Section 5 pages 49-60 question 5

I think that there are a few ideas at play here. Keeping his characters nameless gives them a sense of universality. They are such profound yet simple people. Their character traits are stripped so bare that the reader can relate to them on an instinctual level. This is perhaps part of the wonderful paradox of this book. The world has fallen and all that is left is chaotic evil yet the boy and his father represent goodness. People can relate to them better than if they had names and more complex identities.