Quote:
Originally Posted by carrie721
it seemed to me that the lack of backstory was kind of the point. it doesn't matter what the exact mechanism was - there are many ways we could end up there. i thought it made the story more personal because each reader has to fill in his/her own blank. furthermore, it put the reader in the same mentality as the characters. it doesn't matter what happened because the only thing that matters is moving forward and surviving.
|
Yar, 'zactly. He doesn't explain how the apocalypse thing happened, because it doesn't really matter - it happened and the man and the boy have to deal with it. Were something similar to happen to us, I don't think we'd have all the details at our disposal immediately, if at all, especially if it happened to the same degree as it does in the book. Hard to get reliable info when the world is mostly dead. No radio, no TV, no newspaper.
Also, the re: the dialogue - we have to remember that the boy is just that - a boy. He's very young, and he's in an impossible situation. Not much room for learning how to be a sparkling conversationalist or how to be more articulate. I think the man and the boy's dialogue is pretty spot-on - they communicate in basics, because basics are what they need to survive.
McCarthy has a gift for apt dialogue - check out exchanges in
No Country for Old Men,
Blood Meridian,
Child of God, any of the Border books, etc. All the dialogue styles fit the situations the characters are in, whether they're uneducated, degenerate hill folk in Appalachia or sly Texas lawmen.
McCarthy is definitely not for everyone, but hearing his writing put down like that makes me sad panda.
