arguments for a statement

avoiding emotional language and keeping it simple makes the narrative more emotionally engaging


firstly by only using simplistic language we see that as the world falls apart even language seems to disappear as emotions no longer need explanation as everyone is set in a perpetual misery due to the bleakness of the world. this depletion of language also shows devolution and McCarthy shows how that which most profoundly separates us from other animals is disappearing. these things create an emotional response for the reader as to see these things slip away from humanity we are presented with a reality so disjointed and warped from what we cherish an emotional response must be felt for the loss of what is most important. this can only have been achieved by McCarthy deliberately removing emotional language from the novel.
another reason why McCarthy may have not provided emotional language in the novel is that the events that shock and horrify us the most are the epitome of evil and to use even the most elegant descriptive and emotional language this would take away from the blunt fact of what people have been driven to and this will create more of and instant and instinctive response on an emotional level be the reader than language itself could. finally, the lack of emotional language can also be interpreted that McCarthy intends not for you to empathise with the character but his position. for instance if we have the feelings of the people evident to us all then when we empathise we can only feel what we are told they feel at that point, whereas when McCarthy doesn't provide this for us it forces us into the position of the characters and try to empathise completely with them to explain the reasoning for their actions and our own emotional responses are forced out to fill the void.