Period 1, Wotw Illuminator, Sonam Sherpa
First off, I am so sorry for not being able to post this sooner, but if you would be able to post on this later that would be terrific. Now to get to what I am actually going to be discussing. I personally find it interesting how H.G. Wells decided to give us a certain amount of information about the main characters inner workings, but not simple information. This idea can be summarized in this quote, “Had I been alone, I think I should have taken my chance and struck across country. But the artilleryman dissuaded me: “It’s no kindness to the right sort of wife,” he said, “to make her a widow”; and in the end I agreed to go with him, under cover of the woods, northward as far as Street Cobham before I parted with him.” This was said by the main character to the artilleryman right before the incident at Weybridge. I thought that this quote was significant because it brought back the idea that the main character had said before, the idea that everyone wants to be heroic in a time of need. This ties into what I’m saying now because if H.G. Wells can divulge such deep emotional information about the main character, why can’t he tell us his name? Is it because he thought that a name would make this story to real? Or maybe he just couldn’t find a name that would do him justice? You tell me.
Category: Per 1 WotW Illum 4 comments »
March 1st, 2009 at 8:38 pm
I belive that he is holding out. He may be trying to build or trust. He could be writing and making this guy seem like a hero and only tell us his name after something terrible has happened. That could be a way of making him seem even more heroic. It would also make you think of that section of the story every time you think of his name. He may be trying to make you understand the story better by leaving his name out until a time that he wants you to remember. The author wants you to remember the narrorator as a hero and he wants you to fell more compasonatly for him. That is what I belive.
-Taran
March 1st, 2009 at 10:36 pm
I agree with Taran, but I am going to add on to it. I think the main reason the author has for not telling us the main characters name is to create mystery in the character. Having a name really ties a person to certain things or ideas, and creates a big part of a person’s identity. Without giving him a name it sort of makes you wonder about him. He seems to be heroic,but is he really going to wind up being that person? It is not only the name. We also don’t know his appearance or much trivial information about him. This gives the reader a gray impression of him, because you don’t know what to think about him.
~Erin =]
March 2nd, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Colin Easter
Perhaps the story isn’t meant to be about the narrator but the event itself. By providing little information about the narrator, H.G. Wells gives more focus to the actual invasion and other people’s reactions. The narrator seems to be there only to provide a view point from which the story is told. It is told in the form of a written account after the event had occurred. When you write a journal, do you include your name? It would make sense that the narrator would simply refer to himself as “I” and not provide much personal information. After all, he knows everything about himself already. In conclusion, I think that H.G. Wells is more focused on the events than the characters. Giving the characters more background would take away from the main action of the story (the martian invasion).
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:38 pm
I think he does not give his name because it is for mystery and to give that kind of feel to the book. Kinda like super heroes nobody knows there real name. This is so readers can not focus on the characters so much and focus on what is actually happening. Yes characters are a main part of the book but names should not be what analysis should be on it should be the actions of the characters and what is happening in the book.