Why do you think Cormac has chosen not to give his characters
names? How do the generic labels of "the man" and "the
boy" affect the way in which readers relate to them?
I think that Cormac did not give his characters names because they are nameless nomads and naming them would have changed the focus of the book from the journey on the road to their personal journeys as people. The generic labels help me to place myself in both of the characters places. I could visualize myself out in the elements, eyes constantly being dry and thick with ash. I was tired and hungry from the journey, depressed, sick and dying.
In a post-apocalyptic world, nothing else matters only survival. McCarthy does well by not naming the exact whereabouts that the man and the boy are travelling. This gives the novel a sense of anonymity, meaning it could have happened anywhere (except McCarthy did mention state lines and brushed up on America). The man and the boy do not have names for the purpose of their own anonymity. If they had names, I expect McCarthy would have made them symbolic. Realistically speaking, however, in all likelihood, it makes the story far simpler without names. Readers can relate to the love between the man and his son and can empathize better knowing that this could have happened to anyone at any time.
I believe that the purpose of this book is to not focus on the little things which could distract the readers from understanding McCarthy's true intentions of capturing your imagination. He leaves out little details like punctuation and proper grammar to allow you to see the big picture. Names would only encourage readers to focus on the characters and not on what they are trying to accomplish.
I think that Cormac did not give his characters names because they are nameless nomads and naming them would have changed the focus of the book from the journey on the road to their personal journeys as people. The generic labels help me to place myself in both of the characters places. I could visualize myself out in the elements, eyes constantly being dry and thick with ash. I was tired and hungry from the journey, depressed, sick and dying.
ReplyDeleteIn a post-apocalyptic world, nothing else matters only survival. McCarthy does well by not naming the exact whereabouts that the man and the boy are travelling. This gives the novel a sense of anonymity, meaning it could have happened anywhere (except McCarthy did mention state lines and brushed up on America). The man and the boy do not have names for the purpose of their own anonymity. If they had names, I expect McCarthy would have made them symbolic. Realistically speaking, however, in all likelihood, it makes the story far simpler without names. Readers can relate to the love between the man and his son and can empathize better knowing that this could have happened to anyone at any time.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the purpose of this book is to not focus on the little things which could distract the readers from understanding McCarthy's true intentions of capturing your imagination. He leaves out little details like punctuation and proper grammar to allow you to see the big picture. Names would only encourage readers to focus on the characters and not on what they are trying to accomplish.