|
Post by Dr. Nemmers on Jul 4, 2024 23:41:09 GMT
In the first section of the novel we learn of many names and signifiers: Theresa First Raise and John First Raise, Amos the pet duck, Mose the dead brother, Lame Bull the stepfather, and various other characters who populate this portion of Northern Montana in the late 1960s.
But the main character/ narrator/ protagonist, as well as his love interest/ girl/ wife (?) remain unnamed throughout this section. Given the other names provided, this can't be accidental on the part of James Welch. What does it mean that the narrator has no name, and that neither does his girl? Is there anything existentialist about this, or just a common narrative convention?
|
|
|
Post by jarelyrebollar on Jul 7, 2024 15:14:34 GMT
I believe this namelessness of the characters might underscore the sense of alienation and disconnection, essential aspects of existentialist literature. By not naming these characters, Welch emphasizes their struggle with identity in an indifferent and unanchored world. The lack of names can also universalize their experiences, allowing readers to project themselves onto the characters and relate to their existential crises more broadly. It reflects their internal search for identity and meaning. While unnamed characters can be a standard narrative device, they enhance the novel’s exploration of cultural dislocation, personal loss, and the quest for meaning in this context. I think Welch’s choice deepens the reader’s engagement with the characters’ existential struggles.
|
|
|
Post by reluedders on Jul 7, 2024 21:30:21 GMT
I completely agree, however, why wouldn't we find out more information towards the end of the novel, where the narrator has returned home and seemingly appears to reconnect with his heritage and embrace who he is. Is he still in an existential crisis at the end of the novel, because how I read it was that he is not. Thoughts?
|
|