One character in the book that is not given a name was Gertrude's son who is referred to as either Gertrude's son or the little boy. The effect of this is that the boy seems less significant and less important to the story and more of a minor, background character. When he is called the little boy it is more generalized and seem less caring or emotionally attached. It doesn't seem to matter whether he is there or not; in one way, he is only a rope that ties Gertrude down. Also, when the boy is referred to as Gertrude's son, all her sins and the possible negative thoughts about her are passed on to the boy. His potential is shadowed by her wrong-doings.
I think Alan Paton made this choice because the decision not to give a character a name tells the reader just as much as when the author chooses to give the character a name. I think the author made this choice to show that a person has to maintain some responsibility, and that there are always consequences for every action. All the mistakes Gertrude has made wouldn't seem as severe if she didn't have a son that needs to be taken care of. I think it was a good decision on Paton's part to not give the boy a name because it keeps us focused on Gertrude who is one of the main characters that is going through a lot. Without a name, the boy seems to be a bigger part of Gertrude's character than of his own. I think Gertrude's character would be less complex without this boy who is not the main focus but always in the background.
No comments:
Post a Comment