Post by Dr. Nemmers on Jun 17, 2024 19:44:28 GMT
So, as you've probably discovered, a large swath of the second-half of the novel consists of Hollingsworth and MacLeod conversing as part of the interrogation (or whatever). Lovett and Lannie are mostly bystanders, who just sit there as the two older men joust back and forth and talk about nothing.
It's a bit strange, I'll admit, but when we put this sort of dialogue into existentialist context, it's very befitting of the type of literature. For instance, two plays come to mind. The first is Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waiting_for_Godot
And Jean-Paul Sartre's No Exit also comes to mind as well
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Exit
Both of these plays feature men just standing in a room and talking (and, to be fair, perhaps this works better as a drama?). They're also allegorical as well (as is Barbary Shore and have similar themes/endings.
Why might Mailer have situated his novel in this tradition? Is there something particularly existentialist about this style?
It's a bit strange, I'll admit, but when we put this sort of dialogue into existentialist context, it's very befitting of the type of literature. For instance, two plays come to mind. The first is Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waiting_for_Godot
And Jean-Paul Sartre's No Exit also comes to mind as well
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Exit
Both of these plays feature men just standing in a room and talking (and, to be fair, perhaps this works better as a drama?). They're also allegorical as well (as is Barbary Shore and have similar themes/endings.
Why might Mailer have situated his novel in this tradition? Is there something particularly existentialist about this style?
