2006-07-17 13:33:58 · 4 answers · asked by Lynne J 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Books & Authors
She was writing it as if it were true, and leaving out names of people and cities just made it seem more real. (As if to protect the innocent.)
2006-07-17 13:52:30 · answer #1 · answered by autumnfaerie8 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is a likely possibility that they are unnecessary in the development of the novel. I've read some things (cant remember specificly at the moment) that have minimal information given. The character's names were left out as well as the specifics of the settting.
2006-07-17 15:08:08 · answer #2 · answered by olracd89 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it was to give the impression that the events really happened somewhere, and that if the author were to put in the actual names of the places, the readers would try to identify the "real people" being written about.
2006-07-17 14:01:47 · answer #3 · answered by MOM KNOWS EVERYTHING 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is common in old books (ie Dickens, Austen, etc.). It could be for legal reasons.
2006-07-17 14:38:49 · answer #4 · answered by amymame 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