wood and rose and walked away from the camp as far as the light would carry him"(McCarthy 175). The main characters developed as the story became tenser and they needed to stick together even more. The quote above shows an example of how darkness was a main tone. And the names of the characters would not impact the way the author was trying to write. Also the author liked to insert sneaky uses of literary devices that to me helped show some development in the characters. Like both of the evidence, one with exaggeration and the other with personification. Keeping the names unknown allows these devices to be more subtle and make the reader think more. The story followed a dark journey down a single road and without the names of the characters; readers were able to capture less about the main characters and more about the conflicts and important events that affected their development.
I agree with both Juliana and Matt, the names of the characters would not impact the plot, or novel differently in any way. It might have made the reader connect on a more personal level to the characters, but McCarthy still demonstrated the situations of the characters well without using the names. It also made the reader guess and infer what the character’s names could have been. McCarthy also included names or ways to identify the characters by using ‘Man’ or ‘Papa’ for the older man, so you knew that he was the ‘boys’ or ‘sons’ father. The characters called each other by what they were, so you could differentiate each character. I also agree with how Matt said that the author included ‘sneaky uses of literary devices’ that helped show the development within the characters. The boy was scared a lot, and that was an exposition about himself and how he was young and naïve at the time, “Papa let’s not go up there…I’m scared” (McCarthy 106). Then the boy also develops and becomes less scared, “He looked at the boy so strangely untroubled” (McCarthy 191). Shows that the boy is developing and maturing, and the man is noticing it. One thing that you both didn’t mention, but what I found is at times, when other characters, or people were introduced in the book it seemed to get a little confusing. If there were multiple men that they ran into, it was hard for me to realize who McCarthy was talking about or referring to in that particular scene. Also when they had flashbacks I couldn’t tell if that was actually happening in real time, or if it was in the past. But other than that, I totally agree that not giving the character’s name wasn’t necessary and the message and tone of the story was still established and portrayed in a good way.
I think Cormac McCarthy chose not to give the names of the main characters because in a way it did not matter or contribute to the story. The main part of the plot is how love sustained the boy and the father. The fact that McCarthy did not use names actually makes the story more relatable. He wants the readers to comprehend the message in the story, and the names take away from the message he is trying to send us, "You said you wouldn't ever leave me. I know. I'm sorry. You have my whole heart. You always did" (McCarthy 279). The author's writing is very minimal; he gives little detail about the back story to make it darker. By the author not giving the main characters names it adds darkness and mysteriousness to the story, "Just remember that the things you put into your head are there forever-You forget what you want to remember and you remember what you want to forget" (McCarthy 18). The main emphasis of the story is the aftermath of the apocalypse. The little amount of description of the main characters I think is done purposefully because it gives the reader a sense that anybody (including you) could in this type of situation, further adding to the darkness and mysteriousness of the story.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the comment above, the dad and the boy not having a name was not impactful to the story or plot. McCarthy also used a unique writing style that involved no sections or chapters. "There's no one here"(McCarthy 106). This quote describes the emptiness in the setting of the story and shows how there were a very small amount of characters mentioned. Although not likely the cause of why he didn’t put names, but readers knew who he was talking about even without a specific name. A main tone and feature of the story like she said in the above comment was darkness and mysteriousness. "He leaned to the fire and blew the coals and he put more wood and rose and walked away from the camp as far as the light would carry him"(McCarthy 175). The main characters developed as the story became tenser and they needed to stick together even more. The quote above shows an example of how darkness was a main tone. And the names of the characters would not impact the way the author was trying to write. Also the author liked to insert sneaky uses of literary devices that to me helped show some development in the characters. Like both of the evidence, one with exaggeration and the other with personification. Keeping the names unknown allows these devices to be more subtle and make the reader think more. The story followed a dark journey down a single road and without the names of the characters; readers were able to capture less about the main characters and more about the conflicts and important events that affected their development.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both Juliana and Matt, the names of the characters would not impact the plot, or novel differently in any way. It might have made the reader connect on a more personal level to the characters, but McCarthy still demonstrated the situations of the characters well without using the names. It also made the reader guess and infer what the character’s names could have been. McCarthy also included names or ways to identify the characters by using ‘Man’ or ‘Papa’ for the older man, so you knew that he was the ‘boys’ or ‘sons’ father. The characters called each other by what they were, so you could differentiate each character. I also agree with how Matt said that the author included ‘sneaky uses of literary devices’ that helped show the development within the characters. The boy was scared a lot, and that was an exposition about himself and how he was young and naïve at the time, “Papa let’s not go up there…I’m scared” (McCarthy 106). Then the boy also develops and becomes less scared, “He looked at the boy so strangely untroubled” (McCarthy 191). Shows that the boy is developing and maturing, and the man is noticing it. One thing that you both didn’t mention, but what I found is at times, when other characters, or people were introduced in the book it seemed to get a little confusing. If there were multiple men that they ran into, it was hard for me to realize who McCarthy was talking about or referring to in that particular scene. Also when they had flashbacks I couldn’t tell if that was actually happening in real time, or if it was in the past. But other than that, I totally agree that not giving the character’s name wasn’t necessary and the message and tone of the story was still established and portrayed in a good way.
ReplyDelete