Response to Monica’s

First off I am sorry that you have been so bothered by this book, because at its root it is really interesting. But in the same way I understand that your problem is that this is too complex, one that I agree is true. Having said that since we are required to finish the novel I hope that you will see what the author is getting at here because it is truly an interesting piece of literature.

I most now move on to the main point of your post that at this point I think is a non-issue. The narrator is this Phaedrus that he constantly refers to in the third person. The reason that he is doing is obviously not seen yet but we have now learned that it was traumatic and my inkling is that it had something to do with this ‘quality’ issue that I discussed in my own post. The narrator obviously has been there before; he is not visiting a place that someone else used to work. When he says that he is the ghost and that Phaedrus is now real it could not be more obvious. Sure the issue has yet to been dealt with directly and explicitly, but isn’t it obvious to you, like it is to me. Maybe not, and now that I think about it is strange that Pirsig has explained everything explicitly except for this, in great detail as well. Irony seems to flow throughout this novel as we discuss it further and further.