The sand in its representation of the intricacies of life

"Pirsig Pilgrim" Mark Richardson writes his own novel as he takes on the same route that Robert M. Pirsig took in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

(click the picture to go to his website)

Route the narrator takes throughout the novel

Touching on the Philosophy

Representations of the Narrator and Chris

These photos were taken on one of the author's, Robert Pirsig, trips with his son in real life. This was the trip that inspired his novel.

The importance of directional observation (Monica Rodriguez)

In this week’s reading I began to think of my years in beginning art classes when the narrator was discussing the way in which the “reflection of your own knowledge” causes you to not to see something for what it really is. Novice artists have the unfortunate tendency to draw what they think they see instead of what they actually see. For instance, if one where to draw a bottle, they would draw what came to mind when they thought of a bottle instead of actually looking at and drawing the bottle that is right in front of them. When they do this the piece doesn’t end up looking like an actual bottle, because our preconceived notion of a bottle does not do the real thing justice. Art teachers must train these students to look at the individual lines that make up the bottle instead of looking at the whole, going as far as to take a picture, turn it upside down and cover up sections, so that the students will not see the whole drawing and will only draw unrecognizable parts. Once students learn to let go of the image they have in their head and really look at what they see, they begin to draw truly life-like representations of their subjects. Like those who blocked themselves with previous knowledge and viewed Phaedrus as insane, artists must take an “oblique route” in order to properly view something.

Yes, Zane, I'm Starting to Like it Now

In my previous blog post I vented my frustrations about how tedious of a read this book is. Do not get me wrong, I still think the narrator is self-absorbed (in the literal sense of the  word), but I can respect it now. I realized that although his train of thought made the narrative seem to stop and go at random moments, he only begins to ramble when he is on the motorcycle- he stops when he has to acknowledge an external interruption.
I also still think the majority of his topics are bland. I have already contemplated them or predicted them; in short, I am learning nothing new. When I read his philosophies, I can lightly nod in agreement, but I am not impressed or stricken with awe.
So how is it that I am beginning to like the novel now? Well, I found particular resonance with a point he makes in this chapter, to quote him directly: "... instead of just dwelling on what is killed, it's important also to see what's created and to see the process as a kind of death-birth continuity that is neither good nor bad, but just is."
I have an issue when it comes to extremes. I am a believer of balance and the mixture of all things, both good and evil, and I apply that philosophy to everything. I appreciate that the narrator has the same outlook. Because of my love for science, I believe the laws of conservation apply for everything in life, including mortality itself. As the narrator opines, when something is killed, something else is created, and I agree that people find tranquility when they realize this and accept it to be true.
Sure, the plot still is not picking up for me, but I was happy to find a way to connect with the novel personally. It's an open opportunity for a beautiful relationship- but not a sure one.

Comparisons and Contrasts (Priya Dhairyawan)

This week’s reading seemed to focus greatly on contrasts and comparisons. For one, the chapter begins with the characters complaining about the scorching heat, when they were uncomfortable in the freezing cold only a few chapters ago. I think this contrast, even though it does not seem too significant, lays out a theme that follows throughout the chapter. The author, Robert Pirsig, also compares the narrator to both John and Sylvia and to Phaedrus. While the characters are taking a break from riding, the narrator is only concerned with his motorcycle, making sure that it will run properly and not break down during their journey. In contrast, John and Sylvia could not care less about the maintenance of the motorcycle; instead, they are focusing on the stifling heat. This small contrast shows a significant amount about each character. The narrator is more technically inclined and conscientious, while the couple is more interested in enjoying themselves and minimizing their discomfort in the heat. As for the comparison to Phaedrus, I think Pirsig does a good job of drawing certain similarities between Phaedrus and the narrator. Besides the fact that the narrator claims Phaedrus has been to the same locations that he is going to, they both seem to be technical individuals. The narrator even states once, regarding Phaedrus, “he was systematic” (74); both men appear to consistently follow specific regulations. However, there are some contrasts that are revealed. “In proportion to his intelligence he was extremely isolated. There’s no record of his having had close friends. He traveled alone” (74). Even though there is some sort of difference between the narrator and his friends, there is no denying that he has others around him. The narrator is not isolated, as Phaedrus was; and, he travels with friends and family.

Phaedrus Lives (Zane Mandell)

            The speaker has finally revealed the identity of Phaedrus, and it is himself, well sort of. From what the speaker has told us by the end of part one Phaedrus can be identified as a previous life of the speaker, one that was extracted from him through science. The way the speaker has described it, Phaedrus was an old personality that he had and was taken from him. I felt it necessary to explain this as I will now go in to how I feel about this information.

