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.
A blog dedicated to the in depth study of the book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, and its author Robert M. Pirsig, by the 2nd period AP Literature Class group.
Melanie is obviously very passionate about her opinion of this novel. As one can see from my post I thoroughly enjoy the speaker’s words and how he flows from one thought to another. I can see how Melanie does not like the speaker as of this point and I can explain why. This has a strong relation to the ideas presented on the classical and romantic thinkers. Melanie has taken the position of the Romantic and speaker like Phaedrus is a classical thinker. Like it was explained in the novel, these two thinkers do not meld well and are inherently opposed with their thoughts.
ReplyDeleteI think the only solution for this will be for Melanie to keep reading as the intricacies of the plot and philosophy unfold. This I hope will open your eyes, because when you see the novel the way that I have up until now, it is a beautiful art that is amazing.
I would like to focus on the subject of the philosophy that the book inherently relies upon for the novel to be successful. This philosophy looks at everything and nothing because it studies very little but explains so much. This novel has shown, especially in this week’s reading, how duality is essential to the author to get his point across. The only way to appreciate this is to not choose a side and be an observer. While this is very hard to do, this is the key, even when the point of view that you are limited to has obviously chosen the side. This novel is an eye-opening experience that will be fun to write about for a term paper.