(No Grade) I think the author did this so that the story would not detract from the main themes such as hope. Also, this may make the storyline more confusing for the reader, so the author tried to simplify it. Beautifully amazing question by the way
-no grade- I think he left that part out so the reader can have a choice to determine what happened, the reader kinda has a bit of control to decide what happened which makes the story more interesting.
first of all, thank you for commenting. It is muchly appreciated. I agree with you. I feel that the author left that to the reader so that they would be curious. This impacted the plot too because although they always refer to how life used to be, they never talk about the event that changed life. This also results in a shorter exposition phase of the story, which creates a more interesting story for the reader. So I agree with you 100%.
(No Grade) I believe that the fact that you commented on your own post implies some sort of narcissistic tendencies from you. This invalidates any point that you were trying to make, and the story wasn't that confusing. I believe that the answer to the question can be found on the road, and that is the point. They are traveling on the road to uncover questions. They are traveling on the road to fix their relationship. They are traveling on the road to find the true meaning of many things. This road is the actual apocalpyse. -Adam O'Connell
I agree with Elizabeth's and Ajay's comment on his own post. I agree with Ajay that the author left it out so it wouldn't detract from the main points in the book. It's somewhat of a meaningless and insignificant detail so it doesn't make much of a difference if they said what the cause was or not. I agree with Elizabeth that it also allows people to create their own versions and connect more with it
I agree with Ajay. The author of the book Cormac McCarthy left out the cause of the apocalypse because it was probably an insignificant detail of the book. The main focus of the book is their travel to the sea which leaves the cause of the apocalypse unimportant. It is almost as if the author of the book wants the readers to sort of guess or infer what the cause of the apocalypse is. The book did not make many references to the past of the characters or the settings which was probably why the cause is excluded.
(No Grade) I think the author did this so that the story would not detract from the main themes such as hope. Also, this may make the storyline more confusing for the reader, so the author tried to simplify it. Beautifully amazing question by the way
ReplyDelete-no grade- I think he left that part out so the reader can have a choice to determine what happened, the reader kinda has a bit of control to decide what happened which makes the story more interesting.
ReplyDeletefirst of all, thank you for commenting. It is muchly appreciated. I agree with you. I feel that the author left that to the reader so that they would be curious. This impacted the plot too because although they always refer to how life used to be, they never talk about the event that changed life. This also results in a shorter exposition phase of the story, which creates a more interesting story for the reader. So I agree with you 100%.
Deletenow go comment on minnneee
Delete(No Grade) I believe that the fact that you commented on your own post implies some sort of narcissistic tendencies from you. This invalidates any point that you were trying to make, and the story wasn't that confusing.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the answer to the question can be found on the road, and that is the point. They are traveling on the road to uncover questions. They are traveling on the road to fix their relationship. They are traveling on the road to find the true meaning of many things. This road is the actual apocalpyse.
-Adam O'Connell
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree with Elizabeth's and Ajay's comment on his own post. I agree with Ajay that the author left it out so it wouldn't detract from the main points in the book. It's somewhat of a meaningless and insignificant detail so it doesn't make much of a difference if they said what the cause was or not. I agree with Elizabeth that it also allows people to create their own versions and connect more with it
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ajay. The author of the book Cormac McCarthy left out the cause of the apocalypse because it was probably an insignificant detail of the book. The main focus of the book is their travel to the sea which leaves the cause of the apocalypse unimportant. It is almost as if the author of the book wants the readers to sort of guess or infer what the cause of the apocalypse is. The book did not make many references to the past of the characters or the settings which was probably why the cause is excluded.
ReplyDelete