            Phaedrus is truly a lone wolf. Not just in how he lived, but how he thought and what he thought about. I find that it will be perfect for this novel that the speaker is trying to find himself. When I think about it at this point, Pirsig has created this experience without explicitly saying what it is about. I can now proclaim that this novel is about finding oneself, and it will not be the simplest of tasks.

            While there have been answers to many of the questions I have posed, with these answers there are new questions that have come from them. This is the same way that the speaker describes the idea of discrimination and delving into the minute details, there will always be something else. Now with the mystery of Phaedrus somewhat solved I still have questions concerning the speakers life. What caused Phaedrus to be removed from the speaker? Does this have anything to do with his wife? Does this have some kind of relationship with the mental issues with his son, Chris? I truly cannot wait to find out.

The similarities between sand and people

I found the most interesting part of this chapter to be the metaphor between sand and people. It is something I had never come across before. Usually, we do not think of sand and consider it's components, but analyzing this metaphor helps understand it. Sand is made up of many different components and they are each different. This is what makes it similar to humans. The entire human population can be split. We usually look at these things in the romantic understanding of sand in general or the entire human population. Classical understanding analyzes and begins to split both up due to differences. Sand particles are different colors, representing the different races. There are different sizes of particles, just like there are different people. Some are shorter, others taller. These things then result in the creation of an opinion, which leads to distortion to clarity we have when we are younger. This process never ends. There is always something separate to differentiate by, and sooner or later there is one person in each group because each person or sand particle is unique. I found this interesting, especially because it ties in so well to what we have been discussing in class. This chapter even included the IQ scale and helped the reader understand who Phaedrus is because he had an IQ of 170. He fit the description of the stereotype of being introverted and socially awkward, which we also discussed in class. I thought this was a coincidence that helped me understand the novel much more.

The Narrators Interactions with his Son (Monica Rodriguez)

In reading chapters five and six I found it interesting how differently the narrator interacts with his son in comparison to others. Throughout the beginning of this novel the narrator has always explored the causes of his observations and taken them to a personal level. However when he interacts with his son, during and after the dinner issue, he is very detached, stepping back and only giving one-worded answers when his son asks a question. When he talks about his sons stomach pains to John and Sylvia he is pushed to give explanations for his son’s behavior and even then simply repeats what others have told him. I find it interesting that while the narrator finds everything else so intriguing and tries to discovers the reasons for why some people do what they do, as he constantly does with John and the issue of motorcycle maintenance, he stays away from the reasoning behind his own son’s behavior, going as far as to avoid psychiatrist visits. One would expect the narrator’s love for his son to motivate him to pay particular attention to his actions and the reasons behind them, yet somehow it has done the opposite. It is because of the fact that Chris is his son that he is unable to delve deep into his son’s actions and treat him like he does everyone else. 

Lack of Depth, Lack of Interest (Melanie)

I am finding difficulty liking this novel thus far, but I think I can blame this on the pace that I am reading it. The story is plain, the characters are flat because they must be sifted through the opinions of the narrator, and the gracelessness of the writing due to the narrator's train of thought makes it a tedious read. Nothing is coming together for me, which is a difficult judgment to make 6 chapters in, but I guess the title of the novel should have been a dead giveaway to what I am now delving into. I would like to see some development between the characters, and I have to admit I do enjoy that the narrator can be wrong sometimes, because for a person who speaks as if they completely know the world, I would have been far more annoyed if he never made any mistakes. My biggest example is his interaction with his son, specifically, when he grew so impatient that his son was driven to tears. I would have been impatient too, so I sympathize with him and can see that he is a realistic character who's just a bit full of himself, although, I suppose he is allowed to be. This story is told in his perspective, so in terms of human ego, it makes sense for him to ramble on about his interests- and he has reason to, because I cannot deny that he is very well informed in his trade. My personal annoyance towards is minor (so far), but my only real problem is the lack of build up. In my previous post I mentioned my appreciation for the fact that the novel can be both a philosophical exploration and a story with a plot, but now I see no depth to it. If the mystery regarding Phaedrus is suppose to perk my interests, it is not doing a very good job. Hopefully they reach a settled destination soon, and hopefully this entire book is not just philosophy rants and detailed descriptions of cattails, mosquitoes, and the heat.

The Groovy Dimension (Zane Mandell)

            The way the speaker is able to represent his thought process is truly a beautiful feat. For this I am simply referring to the writing of the novel, as it is now know that these thoughts are not really the speakers, they are the result of the teachings of Phaedrus. Having said this I would like to shift my focus of this entry primarily to the dimensional aspect that is approach by the speaker in this reading. This concept is one that the speaker has been leading himself into for a while now. He is hitting the nail on the head when he describes the difference between John and himself.

