|
|
Post by Dr. Nemmers on Jun 6, 2024 15:53:34 GMT
To invert the saying here, we find that our protagonist in this novel, Mike Lovett, apparently has absolutely no idea who he is, where he came from, or what he has done in the past.
In a way, we could look at this as having total freedom, since he's unburdened by any of the elements that usually define a person. There's no baggage, since he has no family, no memories, no allegiances, etc. He can do anything he wants, be anything he wants.
On the other hand.... does this show us how burdensome having total freedom is? What would it do to one's mental state (what does it do to Mike's) to have such a blank slate?
Curious what y'all think about this paradox...
|
|
|
|
Post by jarelyrebollar on Jun 6, 2024 20:41:09 GMT
I view Mike Lovett's "newfound freedom" as a burden. Mike has nothing to his past, no family, no memories, no allegiances, etc. He can do anything he wants, be anything he wants. However, Mike doesn't do much with the freedom of his past. Mike's a shut-in and doesn't socialize much with others. He talks to his neighbors, the landlord, and the landlady, but Mike stays locked up in his room and writes.
Mike can't describe himself in the idiom and form of a forgotten past, and it makes him almost naive. For example, how he believes the landlord, despite Mike's recognition of the landlord's shortcomings as a character analyst, accepts the man’s simple evaluation of the landlady being a nymphomaniac.
Mike is free but he is not free of himself.
|
|
|
|
Post by reluedders on Jun 8, 2024 23:59:27 GMT
I'm split on this one. I posted in a different thread that it would be incredibly frustrating to not remember things from the past; to have the gnawing feeling that you should remember something but can't. But, the amount of regret so many of us feel about things that have happened in our past... wow! To be able to let some of that go & focus on our present & future.
But, it seems like he's embarrassed at times that he can't remember. Why doesn't he just be honest about what's happened to him? I guess there was a stigma around mental illness at this time, but he was a veteran. I haven't read the novel before, and am only 1/2 way through, so I'm sorry if they explain this later, but I made several notes about this. He just "makes up" his past so easily it seems. For example, in chapter 5, when he meets Hollingsworth for the 1st time, he's asked about college. He just makes stuff up, and gives just enough info for Hollingsworth to believe him, but not over exaggerate. Am I missing something in this?
|
|
|
|
Post by gnicholson3 on Jun 10, 2024 19:57:20 GMT
This reminded me of Kundera's novel (again), The Unbearable Lightness of Being. Kundera talks about the dichotomy of lightness and weight in which having too much of one without the other makes living an unbearable situation. I haven't read ahead, but I feel like the first half of the novel has presented more of the unbearable ness of weightlessness that prevents him from writing and later in the novel we may see a heaviness that is too great a burden. That's just an assumption, but I'm interested in seeing how it plays out. There's also the idea of Nietzsche's eternal return which involves accepting the consequences of the choices one makes. Mikey seems fixated on the choices that brought him here, often thinking and falling into memories, fabricated or otherwise, of the war, of previous love, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rylee Wenzel on Jun 12, 2024 17:28:59 GMT
This paradox is interesting to me. When thinking of our own lives, we can really step back and see how our past has defined the choices we make today. Not having a past at all, does equal a certain amount of freedom that others do not have. However, I think in a way not having a past or remembering it, is a burden. We can view our past as lessons we have learned. We do not become the people we are today without learning, growing, and experiencing things. So, like in Mike's case, there might be a certain amount of naivety and carelessness when it comes to decision-making. There is no foundation or frame of reference for what might happen if you make a certain decision.
|
|
|
|
Post by meagangcurrie on Jun 12, 2024 21:22:01 GMT
Lovett is interesting in that regard. I’ve never thought about how freedom could be a burden though. It’s a bit of an oxymoron, a paradox, as you said. I suppose having this freedom can become a burden as one has to now create purpose for himself, starting from scratch, in a sense. There is also the fact that he doesn’t socialize well with others. His freedom is practically confined to his apartment room. Narrowing the focus, you could say that his freedom is confined to his novel.
|
|
