Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

None of the principle characters in the novel have names, hmmm, do you think that Wells had a reason for this?

It could happen to anyone, anywhere.

Though I'm only a quarter way through the book, I think the lack of names gives it an impersonal, almost journalistic feel which is much more realistic than if it were based around a human family drama.

This actually makes it scarier, as does the fact that the narrator only catches impartial glimpses of what's happening, as the world around him veers between ignorance and chaos. As Tanya says, he could be anyone, anywhere, witnessing a disaster in progress.

This totally bothers me! I guess it works, but it goes against the literary grain. Where's my backstory, dang it! I need backstory! How else does the protagonist's journey provide any meaning for me?

[I will call you Todd. Yes. Todd McNamara. You are a doctor who just realized that not washing your hands led to the infection and death of several mothers in the area of Woking after you helped them during labor and delivery. Ahh, that's better...]

Maybe being understated forces you to make your own connections? Kind of like how classical music has no lyrics, but is still beautiful because of the "lyrics" you write in your head when you hear it.

I think Wells wanted to keep a sharp focus on the 1st person point-of-view and not naming any other characters helped do this. And I think he really achieved this, you do put yourself in the character's place and think "wow, how would I do in this situation?". There was a tension that few writers accomplished before or shortly after him; Poe to some extent in some of his stories.