            But this idea brings up some serious issues about society as a whole. The underlying meaning of this idea is a major conflict that cannot be resolved between the two feuding parties of those against and for technology. John is adamant in his ways and whether the speaker recognizes it or not he is in his way adamant to his open mindedness, not willing to accept the others’ side. This dimensional dilemma will lead to major tension between the two as the novel continues. Yet there seems to be a third dimension recognized by the speaker subconsciously, that is the dimension his son is living in. We learn of this mental illness that is very vague at this point but it is definitely affecting everyone around Chris. This idea of dimensionalism intrigues me to the point that I could not put down the book. While some questions have been answered more have unfolded. What is wrong with Chris? The speaker’s wife is confirmed alive? Who is Phaedrus?

My feelings on description and topics in the novel

     These next two chapters sparked my interest in the way it brought about different topics. First, I was impressed that each place had a different feel to it, and that is how the narrator knew where they were. There was a strange feeling in the western town and an empty feeling in the reservation. The way that the feeling was described was interesting because although I have not experienced those specific emotions in those specific locations, I could relate how every town has its own feel. Just leaving Miami, there is a completely different feel and new environment and culture that affect that feel.

     I was also very intrigued by the comparison between classical and romantic understanding. I believe that it is true, people can see things as they appear or the underlying form of it. Although one understanding can dominate another, I believe that everything can contain both understandings. I think you have to use romantic understanding to be able to analyze with classic understanding. I do not think that each person is one or the other. That would be considering the situation in black and white. The narrator gives a good example with motorcycles. Riding may be romantic, but the maintenance is classic. After this point in chapter 6, the narrator became more in depth with the actual maintenance of motorcycles, sometimes more metaphorical. I found myself re-reading those parts, most likely because it is not something I am interested in, which coincides with the romantic understanding relating to femininity in European cultures. It bothered me that I could make this part of the book true, because of the fact that women can analyze and not have to include feelings. It really is not a necessary association, as the novel states.

Issues Between Friends and Family (Priya Dhairyawan)

This week's reading made me further realize that there seems to be some mild tension or a lack of a connection between the narrator and the three other central characters, Chris, John, and Sylvia. Chris always seems a bit uninterested in the things his father enjoys. For example, the narrator says, " all that moving water is strange, banked by grass hills that hardly get any water at all. I turn around and glance at Chris but he doesn't seem to be particularly interested in it" (44). Small things that evoke curiosity in the narrator do not faze his son. Also, the narrator gets a little bit upset whenever his son asks questions. I understand that constant streams of questions can get annoying, but he seems to always be aggravated even at the first few questions. Similarly, there seems to be the same problem with John. The two men, though they do share a love for motorcycles, have little in common. The issue can be seen with the soda can and the shim. The narrator is quite impressed and satisfied with his unique idea to use part of the smooth soda can to fix John's motorcycle handle, but the thought goes unnoticed by John. Although the two are friends, they have many differences. On another note, I had been wondering about the mother since the beginning of the story. After the mention of Chris's mental illness, it is revealed that this is the reason the wife is not present. I can't help but wonder more about her. There is very little said about her and I am curious as to whether or not this has any significance. 

Fatherhood

I can gather that this book holds many teachings for its reader. Not that it forces these teachings down your throat, but it presents them in such a way that coaxes your thoughts into teaching them to yourself. I feel this way when I read about the relationship between the narrator and his son. Aside from the occasional philosophical ranting on the narrators part, the reader can learn a few things when the narrator himself learns, in this case, how to react to his son. He complains about his son being too curious, too intuitive, to the point that it drives him mad sometimes. But you can't blame the kid for being a kid. The narrator has brief moments of reflection over his demeanor towards his son, and alters his approaches, which is amiable. It was heartwarming to see him modify his philosophy over ghosts and the ghosts of science when his son gave his input- in fact, he would have never developed this philosophy were it not for his son's questioning, so even he has to appreciate it. The narrator grows as a father just as much as his son grows as a person, and to watch them grow alongside each other and learn from each other's philosophies is lovely. I admire watching the narrator grow as a person because this book, aside from being an exploration in philosophy, is still, in short, a book. Any story must have characters that experience growth and change throughout it. The fact that this book successfully does both makes it a better novel altogether, thus far.

