|
Post by Leatherhead on Feb 7, 2006 23:07:59 GMT
I was presently reading The Exodus from London when it struck me. The brother doesn't have a name. I can't believe i never noticed this. Any idea, why Wells didn't give him a name but only refer to him as "my brother"? It sort of makes sense that the narrator didn't have a name, but the constant repition of "my brother" is odd. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by BrutalDeluxe on Feb 8, 2006 4:46:17 GMT
Interesting. I had a think about this and I know that if I am talking to someone who doesn't know my brother I always refer to him as "my brother" and would very rarely drop his name. In fact I don't think I've ever mentioned his name on this board despite the fact I am very close to him. If I am talking to people who know him then I simply refer to him by his name.
He also has a fairly common name so sometimes I sometimes refer to him as "my brother" to avoid confusion.
|
|
|
Post by EvilNerfherder on Feb 8, 2006 4:54:10 GMT
That's an interesting question. I've never really thought about that before.. but I've given it a bit of thought. A lot of the characters don't have names, especially the main characters. Some of the more minor (or less seen) ones do (Ogilvy and Henderson for example). It's curious, isn't it? In the Narrator and his Brother's cases, we are seeing events through their eyes. So they are sort of standing in for us. Perhaps Wells thought that naming those two would actually distance us from events. It's odd, though that the Artilleryman doesn't have a name, neither does the Curate. Are these two just supposed to be generic people types? It certainly seems like we aren't meant to get too close to them. Some fiction I've read from around that period doesn't use names as such. Like when a book talks about 'Lord T___' or 'Mrs S____', or whatever. In that case, I think it's a way of giving realism to a work of fiction.. as if the author doesn't want to name them because they actually exist (which they don't). I think perhaps Wells was trying to distance us from some of his characters. Maybe who they are isn't important. They are only representatives of their type and are there only to help the story along.
|
|
|
Post by Leatherhead on Feb 8, 2006 4:59:53 GMT
That's an ingenius deduction, really.
|
|
|
Post by EvilNerfherder on Feb 8, 2006 5:11:33 GMT
I'm just throwing ideas around. I'd like to know what Charles (our 'resident' Wells expert) thinks about this.
|
|
|
Post by Tripod Bait on Feb 8, 2006 16:21:48 GMT
I hadn't ever thought about this either, but my first guess would be something similar to what Nerf suggested: to avoid attachment on the part of the reader with certain characters. The fact that Ogilvy is named makes me think that it was done out of respect - he was a friend of the author. Had he lived he may have just been "the astronomer," or something. If the brother had died we may have learned his name. The author's wife is also not named, but again: had she died we may have learned it. The other characters, such as the artilleryman and the curate were a threat to the author's sanity and safety so they may not have been named to help illustrate that they are merely transient encounters of and we should not grow attached to them. ...however, the brother's two female traveling companions may have been named just to keep them straight. ...of course their having names kind of throws off my theory of attachment...
|
|
|
Post by Luperis on Feb 8, 2006 19:39:39 GMT
I agree. The attachment thing makes sense. The women seem to be an exception - but here they were probably named to avoid confusion... and to give them each personality rather than just being 'the two women'. I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Feb 8, 2006 22:30:26 GMT
I think Nerfherder has it right. The main characters-- including the Artilleryman and the Curate-- were not given names to make them more "generic", as types rather than individuals. The Narrator is clearly an Everyman character. I think Wells threw in his brother just to make it seem more realistic; two people in different locations could see and experience more than a single individual, and it wouldn't be as believable if the Narrator had experienced everything himself. "Everyman's Brother" is just another Everyman. The fact that certain characters, like Ogilvy and the Elphinstones, were given names is-- contrary to the usual rule in fiction-- an indication they are *minor* characters.
|
|
|
Post by EvilNerfherder on Feb 8, 2006 22:41:42 GMT
Blimey. We all seem to actually agree on something. I think I need a lie down.
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Feb 8, 2006 23:02:31 GMT
Surely a sign the apocalypse is nigh.
|
|
|
Post by malfunkshun on May 9, 2006 23:21:57 GMT
how can you avoid attachment to a character who takes you from scene to scene through this hellish experience, and from a personal point of view? and the anonymous characters... the curate, the artilleryman... well these are the main characters, apart from the narrator. myself, i have found my self forming attachments to these seemingly no-named characters despites Wells' intentions, if those were his intentions... to limit attachments. whatever his reason for not naming his main characters, i really don't think it was to distance us from them. after all the story rotates around them. who really remembers mrr. elphinstone after one read? i remember the narrator, the curate and the artilleryman. i guess i formed attachments despite all the efforts against this
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on May 11, 2006 11:45:21 GMT
Not at all. The idea of an Everyman character is that everyone is intended to identify with him. At least, that's my understanding. As ENH said, "we are seeing events thru their eyes."
|
|