Anyway, I am pleased to see that the novel has developed some sort of plot and is not just some philosophical ramble (one novel like that is enough already), but I have to point out that I am still not comfortable reading it. I cannot tell if the story being told is at all true, and the fact that the narrator keeps alluding to everything he had claimed to not believe in makes me even more skeptical.
Also, I just wanted to touch upon the whole "is he a genius or a loony" conflict; he's not quite insane, but his mind is not the soundest. What am I to expect of a man who becomes physically ill when an officer does not acknowledge him, even less, refuse to throw him from a window? I mean, he carries his words in a manner that is almost convincing, but every now and then I have to stop and remind myself that he is actually insulted that this man did not acknowledge him at all. He is constantly contradicting himself.
I'm afraid I have yet to find a deeper meaning in all of this. The reading is good, and his ideas are, for the most part, sound and not hard to understand or agree with, but these small fragments of lunacy are forcing me to connect dots that I cannot even find. He continues to say that "had I paid attention to what was said beforehand, it would all be clear." Well, no doubt I will read these notes again later on, so perhaps then it will make more sense.
I'm still bothered by the fact that he claims to not believe in any of the opinions he provided in the last part. I'm starting to find it hard to believe that.
No comments:
Post a Comment