Thoughts on the Narrator’s Discussion on the Existence of Things (Monica Rodriguez)

“Do you believe in ghosts?” It seems like a fairly easy question for an adult to address. One would expect a simple answer, especially when such a question comes from an eleven-year-old child, and the narrator does give a simple answer. The issue I have with him is that after giving an acceptable answer the narrator takes his thought process a bit far. He goes from saying that ghosts are unscientific to questioning the existence of science itself, leading the conversation to a brand new territory that could easily entrap the mind. A territory in which we must face the question of whether everything we learn is real or a consequence of the human mind. I honestly think that in bringing up this question of existence the narrator is being quite dense, and annoyingly so. It is not to say that the subject should not be broached, although I personally prefer not to because it just leads to staying up late thinking in circles, I just don’t think it was the appropriate time to bring it up. That is not how you answer a question about ghosts in a normal converstion because with his reasoning, nearly any question about anything could be answered with the question of whether anything really exists (and now I am writing in circles). I do not believe that this line of thinking is really productive, because an answer will not be found. Bringing it up in everyday conversation will only serve to confuse those who hear it, just as confuses the person who thinks of it. 

Initial thoughts of the novel vs. current thoughts of the novel

     When I began to read this novel, I had the sense that I would not be able to relate to it. I thought motorcycles?  They are something I barely know about. And Zen related to the art of motorcycle. I decided to look up Zen after reading the next two chapters of the novel. I found out that it is a type of Buddhism that involves meditation and knowledge is found when there are no desires. This gave me a different outlook on the novel. The narrator is able to feel relaxed and find out new things about him because of his motorcycle. Whether it is fixing it himself, his frustrations trying to get it fixed, or riding, new ideas are sparked. 

     The author also plays a factor in how relatable it is. It has turned out that I feel as I am reading that I am in the novel, riding alongside the characters on their motorcycles. The description of the setting and the way that a storm is coming and the lightning hits the farmhouse are clear images in my head. Imagery aside, it is relatable through the actions the author has incorporated. In the first two chapters, I was able to relate John and how he would rather have an expert fix his car, while the narrator would like to fix it himself and make sure it was done correctly. I believe I have this view because I would not know if it really was done correctly. In these chapters, it was also relatable to how John and Sylvia did not want to ride in the cold. Who would?

Imagery and Defining Characters (Priya Dhairyawan)

One of the most successful aspects of the book so far, in my opinion, is Robert Pirsig's ability to write in a way that allows the reader to feel present in each scene. I feel as though I am watching each scene as it is occurring. The imagery that Pirsig uses contributes to this sensation. For instance, he mentions that "the prairie here is huge but above it the hugeness of this ominous grey mass ready to descend is frightening" (25). His specific diction clearly evokes the sense of a storm coming, allowing the reader to relate to the characters. Also, the situations and reactions that occur seem relatable for readers, specifically when John and Sylvia are upset about having to drive in the freezing cold. Their anger is understandable for readers. Pirsig also uses specific diction here in order to evoke the senses. He talks about how the narrator's worn-out gloves are stiff from the cold, which gives the reader a better sense of how cold it truly is. In addition, I can relate to Sylvia’s fascination with the narrator’s constant flow of ideas when talking about ghosts and their relation to science. This occurrence reminds me of several instances when I have been amazed by one’s ideas that have sometimes gone slightly over my head.

Another thing that Pirsig is successful with is defining and characterizing the people in the book. One character that stands out to me is the narrator’s son, Chris. The author is able to capture his youth and curiosity with his constant stream of questions and his desire to hear ghost stories. Chris adds an innocent and youthful sense to the story. Chris’s floods of questions and his father’s attempts to suppress them provide a good aspect of reality for the story.

Our Everyday Ghosts (Zane Mandell)

I was very intrigued by the conversation that the speaker had with John, Sylvia, and Chris on the subject of ghosts. I had never thought of the concept of a ghost as being anything besides a spirit. The way a ghost is presented by the speaker is anything that can only be seen by the mind. There are many facets that intrigued me on this subject; the Native American style ghost, scientific ghosts, and the issue of true existence. The way that the speaker approaches these subjects of the mind is with such ease and understanding, that it is easy for me to see what the speaker is getting at.

But my interest shifted very quickly when this Phaedrus character is mentioned by the speaker. At this point there is really no way to point out who or what this character is or was, but one thing is for sure: Phaedrus is haunting the speaker in a ghostlike fashion. The speaker attributes Phaedrus to the thoughts he has on the idea of a ghost, creating a complexity that cannot fully be understood by the end of the fourth chapter. I want to know more about who this Phaedrus is. Is this potentially the wife that is nonexistent up until this point in the novel? Or is this someone else, a teacher possibly? I felt that these two chapters truly captured my attention and I cannot wait for what is to come.